The city of San Francisco wants to intervene in a federal lawsuit attempting to overturn California voters' support for traditional marriage. One "gay-rights" organization is accusing other homosexualists "of trying to sabotage the case."
-- From "San Francisco wants a say in Prop. 8 lawsuit" by Bob Egelko, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer 7/24/09
The leader of an organization that filed the suit against Proposition 8 has already accused established gay-rights groups of trying to undermine the case and promised to oppose their attempt to intervene. San Francisco raised the stakes Thursday by filing a similar motion with Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 19.
The city would add "a unique local government perspective" to the case, along with its extensive legal experience in defending gay and lesbian rights, if allowed to intervene, City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office said in court papers.
The city and leading gay-rights groups have been allowed to file written arguments supporting the challenge to Prop. 8. But only the plaintiffs -two couples and an organization represented by attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies, adversaries in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore presidential election case - have the right to direct the case, negotiate with defenders of Prop. 8 and file appeals.
Gay-rights advocates and the city of San Francisco, plaintiffs in the state court case against Prop. 8, had steered clear of federal issues that might have given the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction to rule on same-sex marriage. Now that the dispute is in federal court, however, the state plaintiffs want to join the argument but redefine the case.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read earlier article: S.F. asks federal judge to toss Prop. 8
Friday, July 24, 2009
Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Against Prop 8
A federal judge has thrown out a homosexual couple's challenge to the California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
-- From "Federal judge tosses lawsuit against Prop 8" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/20/09
In December 2008, two homosexual men filed a lawsuit claiming that the state's marriage amendment, passed decisively by voters in November's election, violates the U.S. Constitution.
The men were able to obtain a California "marriage" license during a short window of time in which licenses for same-sex unions were granted. They wed July 10, 2008 – before California's Proposition 8 was passed.
In the case, Smelt et. al. v. United States of America, Plaintiffs Arthur Bruno Smelt and Christopher David Hammer argued that "'the refusal of all states and jurisdictions' to recognize the validity of their marriage results in the denial to them of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities bestowed on all other married couples, so long as they are opposite-sex couples."
Smelt and Hammer targeted their action at the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.
. . . the U.S. government will still be listed as a defendant when the case against the Defense of Marriage Act is heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Federal judge tosses lawsuit against Prop 8" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/20/09
In December 2008, two homosexual men filed a lawsuit claiming that the state's marriage amendment, passed decisively by voters in November's election, violates the U.S. Constitution.
The men were able to obtain a California "marriage" license during a short window of time in which licenses for same-sex unions were granted. They wed July 10, 2008 – before California's Proposition 8 was passed.
In the case, Smelt et. al. v. United States of America, Plaintiffs Arthur Bruno Smelt and Christopher David Hammer argued that "'the refusal of all states and jurisdictions' to recognize the validity of their marriage results in the denial to them of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities bestowed on all other married couples, so long as they are opposite-sex couples."
Smelt and Hammer targeted their action at the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.
. . . the U.S. government will still be listed as a defendant when the case against the Defense of Marriage Act is heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Can Encouraging Sexual Activity Result in Fewer Deaths of the Unborn?
Congress and the Obama administration will be considering new legislation that includes more money for teaching children how to have sex and use a variety of devices and medications to preclude discernible pregnancies -- all under the banner of reducing abortions.
Obviously, the liberals have recognized that Americans are predominantly pro-life, and so now the game is to fool the public into thinking that no lives are snuffed out by these so-called contraceptives.
-- From "Democratic Bill Could Be a Preview of Obama's Abortion Plan" by Dan Gilgoff, posted at U.S. News & World Report 7/23/09
Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro reintroduced their bill aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies and "reducing the need for abortion" today. This is big news because moderate to liberal faith-based advocates are urging the White House to adopt the bill—the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act—as the core of its forthcoming "common ground" plan on abortion and reproductive health.
Conservative religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, have warned the White House that the Ryan-DeLauro bill is a deal breaker for them, since the bill funds contraception and comprehensive sex education.
. . . the folks who've recently come out for Ryan-DeLauro include White House buds Rev. Joel Hunter, Rev. Jim Wallis, Faith in Public Life, and Third Way, not to mention abortion rights groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Obviously, the liberals have recognized that Americans are predominantly pro-life, and so now the game is to fool the public into thinking that no lives are snuffed out by these so-called contraceptives.
-- From "Democratic Bill Could Be a Preview of Obama's Abortion Plan" by Dan Gilgoff, posted at U.S. News & World Report 7/23/09
Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro reintroduced their bill aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies and "reducing the need for abortion" today. This is big news because moderate to liberal faith-based advocates are urging the White House to adopt the bill—the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act—as the core of its forthcoming "common ground" plan on abortion and reproductive health.
Conservative religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, have warned the White House that the Ryan-DeLauro bill is a deal breaker for them, since the bill funds contraception and comprehensive sex education.
. . . the folks who've recently come out for Ryan-DeLauro include White House buds Rev. Joel Hunter, Rev. Jim Wallis, Faith in Public Life, and Third Way, not to mention abortion rights groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
NJ Schools Prefer Non-sexually Confused Teachers
Prior to the sex-change operation in 2005, substitute teacher Mr. McBeth received dozens of assignments annually, but since then, "Miss" McBeth has received only a handful. School administrators say there are plenty of others to hire as substitutes.
-- From "Transgender teacher in NJ retiring in frustration" by Wayne Parry, The Associated Press 7/22/09
LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. - When word got out that Mr. McBeth, a popular substitute teacher at two southern New Jersey school districts, was about to come back to class as Miss McBeth, it caused an uproar.
The former William McBeth had undergone sex reassignment surgery and was now Lily McBeth. The schools' 2006 decisions to keep her on as a substitute were hailed around the nation as a model of tolerance and acceptance of transgender Americans.
But the storybook ending never happened: She got only a handful of assignments since then and is resigning in frustration.
"When I got the news from the school board that I would be retained, I was thrilled," she said. "I thought, `They consider me a person of worth, and that I could still be a valuable asset.' But it didn't happen."
Deborah Snyder, the Eagleswood schools superintendent, said the district wanted McBeth to return this fall. She denied bias was involved, adding the district has hired a permanent substitute to report to work each day and fill in as needed.
For other classroom vacancies, the district turns to its list of certified teachers. Only after that is exhausted does it call subs from the local hiring list that included McBeth.
"We wanted to see her back on our sub list," Snyder said. "If she makes the decision not to return to our district, we wish her all the best in the future."
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said McBeth's experience is a common one for transgender employees. A survey her group helped to conduct this year of 6,500 transgender Americans found 91 percent had faced bias at work because of their transgender status.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Transgender teacher in NJ retiring in frustration" by Wayne Parry, The Associated Press 7/22/09
LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. - When word got out that Mr. McBeth, a popular substitute teacher at two southern New Jersey school districts, was about to come back to class as Miss McBeth, it caused an uproar.
The former William McBeth had undergone sex reassignment surgery and was now Lily McBeth. The schools' 2006 decisions to keep her on as a substitute were hailed around the nation as a model of tolerance and acceptance of transgender Americans.
But the storybook ending never happened: She got only a handful of assignments since then and is resigning in frustration.
"When I got the news from the school board that I would be retained, I was thrilled," she said. "I thought, `They consider me a person of worth, and that I could still be a valuable asset.' But it didn't happen."
Deborah Snyder, the Eagleswood schools superintendent, said the district wanted McBeth to return this fall. She denied bias was involved, adding the district has hired a permanent substitute to report to work each day and fill in as needed.
For other classroom vacancies, the district turns to its list of certified teachers. Only after that is exhausted does it call subs from the local hiring list that included McBeth.
"We wanted to see her back on our sub list," Snyder said. "If she makes the decision not to return to our district, we wish her all the best in the future."
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said McBeth's experience is a common one for transgender employees. A survey her group helped to conduct this year of 6,500 transgender Americans found 91 percent had faced bias at work because of their transgender status.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
When the Church Fails HIS Mission, All Suffer
The church's failure to respond adequately to the relentless and ubiquitous promulgation of profoundly sinful ideas reveals an unbiblical doubt in the sovereignty of God; an unconscionable refusal to protect children . . .
Will the contemporary American church rise to this occasion to defend children and biblical truth . . .?
Scroll down to video of July 1, 2009 "Who's to Blame"
-- From "Anger and the Church" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 7/22/09
There are some battles in which all Christians and all who are committed to truth are called to engage: all Christians should have opposed slavery; all Christians should have fought for the civil rights of blacks; all Christians are called to oppose abortion; and we are all called to oppose the rancorous, pernicious demands to affirm homosexual acts as moral. The question as to why so many Christians, particularly church leaders, refuse to engage in this battle is a vexing question.
In his book Kingdoms in Conflict, Chuck Colson writes about the failure of the church to oppose the extermination of Jews and the government usurpation of control of the church in Nazi Germany. Immediately following the naming of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, the persecution of the church began in earnest. In response, a resistance movement sprang up headed by Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Initially, they had the support of the dominant Protestant group, the German Evangelical Church, but as the persecution increased, so did the cowardice and concomitant rationalization of cowardice on the parts of most church leaders. In Germany only a remnant, who came to call themselves the Confessing Church, remained standing courageously in the gap for truth.
The German Evangelical Church acted in ways most Christians now view as ignoble, selfish, and cowardly:
What is even more reprehensible in America, however, is that church leaders don't currently face loss of livelihood, imprisonment, exile, or death, as they did in Germany, and yet they remain silent.
To read the entire commentary, which includes further references, CLICK HERE.
Will the contemporary American church rise to this occasion to defend children and biblical truth . . .?
Scroll down to video of July 1, 2009 "Who's to Blame"
-- From "Anger and the Church" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 7/22/09
There are some battles in which all Christians and all who are committed to truth are called to engage: all Christians should have opposed slavery; all Christians should have fought for the civil rights of blacks; all Christians are called to oppose abortion; and we are all called to oppose the rancorous, pernicious demands to affirm homosexual acts as moral. The question as to why so many Christians, particularly church leaders, refuse to engage in this battle is a vexing question.
In his book Kingdoms in Conflict, Chuck Colson writes about the failure of the church to oppose the extermination of Jews and the government usurpation of control of the church in Nazi Germany. Immediately following the naming of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, the persecution of the church began in earnest. In response, a resistance movement sprang up headed by Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Initially, they had the support of the dominant Protestant group, the German Evangelical Church, but as the persecution increased, so did the cowardice and concomitant rationalization of cowardice on the parts of most church leaders. In Germany only a remnant, who came to call themselves the Confessing Church, remained standing courageously in the gap for truth.
The German Evangelical Church acted in ways most Christians now view as ignoble, selfish, and cowardly:
Pastors resigned from the resistance out of fear that they might lose their positions in the church.What is alarming about the account of the German Evangelical Church's reprehensible failure is its similarity to the ongoing disheartening story of the contemporary American church's failure to respond appropriately to the spread of radical, heretical, destructive views of homosexuality. Don't we today see church leaders self-censoring out of fear of losing their positions or their church members? Don't we see churches criticizing those who boldly confront the efforts of homosexual activists to propagandize children and undermine the church's teaching on homosexuality? Aren't the calls of the capitulating German Christians for "a more reasonable tone" and a commitment to "honor different views" exactly like the calls of today's church to be tolerant and honor "diversity"? Don't pastors justify their silence by claiming they fear losing their tax-exempt status (i.e. government assistance)? Don't they rationalize inaction by claiming that speaking out will prevent them from saving souls?
Frightened by the boldness of the resistance movement, church leaders issued public statements of support for Hitler and the Third Reich.
Some pastors believed that a "'more reasonable tone would be more honoring to those with different views.'" One bishop told Martin Niemoller that those pastors who refused to join the resistance were "'trying to bring peace to the church'" rather than "'seem like . . . troublemakers.'" In response, Niemoller asked "'What does it matter how we look in Germany compared with how we look in Heaven?'" The bishop responded, "'We cannot pronounce judgment on all the ills of society. Most especially we ought not single out the one issue that the government is so sensitive about.'"
In a conversation with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one young pastor justified capitulation like this: "'. . . [T]here are no pastorates for those of us who will not cooperate. What is the good in preaching if you have no congregation? Where will this noncooperation lead us? We are no longer a recognized body; we have no government assistance; we cannot care for the souls in the armed forces or give religion lessons in schools. What will become of the church if that continues? A heap of rubble!'"
What is even more reprehensible in America, however, is that church leaders don't currently face loss of livelihood, imprisonment, exile, or death, as they did in Germany, and yet they remain silent.
To read the entire commentary, which includes further references, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Obama, Reid, other Congressmen Push Homosexuals in Military
To liberal Americans, who worship Europe and other nations, the world's greatest defense establishment (the American military) is seen as just a playground for their sexualization experiments.
UPDATE 9/30/09: Boston Globe implies Pentagon wants to rescind ban on homosexuals in military
-- From "Reid Backs Plan to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy" by Carl Hulse, posted at The New York Times 7/14/09
With a possible fight brewing in Congress over repeal of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, came down . . . solidly in favor of eliminating the ban.
“We’re having trouble getting people into the military,” Mr. Reid told reporters when questioned about whether he could support an 18-month moratorium on enforcing a prohibition on gays in the armed forces. “And I think that we shouldn’t turn down anybody that’s willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation.”
Mr. Reid said he would go the proposal, being considered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, one better and support a permanent repeal of the ban.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Allies' stance cited in US gays-in-military debate" by David Crary, The Associated Press 7/13/09
When it comes to dealing with gay personnel in the ranks, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries - and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides as Americans renew debate over the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
In the United States, more than 12,000 service members - including dozens of highly trained Arabic linguists - have been dismissed since 1994 because it became known they were gay. . . .
In Britain, on the other hand, gay and lesbian service members marched in crisp uniforms in the annual Pride London parade July 4. Gay Australian soldiers and sailors had their own float in Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras parade. In Israel, the army magazine earlier this year featured two male soldiers on the cover, hugging one another.
America's "don't ask, don't tell" policy - which prohibits gays from serving openly in the armed forces - is the target of intensifying opposition, and President Barack Obama says he favors lifting the ban. But he wants to win over skeptics in Congress and the Pentagon, and a fierce debate lies ahead that will inevitably touch on the experiences of allied nations that have no bans.
U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, has just launched a campaign for a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He observed British troops in Iraq operating smoothly with a serve-openly policy and bristles at the contention that America's armed forces would suffer morale and recruiting problems if they followed suit.
"We are the military leaders in the world - everybody wants to be like us," said Brian Jones, a retired sergeant major who served in the Army Rangers. "Why in the world would we try to adjust our military model to be like them?"
To read this very lengthy review of homosexuals in militaries around the world, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 9/30/09: Boston Globe implies Pentagon wants to rescind ban on homosexuals in military
-- From "Reid Backs Plan to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy" by Carl Hulse, posted at The New York Times 7/14/09
With a possible fight brewing in Congress over repeal of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, came down . . . solidly in favor of eliminating the ban.
“We’re having trouble getting people into the military,” Mr. Reid told reporters when questioned about whether he could support an 18-month moratorium on enforcing a prohibition on gays in the armed forces. “And I think that we shouldn’t turn down anybody that’s willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation.”
Mr. Reid said he would go the proposal, being considered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, one better and support a permanent repeal of the ban.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Allies' stance cited in US gays-in-military debate" by David Crary, The Associated Press 7/13/09
When it comes to dealing with gay personnel in the ranks, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries - and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides as Americans renew debate over the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
In the United States, more than 12,000 service members - including dozens of highly trained Arabic linguists - have been dismissed since 1994 because it became known they were gay. . . .
In Britain, on the other hand, gay and lesbian service members marched in crisp uniforms in the annual Pride London parade July 4. Gay Australian soldiers and sailors had their own float in Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras parade. In Israel, the army magazine earlier this year featured two male soldiers on the cover, hugging one another.
America's "don't ask, don't tell" policy - which prohibits gays from serving openly in the armed forces - is the target of intensifying opposition, and President Barack Obama says he favors lifting the ban. But he wants to win over skeptics in Congress and the Pentagon, and a fierce debate lies ahead that will inevitably touch on the experiences of allied nations that have no bans.
U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, has just launched a campaign for a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He observed British troops in Iraq operating smoothly with a serve-openly policy and bristles at the contention that America's armed forces would suffer morale and recruiting problems if they followed suit.
"We are the military leaders in the world - everybody wants to be like us," said Brian Jones, a retired sergeant major who served in the Army Rangers. "Why in the world would we try to adjust our military model to be like them?"
To read this very lengthy review of homosexuals in militaries around the world, CLICK HERE.
ObamaCare to Backdoor Pro-abortion FOCA into Law
Democrats in both the House and the Senate want abortion be included as a health benefit in both government and private insurance plans, leading to millions more abortions . . . Taxpayer money would be used to pay for abortions in the government-run health care option.
UPDATE 8/3/09: "State-run" Associated Press misrepresents Obama's statement
UPDATE 7/22/09: Abortion issue could tank health-care bill
-- From "Abortion Compromise Considered For US House Health-Care Bill" by Patrick Yoest, Dow Jones Newswires posted at Wall Street Journal 7/20/09
An anti-abortion Democrat on Monday said he is negotiating a compromise aimed at resolving concerns that House health-care legislation would allow federal funding of abortions.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said he is in talks with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., on the language. Stupak said his and Waxman's staff discussed the issue over the weekend and suggested that a compromise could be voted on this week as an amendment to a health-care bill under consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
A group of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent last Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they "cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Health Care Plan Will Provide Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Demand, Congressmen Say" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/15/09
. . . congressional Republicans, strongly opposed to an abortion requirement in health care reform, are pushing for a ban on using taxpayer money to pay for such procedures.
. . . pro-life members of Congress said the plan’s approach to abortion is essentially the same as the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would strip states’ right to limit abortion, establish abortion on demand across the country and allow federal funds to pay for the procedure.
“It’s really trying to pass the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA] through this legislation and wipe out all state law -- state law that abides by the Constitution, abides by everything that was said by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill press conference.
“Despite the fact that large majorities of Americans don’t want to fund abortion, the Obama-Kennedy-Dingle bill will nevertheless force every taxpayer and every premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.
“Despite President Obama’s statement to the pope just last week that he wants to reduce abortion, the ugly truth is that the so-called health care reform bill, if enacted and if not amended, will lead to millions of additional dead children and wounded mothers,” Smith said.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said Obama's health care plan would result in millions more abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/3/09: "State-run" Associated Press misrepresents Obama's statement
UPDATE 7/22/09: Abortion issue could tank health-care bill
-- From "Abortion Compromise Considered For US House Health-Care Bill" by Patrick Yoest, Dow Jones Newswires posted at Wall Street Journal 7/20/09
An anti-abortion Democrat on Monday said he is negotiating a compromise aimed at resolving concerns that House health-care legislation would allow federal funding of abortions.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said he is in talks with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., on the language. Stupak said his and Waxman's staff discussed the issue over the weekend and suggested that a compromise could be voted on this week as an amendment to a health-care bill under consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
A group of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent last Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they "cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Health Care Plan Will Provide Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Demand, Congressmen Say" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/15/09
. . . congressional Republicans, strongly opposed to an abortion requirement in health care reform, are pushing for a ban on using taxpayer money to pay for such procedures.
. . . pro-life members of Congress said the plan’s approach to abortion is essentially the same as the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would strip states’ right to limit abortion, establish abortion on demand across the country and allow federal funds to pay for the procedure.
“It’s really trying to pass the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA] through this legislation and wipe out all state law -- state law that abides by the Constitution, abides by everything that was said by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill press conference.
“Despite the fact that large majorities of Americans don’t want to fund abortion, the Obama-Kennedy-Dingle bill will nevertheless force every taxpayer and every premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.
“Despite President Obama’s statement to the pope just last week that he wants to reduce abortion, the ugly truth is that the so-called health care reform bill, if enacted and if not amended, will lead to millions of additional dead children and wounded mothers,” Smith said.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said Obama's health care plan would result in millions more abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Health Care Legislation: Not Just Two Genders, Anymore
“Gender identity” is routinely used by homosexual groups to define differences in sexual orientation, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and, in some cases, “questioning.”
UPDATE 8/3/09: HHS Secretary Sebelius Says She Has ‘No Idea’ What ‘Measurement of Gender’ Means
-- From "Health Care Bill Directs HHS Secretary to Develop 'Standards for Measuring Gender'-- As Opposed to 'Male' and 'Female'" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/20/09
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop “standards of measuring gender” -- as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is required by the proposed law -- The Affordable Health Choices Act,which was voted out of committee on July 15 -- to create a database within one year of the law’s enactment that will include detailed information about those who sign up for government-run or supported health care programs, including their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language and disabilities.
The proposed law states that the database can use the Office of Management and Budget “standards for race and ethnicity measures.”
But for the collection of “gender” data, instead of using the categories “male” and “female," the legislation calls for “developing standards for the measurement of gender.”
The language is found on page 410 and 411 of the 615 document under SEC. 332: Understanding Health Disparities: Data Collection and Analysis. [.PDF]
The legislation says that the purpose of the database is to “detect and monitor trends in health disparities” at “federal and state levels.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/3/09: HHS Secretary Sebelius Says She Has ‘No Idea’ What ‘Measurement of Gender’ Means
-- From "Health Care Bill Directs HHS Secretary to Develop 'Standards for Measuring Gender'-- As Opposed to 'Male' and 'Female'" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/20/09
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop “standards of measuring gender” -- as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is required by the proposed law -- The Affordable Health Choices Act,which was voted out of committee on July 15 -- to create a database within one year of the law’s enactment that will include detailed information about those who sign up for government-run or supported health care programs, including their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language and disabilities.
The proposed law states that the database can use the Office of Management and Budget “standards for race and ethnicity measures.”
But for the collection of “gender” data, instead of using the categories “male” and “female," the legislation calls for “developing standards for the measurement of gender.”
The language is found on page 410 and 411 of the 615 document under SEC. 332: Understanding Health Disparities: Data Collection and Analysis. [.PDF]
The legislation says that the purpose of the database is to “detect and monitor trends in health disparities” at “federal and state levels.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Hillary Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical to Global Warming
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking about her meeting in Mumbai, India, said, “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning. That was an incredibly important point.”
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth, Says Government Report
UPDATE 9/22/09: Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
UPDATE 9/20/09: World Health Organization Says Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies
UPDATE 10/20/09: Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change
-- From "Hillary Clinton talks climate change in India" by John Ward Anderson, Politico 7/20/09
Hillary Clinton, in her first visit to India as secretary of state, said Sunday that the United States and India can work together to combat global warming and at the same time spark economic growth and generate new jobs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Universal family planning access" by Duncan Clark, UK Guardian 7/13/09
Global investment in family planning and female education could slow down global population growth, reducing future emissions and tackling climate change vulnerability.
Demographic factors will play a significant role in determining future emissions. The most obvious such factor is the global population, which is expected to rise to around nine billion by 2050.
Rising population is significant not only as a driver of emissions but also as a key factor in determining the vulnerability of developing countries to the impacts of global warming. In almost all of the climate change adaptation plans submitted to the United Nations by least-developed countries, rapid population growth is mentioned as something that either exacerbates vulnerability or impedes adaption. More than half of these least-developed countries will at least double in population by the middle of the century.
Ensuring universal access to family planning services and investing in female education is a pivotal climate change solution, Louise Carver of the Population and Sustainability Network (PSN) told the the Manchester panel. According to Carver, 200 million women wish to delay or prevent their next pregnancy but lack access to contraception. Despite this fact, and the sharp projected growth rate in potential contraception users, global investment in family planning is at an all-time low, having declined by 30% in real terms since the mid-1990s.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Clinton Accepts Blame for ‘Global Warming’ Role, Ponders Link Between Climate Change and Family Planning" by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor CNSNews.com 7/20/09
Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.
In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”
Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”
In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.
Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth, Says Government Report
UPDATE 9/22/09: Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
UPDATE 9/20/09: World Health Organization Says Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies
UPDATE 10/20/09: Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change
-- From "Hillary Clinton talks climate change in India" by John Ward Anderson, Politico 7/20/09
Hillary Clinton, in her first visit to India as secretary of state, said Sunday that the United States and India can work together to combat global warming and at the same time spark economic growth and generate new jobs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Universal family planning access" by Duncan Clark, UK Guardian 7/13/09
Global investment in family planning and female education could slow down global population growth, reducing future emissions and tackling climate change vulnerability.
Demographic factors will play a significant role in determining future emissions. The most obvious such factor is the global population, which is expected to rise to around nine billion by 2050.
Rising population is significant not only as a driver of emissions but also as a key factor in determining the vulnerability of developing countries to the impacts of global warming. In almost all of the climate change adaptation plans submitted to the United Nations by least-developed countries, rapid population growth is mentioned as something that either exacerbates vulnerability or impedes adaption. More than half of these least-developed countries will at least double in population by the middle of the century.
Ensuring universal access to family planning services and investing in female education is a pivotal climate change solution, Louise Carver of the Population and Sustainability Network (PSN) told the the Manchester panel. According to Carver, 200 million women wish to delay or prevent their next pregnancy but lack access to contraception. Despite this fact, and the sharp projected growth rate in potential contraception users, global investment in family planning is at an all-time low, having declined by 30% in real terms since the mid-1990s.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Clinton Accepts Blame for ‘Global Warming’ Role, Ponders Link Between Climate Change and Family Planning" by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor CNSNews.com 7/20/09
Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.
In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”
Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”
In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.
Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Hate Crimes' Faux Protection of Religious Liberty
As the Senate moves forward this week on the Hate Crimes Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill, politicians of both political parties pretend that such a "thought crimes" law will not infringe on Christian free speech.
UPDATE 10/9/09: Hate Crimes passing Congress via defense bill; Obama will sign
UPDATE 7/23/09: Defense Bill with Hate-Crimes Amendment passes Senate
UPDATE 7/20/09: Hate Crimes Amendment passes Senate
-- From "Does the Hate Crimes Bill Threaten Religious Liberties?" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 7/17/09
After more than a decade-long effort by gay rights advocates, the Senate [Thursday] night adopted a measure to expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include sexual orientation. It was attached as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is expected to pass [this] week.
Conservative Christian groups, who've led the charge against expanding the federal hate crimes law since the mid-1990s, are stepping up warnings that the bill threatens religious liberties, including the freedom of clergy to condemn homosexuality. "What you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal," the Family Research Council wrote in a recent letter to pastors. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has received more calls and E-mails on what the hate crimes bill means for pastors than on any other issue in recent months.
As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."
. . . religious conservatives say that all crimes are motivated by hate and that gay victims shouldn't be accorded special status. Religious liberties are a much bigger concern. "When you have pastors being called to testify about what they taught or preached to a person convicted of a hate crime, that's going to send a shock wave through the religious community," says Stanley. "It will lead to a chill on speech and free exercise of religion as it relates to homosexual behavior."
Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."
Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senate includes homosexuals in hate crimes protection" by Tom Strode, Baptist Press Washington bureau chief 7/17/09
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others oppose such efforts to expand hate crimes protection based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.
They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim's "sexual orientation" after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.
The Senate approved in a 78-13 roll call before the cloture vote an amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., intended to protect the free exercise of religion and other First Amendment rights. Brownback's amendment says such freedoms are not to be infringed on under the hate crimes measure as long as their use is not intended to plan, prepare for or incite physical violence.
"The Brownback amendment offers some needed protections for people of faith who express their faith convictions about homosexuality and certain other aberrant sexual behaviors," said Barrett Duke, the ERLC's vice president for public policy and research. "The amendment protects the pastor as long as his speech or other action was not 'intended' to lead to an act of violence. However, it does not protect a pastor from government scrutiny if a member of his congregation engages in an act of violence against someone in one of these protected groups after he has heard a negative statement from the pastor about the group. So, anyone who speaks against homosexuality or other aberrant sexual behaviors may be presumed guilty of inciting violence and be forced to prove his innocence.
"In addition, the Brownback amendment doesn't resolve other inherent problems in the bill," Duke said. "The bill still elevates homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors to a specially protected class, and it still creates an opportunity for the prosecution of thought. Consequently, while we appreciate the protection that Senator Brownback gained for people of faith, the hate crimes bill is still inappropriate legislation and should be defeated."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/9/09: Hate Crimes passing Congress via defense bill; Obama will sign
UPDATE 7/23/09: Defense Bill with Hate-Crimes Amendment passes Senate
UPDATE 7/20/09: Hate Crimes Amendment passes Senate
-- From "Does the Hate Crimes Bill Threaten Religious Liberties?" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 7/17/09
After more than a decade-long effort by gay rights advocates, the Senate [Thursday] night adopted a measure to expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include sexual orientation. It was attached as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is expected to pass [this] week.
Conservative Christian groups, who've led the charge against expanding the federal hate crimes law since the mid-1990s, are stepping up warnings that the bill threatens religious liberties, including the freedom of clergy to condemn homosexuality. "What you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal," the Family Research Council wrote in a recent letter to pastors. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has received more calls and E-mails on what the hate crimes bill means for pastors than on any other issue in recent months.
As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."
. . . religious conservatives say that all crimes are motivated by hate and that gay victims shouldn't be accorded special status. Religious liberties are a much bigger concern. "When you have pastors being called to testify about what they taught or preached to a person convicted of a hate crime, that's going to send a shock wave through the religious community," says Stanley. "It will lead to a chill on speech and free exercise of religion as it relates to homosexual behavior."
Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."
Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senate includes homosexuals in hate crimes protection" by Tom Strode, Baptist Press Washington bureau chief 7/17/09
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others oppose such efforts to expand hate crimes protection based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.
They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim's "sexual orientation" after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.
The Senate approved in a 78-13 roll call before the cloture vote an amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., intended to protect the free exercise of religion and other First Amendment rights. Brownback's amendment says such freedoms are not to be infringed on under the hate crimes measure as long as their use is not intended to plan, prepare for or incite physical violence.
"The Brownback amendment offers some needed protections for people of faith who express their faith convictions about homosexuality and certain other aberrant sexual behaviors," said Barrett Duke, the ERLC's vice president for public policy and research. "The amendment protects the pastor as long as his speech or other action was not 'intended' to lead to an act of violence. However, it does not protect a pastor from government scrutiny if a member of his congregation engages in an act of violence against someone in one of these protected groups after he has heard a negative statement from the pastor about the group. So, anyone who speaks against homosexuality or other aberrant sexual behaviors may be presumed guilty of inciting violence and be forced to prove his innocence.
"In addition, the Brownback amendment doesn't resolve other inherent problems in the bill," Duke said. "The bill still elevates homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors to a specially protected class, and it still creates an opportunity for the prosecution of thought. Consequently, while we appreciate the protection that Senator Brownback gained for people of faith, the hate crimes bill is still inappropriate legislation and should be defeated."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Maine Ruling: Cross-dressing Male Students Allowed in Girl's Room
The Maine Human Rights Commission ruled . . . that the Orono School Department discriminated against a transgender child by denying her [him] access to the girls bathroom.
This radical ruling, and its far-reaching significance, has been ignored by every major news outlet.
UPDATE 2/2/14: Maine Supreme Court Opens Girl's Room to Men
UPDATE 1/25/10: Christians organize to oppose boys in girl's room
-- From "State rules in favor of young transgender" by Abigail Curtis, Bangor Daily News Staff 7/1/09
While the school department’s lawyer warned that schools around the state may not be ready to manage the practical fallout from the decision, civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as an advancement of human rights.
The discrimination in question first occurred in October 2007 when the child was in the fifth grade at Asa Adams School. Until then, she [he] was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, although she [he] was biologically male. But that fall, the transgender child was followed into the girls room by a male student who had “previously started to harass her by stalking her and calling her ‘faggot,’” according to the Maine Human Rights Commission investigator’s report.
After the second such episode, the boy was suspended and removed from the transgender child’s class. At that point, school officials told the transgender child that she [he] had to use a single-stall faculty bathroom at the other end of the school, and that was when her [his] parents decided to take the matter to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
Paul Melanson, grandfather of the boy accused of harassing the transgender student, also filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, saying that not allowing his grandson to use the girls bathroom or the faculty bathroom as the other child did was a violation of his grandson’s right to public accommodation under the Maine Human Rights Act. Melanson had given his grandson permission to use the girls bathroom as long as the transgender student was doing so, according to the report.
On Monday, the commission found that Asa Adams School did not unlawfully discriminate against Melanson’s grandson “because of his sexual orientation,” which is a heterosexual male.
“Minor Student 2 was disciplined because his biological sex is male and his gender identity is male and he used the girls’ bathroom,” the investigator’s report said.
Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Maine Human Rights Commission, said this decision is among the first to involve schools, sexual orientation provision, gender identity and the issues of bathroom use. She said schools in Maine likely will want to take a look at it.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This radical ruling, and its far-reaching significance, has been ignored by every major news outlet.
UPDATE 2/2/14: Maine Supreme Court Opens Girl's Room to Men
UPDATE 1/25/10: Christians organize to oppose boys in girl's room
-- From "State rules in favor of young transgender" by Abigail Curtis, Bangor Daily News Staff 7/1/09
While the school department’s lawyer warned that schools around the state may not be ready to manage the practical fallout from the decision, civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as an advancement of human rights.
The discrimination in question first occurred in October 2007 when the child was in the fifth grade at Asa Adams School. Until then, she [he] was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, although she [he] was biologically male. But that fall, the transgender child was followed into the girls room by a male student who had “previously started to harass her by stalking her and calling her ‘faggot,’” according to the Maine Human Rights Commission investigator’s report.
After the second such episode, the boy was suspended and removed from the transgender child’s class. At that point, school officials told the transgender child that she [he] had to use a single-stall faculty bathroom at the other end of the school, and that was when her [his] parents decided to take the matter to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
Paul Melanson, grandfather of the boy accused of harassing the transgender student, also filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, saying that not allowing his grandson to use the girls bathroom or the faculty bathroom as the other child did was a violation of his grandson’s right to public accommodation under the Maine Human Rights Act. Melanson had given his grandson permission to use the girls bathroom as long as the transgender student was doing so, according to the report.
On Monday, the commission found that Asa Adams School did not unlawfully discriminate against Melanson’s grandson “because of his sexual orientation,” which is a heterosexual male.
“Minor Student 2 was disciplined because his biological sex is male and his gender identity is male and he used the girls’ bathroom,” the investigator’s report said.
Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Maine Human Rights Commission, said this decision is among the first to involve schools, sexual orientation provision, gender identity and the issues of bathroom use. She said schools in Maine likely will want to take a look at it.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Poll: Most Americans Believe Intelligent Design over Darwinism
A recent Zogby survey gives Darwinists good reason to fear scientific study of evolution, as most Americans prefer to look at facts, rather than placing blind faith in evolution theory.
-- From "Darwin and unnatural disbelief" posted at the Los Angeles Times 7/1/09
Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.
But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design" by Bob Ellis, Dakotavoice 7/1/09
After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.
That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Those surveyed were asked this question:
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 7/13/09
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.
. . . respondents were given the two following statements:
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.
More striking, though, was the finding that 82 percent of Democrats also chose statement B, versus 73 percent of Republicans.
Self-identified liberals showed stronger support than self-identified conservatives, 86 percent to 72 percent. Those who did not identify with any Christian or Jewish denominations supported teaching evidence against Darwinian evolution at a level of 82 percent.
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.
“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”
In a press release distributed with the poll West said, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Darwin and unnatural disbelief" posted at the Los Angeles Times 7/1/09
Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.
But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design" by Bob Ellis, Dakotavoice 7/1/09
After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.
That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Those surveyed were asked this question:
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
Statement A: 33%[From the survey:] Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
Statement B: 52
Neither: 7
Other/Not sure: 8
Strongly agree: 54%To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Somewhat agree: 26%
Strongly disagree: 11%
Not
Sure: 4%
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 7/13/09
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.
. . . respondents were given the two following statements:
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.
More striking, though, was the finding that 82 percent of Democrats also chose statement B, versus 73 percent of Republicans.
Self-identified liberals showed stronger support than self-identified conservatives, 86 percent to 72 percent. Those who did not identify with any Christian or Jewish denominations supported teaching evidence against Darwinian evolution at a level of 82 percent.
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.
“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”
In a press release distributed with the poll West said, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Congressman Pushes to De-Fund Planned Parenthood
Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence says $350 million from government sources across America is too much money going to Planned Parenthood. He wants the federal government to mirror the trends in states like Tennessee, Texas, and even in California by offering an amendment to the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services.
UPDATE 7/24/09: House votes 247-183 against Pence amendment
-- From "Congressman to Offer Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/17/09
The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood.
The Pence amendment says “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The amendment does not cut any funding from the family planning program but ensures none of the money goes to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
While the majority of Americans who are pro-life likely support such an amendment, members of the House of Representatives may not get an opportunity to vote on it.
Pence will offer the amendment next week in the House Rules Committee, which has already repeatedly voted to prevent pro-life amendments stopping the direct taxpayer funding of abortions that President Barack Obama wanted in the District of Columbia and overseas.
[Thursday], Democratic leaders manipulated a vote on rules that prevented consideration of an amendment to stop tax-funded abortions in the nation's capital.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/24/09: House votes 247-183 against Pence amendment
-- From "Congressman to Offer Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/17/09
The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood.
The Pence amendment says “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The amendment does not cut any funding from the family planning program but ensures none of the money goes to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
While the majority of Americans who are pro-life likely support such an amendment, members of the House of Representatives may not get an opportunity to vote on it.
Pence will offer the amendment next week in the House Rules Committee, which has already repeatedly voted to prevent pro-life amendments stopping the direct taxpayer funding of abortions that President Barack Obama wanted in the District of Columbia and overseas.
[Thursday], Democratic leaders manipulated a vote on rules that prevented consideration of an amendment to stop tax-funded abortions in the nation's capital.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Episcopal Church: Ordaining and 'Marrying' Homosexuals
Christian exodus of the ECUSA is expected to increase as the church's trienniel national convention ended with approval to ordain homosexual bishops, and provide for the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages.
-- From "Episcopal Church to Allow Bishops to Bless Same-Sex Unions" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/17/09
. . . officials stopped short of creating liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, but approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships. The key portion of the legislation says bishops "may provide generous pastoral response" for such unions.
The vote came three days after the church passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of gay bishops. Both moves have prompted strong reactions among the larger worldwide Anglican Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the preeminent Anglican clergyman, had asked the Episcopalians before the convention not to take up issues that would further divide the church. This week the influential bishop of Durham, England, wrote an essay describing the ongoing crisis as "a slow-moving train crash" and the most recent actions of the Episcopal Church as marking "a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said this week's victories lay the groundwork for future moves. Friday's resolution included a call for bishops to "collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources" on same sex unions to report to the next convention. Three years from now, they may consider creating a standard liturgy for same-sex unions with the eventual goal of including a rite for gay marriage in the church's prayer book.
But some believe the recent moves have come at a cost. A number of parishes and dioceses have left the 2.3 million member Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas branches of the Anglican Communion. Last month, some conservatives who left the Episcopal Church over issues of Scripture and sexuality formed the Anglican Church in North America.
The ECUSA has essentially abandoned Christianity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Episcopal Church to Allow Bishops to Bless Same-Sex Unions" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/17/09
. . . officials stopped short of creating liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, but approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships. The key portion of the legislation says bishops "may provide generous pastoral response" for such unions.
The vote came three days after the church passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of gay bishops. Both moves have prompted strong reactions among the larger worldwide Anglican Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the preeminent Anglican clergyman, had asked the Episcopalians before the convention not to take up issues that would further divide the church. This week the influential bishop of Durham, England, wrote an essay describing the ongoing crisis as "a slow-moving train crash" and the most recent actions of the Episcopal Church as marking "a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said this week's victories lay the groundwork for future moves. Friday's resolution included a call for bishops to "collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources" on same sex unions to report to the next convention. Three years from now, they may consider creating a standard liturgy for same-sex unions with the eventual goal of including a rite for gay marriage in the church's prayer book.
But some believe the recent moves have come at a cost. A number of parishes and dioceses have left the 2.3 million member Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas branches of the Anglican Communion. Last month, some conservatives who left the Episcopal Church over issues of Scripture and sexuality formed the Anglican Church in North America.
The ECUSA has essentially abandoned Christianity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama's Catholic Surgeon General Nominee Favors Abortionist Training
She "spoke in favor of a vote by the AMA's governing body to 'urge medical schools to expand their curriculum' to teach 'more about abortion,'" LifeNews reported.
-- From "Obama's surgeon general pick will be grilled on 'life issues'" Posted at USA Today 7/14/09
Some Catholic health care voices are delighted with President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, but there are already rumbles of concern in the Catholic blogosphere over her stance on life issues.
Benjamin was named just days after Obama's audience with the pope (who gave him a copy of the church's latest statement on bioethics). But Obama has many abortion-rights supporting Catholics in his camp including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attends Mass weekly.
. . . Benjamin's clinic is not an expressly Catholic institution. Experts questioned by various Catholic media had no comment on where she stood on life issues. And Obama has nominated other Catholics to critical positions who support abortion rights such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Surgeon general pick: Train new doctors on abortions" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, at the White House Monday. Benjamin, 52, is a family doctor in Alabama who established the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic "to provide health care with dignity to impoverished residents."
She is the first black woman and the first doctor younger than 40 to be elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 she became the first black woman to head a state medical society.
On the issue of abortion, Benjamin has advocated more training for doctors on how to terminate pregnancy.
"We are adopting a policy that medical school curriculum provide the legal, ethical, and psychological principles associated with abortion so students can learn all the factors involved," she said, according to the Associated Press.
Benjamin is also a member of the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that condemns illegal abortions in many nations across the world. According to LifeNews, the group has used on questionable statistics on mothers' deaths from abortions to call for legalization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Obama's surgeon general pick will be grilled on 'life issues'" Posted at USA Today 7/14/09
Some Catholic health care voices are delighted with President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, but there are already rumbles of concern in the Catholic blogosphere over her stance on life issues.
Benjamin was named just days after Obama's audience with the pope (who gave him a copy of the church's latest statement on bioethics). But Obama has many abortion-rights supporting Catholics in his camp including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attends Mass weekly.
. . . Benjamin's clinic is not an expressly Catholic institution. Experts questioned by various Catholic media had no comment on where she stood on life issues. And Obama has nominated other Catholics to critical positions who support abortion rights such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Surgeon general pick: Train new doctors on abortions" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, at the White House Monday. Benjamin, 52, is a family doctor in Alabama who established the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic "to provide health care with dignity to impoverished residents."
She is the first black woman and the first doctor younger than 40 to be elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 she became the first black woman to head a state medical society.
On the issue of abortion, Benjamin has advocated more training for doctors on how to terminate pregnancy.
"We are adopting a policy that medical school curriculum provide the legal, ethical, and psychological principles associated with abortion so students can learn all the factors involved," she said, according to the Associated Press.
Benjamin is also a member of the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that condemns illegal abortions in many nations across the world. According to LifeNews, the group has used on questionable statistics on mothers' deaths from abortions to call for legalization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Teacher's Union Votes for Same-sex 'Marriage' (and more)
Public school focus on Gay Agenda and sexualization of children made crystal clear at annual meeting
-- From "At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion" by Erin Roach, staff writer for Baptist Press 7/6/09
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
[This] has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment [DOMA]. . . . Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion" by Erin Roach, staff writer for Baptist Press 7/6/09
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
[This] has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment [DOMA]. . . . Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Federal Judge Bars College's 'Anti-homophobe Policy'
A California court has ruled in favor of a student who was insulted for defending traditional marriage and has ordered the college to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.
-- From "L.A. Community College District's sexual harassment policy put on hold" by Gale Holland, Los Angeles Time 7/15/09
Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom.
U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
Lopez delivered the speech in the emotional aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
The student said that the professor cut his presentation short, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God" for his grade.
The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code.
King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.
The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."
ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.
Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.
According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."
He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"
"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "L.A. Community College District's sexual harassment policy put on hold" by Gale Holland, Los Angeles Time 7/15/09
Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom.
U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
Lopez delivered the speech in the emotional aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
The student said that the professor cut his presentation short, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God" for his grade.
The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code.
King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.
The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."
ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.
Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.
According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."
He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"
"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Senate Hides Hate Crimes Bill in Defense Appropriation
Late Monday, Senate Democrats told their homosexualist base that they'd attempt to sneak the hate crimes bill (S. 909) past the public as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a must-pass measure (S. 1390)
UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators
UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.
-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators
UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.
-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Homosexuality and Contracting for Children
Absent natural procreation, homosexual relationships lead to a variety of convoluted "parenting"
Utah court ruling preserving traditional parental rights fuels the politically-correct drive toward same-sex marriage
-- From "Helpless, as ex rips boy away" by Rosemary Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/10/2009
Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."
And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.
But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Such documents did not protect Edvalson, who signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements with Dickson near the time the baby was born.
Her advice for other same-sex couples: Don't have kids unless you have the legal protection of an adoption (something you cannot get in Utah).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said [Frank D. Mylar, Alliance Defense Fund] in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Judge Dever [wrote], "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Utah court ruling preserving traditional parental rights fuels the politically-correct drive toward same-sex marriage
-- From "Helpless, as ex rips boy away" by Rosemary Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/10/2009
Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."
And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.
But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Such documents did not protect Edvalson, who signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements with Dickson near the time the baby was born.
Her advice for other same-sex couples: Don't have kids unless you have the legal protection of an adoption (something you cannot get in Utah).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said [Frank D. Mylar, Alliance Defense Fund] in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Judge Dever [wrote], "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Government Teaches Children to Enjoy Sex - Daily Orgasms Recommended
Europe all the rave?! Consider the UK government/public school track record that tells parents to stop teaching morals to children, distributes abortion pills like candy, mandates Gay Agenda indoctrination, favors homosexual adoption, and thinks that encouraging sex decreases teenage pregnancy.
UPDATE 7/14/09: Associated Press reporting attempts to quell outrageousness
-- From "NHS tells school children of their 'right' to 'an orgasm a day'" by Roya Nikkhah, The London Telegraph 7/12/09
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/14/09: Associated Press reporting attempts to quell outrageousness
-- From "NHS tells school children of their 'right' to 'an orgasm a day'" by Roya Nikkhah, The London Telegraph 7/12/09
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
