Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jul. 1st, 2005 12:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdAs everyone reading this knows by now, Justice O'Connor, a Reagan appointment and swing vote on many church-state separation cases as well as votes upholding Roe v. Wade, has announced her retirement. It will take several hours for most of the fundamentalist groups to react, but since nothing much will go on this weekend anyway, that's no big deal.
This is, of course, one of the moments that the fundamentalist movement has been waiting for. (Part of their effectiveness comes from the fact that they don't want for one moment; they work for many. That's something other groups could learn from.) They may have lost the filibuster battle, but do not think that they will be less effective for it. They won't be. They've been keeping the fires stoked; they've been keeping their people ready. And they have promised everything they delivered last time, and more.
Do not expect that President Bush will pick a libertarian-leaning justice as a compromise. He has said since day one of his campaign that he wants more Scalias and Thomases on the court, and I cannot imagine he won't try.
I don't suppose I need to remind the readers of this journal that both Scalia and Thomas aren't just reliable votes against abortion rights, but also voted to uphold laws criminalising the lives of gayfolk. Scalia in particular is also strongly hostile to minourity religions, writing just last week that the concerns of polytheists and atheists could simply be ignored in the law. Scalia has also written that any religious practice may be banned by government, as long as oppressing the religion is not the specific and stated goal of the legislation.
Neither of these justices share any great love for liberty in general - only in the specific and narrow areas they prefer. They may have voted the right way in Kelo v. New London - and I applaud them for that, tho' I see it very much a case of the stopped clock being right twice a day - but in almost every other way, they are a disaster for the freedom of the person.
And they're what President Bush has said, repeatedly, consistantly, from 2000 to as recently as late last year, that he wants more of on the courts.
And now, the news.
ABC News's story - investigation into "gay conversion" camp called off;
Focus on the Family story supporting Republicans on the hill agitating for more judicial replacements, also talking about using funding restrictions to block enforcement of court rulings;
FotF article talking up two of their preferred judicial nominees - both of whom are stridently anti-abortion - includes action item to support overturning the filibuster compromise;
FotF rails against gay male couples raising children and surrogate-mother agencies who work with gay couples as, "another attempt to marginalize traditional values" and "legitimize the homosexual lifestyle";
Maryland sex-ed case (FotF story) results in settlement where school board agrees not to "denigrate" fundamentalist religious beliefs;
FotF notes, in a tiny, buried article, that Spain extended marriage rights to gayfolk; Catholic bishops issue a call for defiance, but don't say how;
FotF rails against Canadian parliamentary extension of marriage rights, calls for resistance and legislative action at the provincial level;
FotF newsbrief AND secondary action item against the Today Show for allowing gay couples in states with legal marriage to participate in their marriage contests;
Sen. Tom Coburn trying to get the FDA to remove information showing that condoms help prevent transmission of many STDs;
Today's Family News in Focus;
Concerned Women for America is on top of the retirement story - this is very quick for them. First a press release demanding another Scalia or Thomas;
CWFA story on retirement with audio component... which is so far broken, but I'll keep trying: "This is the moment [we] have been gearing up for";
CWFA story: new Supreme Court nominee will not be "Borked" - includes immediate action item, no waiting for an actual nominee;
CWFA attacks AMA for saying pharmacists who refuse to dispense legal medications for religious reasons should make an "immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference" - note that there have been a flurry of cases of pharmacists refusing to hand back prescriptions and berating customers over medications they find objectionable;
CWFA demands vote on an appeals court judge who is known for being particularly anti-abortion-rights;
AFA says that the "company looks pretty good to me from here," talks about being proud of being part of the anti-gay alliance;
Slate lists their shortlist of probable nominees, with some background information on each;
CWA rails against UN stand on reproductive rights - in general, in terms of control over having sex, control over birth control, not just abortion; they're unhappy because it includes women under 18;
Family Research Council issues statement: nominate a Scalia or Thomas - "We will wage an unprecedented effort [to support such a nominee] through the mobilization of 20,000 churches across the nation, weekly conference calls in targeted states, the strengthening of the FRC team and activation of grassroots through www.frc.org";
FRC: "10 Commandments suffer blow" in previous Supreme Court ruling;
Focus on the Family gets their act together and sends out a special report calling for another Thomas or Scalia to be nominated, as pledged in his election campaign.
----- 1 -----
ABC News Original Report
Ex-Gay Camp Investigation Called Off
Investigation Was Prompted by Teen's Blog
By ROSE PALAZZOLO
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=878912&page=1
June 28, 2005 — Tennessee officials closed an investigation into a so-called ex-gay ministry because of a lack of evidence to support child abuse allegations. But the Memphis organization that says instilling Christian beliefs can keep gays from acting on their homosexual desires continues to be the center of controversy.
The Tennessee Department of Children's Services began an investigation into Love In Action, which advertises homosexual conversion therapy for adolescents, after a 16-year-old boy's blog started causing a stir in the blogosphere.
"Zach" wrote in his blog that he was admitted into the facility by his parents after he told them he was gay.
He said he was to be admitted to Refuge, a camp associated with Love In Action on June 6 and was to remain there at least until June 20, according to a June 3 blog entry. According to some fellow bloggers who have been in intermittent contact with Zach, he gets dropped off at the facility daily and returns home with his parents.
Love In Action is supported by several Memphis-area churches, and accredited by Exodus International, an organization that describes itself as "a worldwide interdenominational, Christian organization called to encourage, strengthen, unify and equip Christians to minister the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those affected by homosexuality."
"DCS dispatched its special investigations unit to the facility, and after conducting a full investigation, determined that the child abuse allegations were unfounded," Rob Johnson, an agency spokesman, told The Associated Press.
John Smid, executive director of Love In Action, said the allegations were never described to him but he assumed they involved a complaint of psychological abuse.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
CONGRESS MULLS COURT RESTRICTIONS
Lawmakers eyeing ways to curb the activism of the federal courts.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037046.cfm
by Bill Wilson, Washington, D.C., correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Lawmakers eyeing ways to curb the activism of the
federal courts.
A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that
it's OK for the government to display the Ten Commandments
if the intent is secular, but it is unconstitutional if
the monument's purpose is solely religious.
Many in Congress are troubled by the decision and intend
to do something about it. One of them is Rep. John
Hostettler, R-Ind., who said the "unconstitutional
decisions" by the high court do not have to be tolerated
by Congress or the White House.
"Congress can remove funds for the enforcement of this
unconstitutional ruling," he said. "And the president, in
his executive prerogative, exercising his executive
prerogative, can, as we say, just say no to the court."
[...]
...Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the ultimate
solution is to replace activist judges.
"(Monday's Commandments cases) were decided 5-4," he
noted, "and again that points to the need to get judges on
the court that are strict constructionists and will stand
by the Constitution and not try to rewrite it or interpret
it as their own whim might find."
Both Hostettler and Brownback said Congress will keep a
watchful eye on the Court and will consider several
legislative initiatives to stop its judicial activism.
Hostettler, in fact, has already amended a House spending
bill to prohibit funding to remove a Ten Commandments
display in his district. It could become a model for the
rest of the nation.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
TWO TABOO JUDICIAL NOMINEES REMAIN ON HOLD
A pair of federal nominees continue waiting in the wings,
but few are talking about it.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037058.cfm
Focus on the Family
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: A pair of federal nominees continue waiting in
the wings, but few are talking about it.
The fight for President Bush's judicial nominees isn't
over, and the Third Branch Conference has issued a call to
arms. Conference Chair Manuel Miranda today expressed the
coalition's concern over the stalled nominations of Henry
Saad and William Myers.
The two are pending confirmation before the Senate and
their fates are questionable, said Jan LaRue, chief
counsel of Concerned Women for America, one of the groups
in the conference. She criticized the 14 senators whose
compromise deal thwarted a plan to end the filibusters
through a rules change.
"The 'Gang of 14' in their backroom deal threw Saad and
Myers over the precipice by leaving them out of the deal,"
she said. "So they are subject to being filibustered."
Myers has been passed out of the Senate Judiciary
Committee but Saad has yet to come before the confirming
body. Miranda said that's where the American people can
make a difference, especially with Sens. Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.
"We want Graham and DeWine to not play politics," Miranda
said. "If Democrats are going to filibuster, fine, but we
need to push for Saad to have his chance at an up-or-down
vote."
The opposition to Saad is because of his support for
pro-life issues, according to Bruce Hausknecht, judicial
analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
"Not only is Saad the beneficiary of bipartisan support in
his home state, but he is a rare judge indeed," he said.
"One who isn't afraid, as in the Kevorkian case, to take a
position that the sanctity of life and the rule of law go
hand in hand."
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
GAY COUPLES SEEKING SURROGATES
Analysts say it's part of an effort to legitimize the
homosexual lifestyle.
By Kim Trobee, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Analysts say it's part of an effort to legitimize
the homosexual lifestyle.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037043.cfm
A growing number of surrogate moms are having babies for
homosexual couples, with close to half of the surrogate
agencies in the country working with homosexual partners
or seeking to.
What's behind the increase?
"There's legislative pressure against gay and lesbian
adoption, and so they're looking to parent through other
means," explained Doug Donnelly, who works with adoptions
in California.
Homosexual parents, he explained, lend credibility to the
gay and lesbian agenda.
[...]
But Robert Walmsley, a surrogacy lawyer, said he wonders
if that strategy works.
"I don't think the vast majority of society is prepared to
accept two people of the same gender having a child and
raising a child," he said.
As for the children of same-sex couples, Walmsley said he
worries they will struggle.
[...]
In the last analysis, Donnelly noted, the gay surrogacy
push is just another attempt to marginalize traditional
values.
"There's a cultural war going on," he said, "between those
who embrace traditional notions of the family and those
who are trying to recast the family in a whole new way."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Maryland School Board Settles Lawsuit
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 30, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
In a first-of-its-kind action, school board members in
Montgomery County, Md., have decided to settle a lawsuit
filed by a local citizens committee and Parents and
Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) over a controversial
sex-ed curriculum.
Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, who filed the
suit on behalf of PFOX and Citizens for a Responsible
Curriculum, said the 7-0 vote came after a judge issued an
order blocking the implementation of the curriculum.
The curriculum contains statements such as: "Fact: Sex
play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon
during early adolescence and does not prove long-term
sexual orientation"; and "Jesus said absolutely nothing at
all about homosexuality"; and "Human sexuality is a
continuum"; and "abstinence until marriage is detrimental
to GLBT youth."
Another message students were expected to absorb: "Family"
was defined as "two or more people who are joined together
by emotional feelings or who are related to one another."
Among other provisions, the settlement bars the school
board from "denigrating religious beliefs" regarding
homosexuality. The board must also give parents the
opportunity to find out what their children are being
taught and to make an informed decision as to whether
their child will be permitted to attend.
----- 6 -----
Spain Creates Same-Sex Marriage
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 30, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Spain today became the fourth country to legalize same-sex
marriage, when its Congress of Deputies passed a
gay-marriage measure, 187-147.
The move saw Spanish gay activists blowing kisses to
lawmakers -- while the nation's Catholic bishops issued
calls for defiance.
----- 7 -----
CANADA CREATES GAY MARRIAGE
Our neighbors to the North will soon redefine marriage.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Our neighbors to the North will soon become the
third nation to redefine marriage.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037040.cfm
The Canadian House of Commons Tuesday evening voted to
create marriage rights for homosexual couples throughout
the country despite strong opposition from the
Conservative Party -- and something of a revolt within the
ruling Liberal Party.
"The fight is not over," said Anna Marie White, director
of communications at Focus on the Family Canada. "The
results of last night's vote provide a renewed impetus for
Canadians to work harder than ever to promote the value of
marriage between a man and woman within our society."
The bill must go through the Canadian Senate, but White
concedes that's a mere formality -- it's expected to
become law within a week to ten days.
But she said pro-family forces in Canada are "encouraged
by the number of politicians who have shown principled
leadership in this debate."
"We had a cabinet minister resign from his position
yesterday because he was forced by the prime minister to
vote with the government," she said. "He could not do that
-- he would be voting against the wishes of his
constituents. They were very clear that they wanted him to
support traditional marriage."
[...]
White said the vote has galvanized Christians within the
general Canadian population.
"There is a realization now that we have to get out
there," she said. "If we don't protect what we have, we
are going to lose it."
The vote came after two years of court decisions that had
created same-sex marriage in eight of the 10 provinces
plus one of the three northern territories.
The Conservative Party of Canada has promised to revoke
the legislation if it wins power in the next election,
setting up a potentially divisive political campaign.
Stephen Harper, the party's leader, said most Canadians
believe that the traditional definition of marriage should
be recognized.
"If we refuse to speak about this issue," he said, "who
will stand up and protect your faith and your religion?"
[...]
The real battle now moves to the provinces, because under
the Canadian system they are semi-autonomous governments
that have a great deal of say about laws and Canadian
life.
"We don't think we'll get what we need out of the courts,"
White said. "So we want to see some very strong
legislation coming out of the provinces."
She thanked pro-family Canadians who have taken on the
task of protecting marriage over the last few months.
"Parliament and members of Parliament have received
literally millions of faxes and telephone calls and visits
from Canadians who care about marriage. Let's not stop
here. This is just the beginning for us -- and we move
forward from this point."
----- 8 -----
NBC Offers Gay Couples Chance to Wed on TV
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 29, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Under pressure from gay activists, the Today Show has
announced it's opening up its annual wedding contest to
gay couples, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
In past years, Today's entry rules said couples must
consist of one male and one female. That language changed
for this year's contest. Now it simply reads "currently
engaged couples, who are legal residents of the United
States."
Allison Gollust, a representative for NBC, said the change
in policy was in response to gay advocacy groups. And
since the winning couple will be married in their home
state, homosexual couples who live in states where gay
marriage is legal are qualified to enter.
"(Today) is not taking a stand for or against same-sex
marriage," she said. "We're just clarifying the rules
based on new developments in the law. Anyone who can
legally get married should be able to participate."
All of the details of the winning couple's wedding will be
chosen by Today viewers over the course of several weeks
with the ceremony set to take place Sept. 16.
[Received later in separate email:]
Contact the Today Show About its Marriage Contest
A number of you asked how you could contact NBC's Today
Show to voice your opinion about the program opening up
its annual marriage contest to same-sex couples. You can
e-mail the show's executive producer through our Action
Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/media/?command=ind_pages&ind_id=1435
----- 9 -----
Condom Labels Hold FDA Appointee at Bay
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 29, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn is delaying nomination of Food
and Drug Administration commissioner Lester Crawford to
pressure the Administration to change condom labels,
reported The Associated Press.
Currently condom labels are required to read: "If used
properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of
transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other
sexually transmitted diseases."
Coburn argues that description is out of step with
scientific research.
"As a practicing physician, I have seen the ravaging
effects of STDs first hand," Coburn said. "In many cases,
STDs lurk undetected in the body for months or years
before unleashing their terrible effects. For example,
5,000 women in this county die every year from cervical
cancer, which is caused by HPV, the human papilloma
virus."
Condoms have been proven ineffective against HPV.
Dr. Shari Brasner, an obstetrician/gynecologist at mount
Sinai Medical Center in New York said conservatives are
taking on issues like condoms and the morning after pill
with "unrealistic" expectations of youth.
"They'll leave us with nothing," she said.
[Ed. Note: Part of the fundamentalist line is that condoms
won't help prevent STDs, even though for the most part,
they do. For example, most (if not all) fundamentalist groups
oppose condom distribution in Africa, even in the most
AIDS-ravaged countries, alleging that only their abstinence-
only programmes will work, data to the otherwise be damned.
This kind of approach sacrifices the lives of millions to their
moral demands, and I find it beyond reprehensible. As
always, a good rule of thumb is: if your political agenda
requires that other people die for you, it's probably evil.
But then, this is the same crew that has started quoting Stalin
without irony.]
----- 10 -----
Family News in Focus
Friday, July 01, 2005
Focus on the Family
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus/
* Fallout continues from Supreme Court's rulings on monuments to the Ten Commandments – now a constitutional amendment being suggested
1. "Hostile towards religious freedom... some say funding to the high court should be cut. Others are proposing a constitutional amendment." "Religious Freedom Coalition": Clarify religious freedom for the court. Istook issues Religious Freedom Amendment: guarantees "all courts will change course in the future." "Too many of our justices are distorted or ignored the free exercise clause... that protects all our religious liberties." Talk of cutting Supreme Court funding and impeaching judges, but that's too difficult.
* Ratings on recently concluded Supreme Court session are coming in....we'll have our own assessment
2. "Political intrigue over the future of aging justices." "The most closely divided term that we've had in decades." Talk about how most important decisions were 5-4. Talk about 10 Commandments cases as most important, with Kelo v. New London second because it could be used to seize churches. Allegations that justices aren't actually arguing cases anymore because they know each other too well.
* New ad campaign highlights religiously bigoted statements made by liberal politicians
3. Catholic group running series of ads, calls for DNC chair Dean to "keep religious arguments out of upcoming Supreme Court nomination hearings." Group says "men and women of faith" should not have to "check their beliefs at the door." Accuses the Democratic party of "a vile brand of hate politics." Claims they say, "a moral compass keeps them from making sound decisions as a judge." Accuses Democrats of trying to use religion to divide the country. Ads will include action items.
* Most doctors believe in God according to new study from University of Chicago
5. Claim that this "contradicts previous research [claiming] that people become less religion as education and income increase." "The practice of medicine provides a way to live out a commitment that is central to virtually all religious traditions." Other person claims that "an honest look at creation and the human body" provides obvious truth of creationism.
* Movie star and musician Will Smith wants gangster rappers to tone down music saying it's a bad influence on kids in other countries; perhaps it's time to question what it’s doing to our kids
4. Comments made at BET Awards.
* ABC reality series 'Welcome to the Neighborhood' pulled before airing thanks in part to complaints from both the Family Research Council and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
6. FRC and GLAAD both cranky, claims show risked "fostering prejudice." FRC: "They managed to offend everyone by stereotyping every group imaginable." FRC was "particularly worried about the show's portrayal of evangelicals." [Ed. note: that would presumably be the three conservative white families who would be deciding who of the competing groups could move into the neighbourhood; the format was that they, who are currently neighbourhood homeowners, would be the judges deciding which of the various petitioning families would win the house and get to move in.]
----- 11 -----
CWA Wishes O’Connor Well: President Urged to Name ‘Scalia/Thomas-like’ Nominee as Promised
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8457/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) wishes Justice Sandra Day O’Connor well as she announced her retirement today after 23 years on the Supreme Court.
“The President has the historic opportunity to keep faith with the promise he has repeated numerous times, which is to name justices who are like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel. “The Democrats have shown that their filibusters and condemnations of the President’s circuit court nominees were baseless. They will threaten more of the same unless he names a clone of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example.”
The President should not yield to the left’s demands to consult with the Senate before making a nomination. The Constitution is clear that it’s his right alone to make nominations and the Supreme Court agrees.
“O’Connor was known as a ‘swing-vote’ but that’s no reason for the President to swing away from his promise and yield to the left’s demands not to ‘upset the balance of the Court.’ That’s not a constitutional requirement. The American people understood and relied on his promise to name judges who will interpret the law and not write it. They expect him to keep that promise,” LaRue concluded.
For Information Contact:
Rebecca Jones
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 12 -----
Justice O’Connor Retires; Senate Battle Ahead
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8458/CWA/nation/index.htm
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has announced her retirement. Once her successor is named by the White House, the Senate confirmation battle will begin. While this battle will be a little different than the one most had anticipated, Lanier Swann, CWA’s director of government relations, says that this is the moment pro-family Americans have been gearing up for. Click here to listen.
[
----- 13 -----
High Court Nominee Will Not Be ‘Borked’
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8461/CWA/nation/index.htm
Americans lost the opportunity to have Judge Robert Bork on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court because conservatives were not anticipating a fierce confirmation battle. Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel, says that will not happen to the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court because CWA and like-minded groups have been preparing for this battle for a long time. She adds that the public doesn’t need to wait for a nominee to be announced to take action. Click here to listen.
[Rough transcription: Jan LaRue: CWA Chief Council. OMG, a woman speaking for CWA. "First of all, we at CWA wish her and her family well in her retirement... we are expecting that President Bush will fulfill his many campaign promises to name a justice who will be in the likeness of Justices Scalia and Thomas. We expect him to do that and we look forward to hearing about a good nomination." Pundants calling for a moderate, like O'Conner. "The left uses those tactics to try to intimidate both the Senate and the President and to convince him and them that they are in control. Well, we're ready, as we were not ready when Robert Bork faced his debacle." Reiterates call for a Scalia or Thomas. "We are prepared to use all means to get the truth out to America... the idea that only a moderate concerned is absolute nonsense." Claims to have been working [Ed. note: this is true] for either retirement, Rehnquist or O'Conner. Says nominating a moderate is "exactly what he should NOT do."
Urge to call the President and White House demanding a hard right nominee. "Tell him that you trust him to keep his promise to nominate judges... such as Scalia and Thomas."
Notes Senate is on break; nothing to happen. Nominee may be listed July 8th, but there won't be anything until the Senate is back "when the left starts their usual smear attack." "They will attack anybody who is not a clone of somebody like Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Says the filibustering is "a baseless sham," but expects one - "I wouldn't put _anything_ past them."]
[Ed. Note: I'm amazed how pissed off they apparently still are over a nomination back in the 80s. Personally, having listened to Robert Bork talk, I think he was a total nutter and should never have been nominated. For example, I've heard him _say_ that freedom of speech applies only and exclusively to overtly political speech, and that everything else is fair game. Fuck that noise, you shambling wackjob.]
----- 14 -----
The AMA Should Prefer Hippocratic Oath to Hypocrisy
6/30/2005
Concerned Women for America
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
Premiere medical association disses pharmacists’ right of conscience.
Commentary
The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a measure June 20 in favor of legislation mandating that pharmacists fill prescriptions for all legal drugs, including those that cause abortions. “This is an issue of access to care for patients,” Dr. Mary Frank, a California physician told delegates before the vote, according to Life News.
The measure is a response to pharmacists in Illinois who’ve filed three lawsuits to stop Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) executive order that forces pharmacists to dispense all lawful drugs. The pharmacists claim that the order violates Illinois law, which allows medical professionals to opt out of morally offensive acts.
The AMA says it supports a pharmacist’s right to refuse to prescribe some drugs, but wants pharmacists to make sure a patient has access to the drugs by making an “immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference,” according to the resolution. Many pharmacists say that’s the same as forcing them to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs.
I like doctors. But then, I like lawyers. As with other professions, members tend to be far more conservative than the leadership who set the policies of their particular trade associations, such as the American Bar Association and the AMA.
The AMA’s Code of Ethics grants physicians the right to decline to accept an individual as a patient. Section E-9.06 Free Choice states in part: “Although the concept of free choice assures that an individual can generally choose a physician, likewise a physician may decline to accept that individual as a patient.” There’s no mention of a duty to refer the individual to an “appropriate alternative” physician.
One would think that since the AMA protects the right of doctors to decline to accept a patient, it would respect and support the right of pharmacists to decline a customer, especially when based on matters of conscience. But the AMA’s zealous support of abortion seems to matter more than consistency.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
CWA Urges U.S. Senate: Debunk Smear of Judge Saad and Vote!
Concerned Women for America Press Release
6/30/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8454/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) urged the U.S. Senate to put a stop to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nevada) smear campaign against Judge Henry Saad and support the President’s nominee to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals by bringing the nomination to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.
Even though two U.S. presidents have nominated Judge Saad to the federal bench a total of four times, requiring the FBI to perform four separate background investigations of his record, Sen. Reid still got by with a drive-by attack on the nominee when he implied on May 12, 2005 that there is a problem in Saad’s FBI file, to which Reid is denied access. Reid said:
“Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there.”
“One can hardly imagine a greater act of political cowardice and underhandedness than making such a race-baiting attack on an Arab-American judge in a post 9-ll environment, especially when his position does not afford him the freedom to respond,” CWA’s Chief Counsel Jan LaRue said in her statement today at a press conference hosted by the Third Branch Conference. “Wouldn’t you want to respond if it had been done to you? Wouldn’t you expect those who know you and are in a position to defend you to do so? But sadly, in Judge Saad’s case, few have who should have. We are unwilling to leave a judge of superb integrity and qualifications twisting in the wind.”
“The President and virtually every Republican senator have said repeatedly, ‘Every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.’ It’s been repeated by the seven Republican members of the ‘Gang of 14’ who denied Judge Saad the no-filibuster benefit of their backroom bargain.
“It’s time for the Senate to respond to Reid’s cowardly attack on Judge Saad by bringing his nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. He deserves their full, strong support, which is long overdue,” said LaRue.
For Information Contact:
Rebecca Jones
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 16 -----
Christian 'Hate Groups' Accused of 'Anti-Gay Crusade'
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 30, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200506\CUL20050630a.html
(CNSNews.com) - A civil rights organization that has spent the last 25 years monitoring "hate groups" and "extremists" such as the Ku Klux Klan now has a new target -- the religious right -- which the group claims is conducting a "holy war" against homosexuals.
In the current issue of its quarterly magazine "Intelligence Report," the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) contends that "religious leaders have engaged in 30 years of name-calling and bogus 'science' in their attack on gays. But only now is their crusade reaching biblical proportions."
In response, the spokesman for one pro-family group said it's the SPLC that is guilty of "engaging in hate speech." Another conservative said his group wears the criticism from the SPLC as a "badge of honor."
Along with an article on "Curious Cures" for homosexuality and a feature on the myth that homosexuals helped mastermind the Holocaust, the SPLC's latest Intelligence Report contains a timeline of the "anti-gay movement" from Anita Bryant's efforts to repeal a "gay rights" ordinance in Florida in 1977 to the present.
In an editorial, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok asserted that "the religiously based crusade against homosexuals in America" reached a turning point in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision struck down state anti-sodomy laws.
Since then, the Christian right has increased fund raising and poured millions of dollars into TV, newspaper and radio ads, including during last year's successful campaign to pass constitutional amendments in 13 states to define marriage as between one man and one woman. More such measures are set to go before voters in November of 2006.
Potok in his editorial also charged that leaders of the religious right were guilty of using "bully-boy tactics" such as "cruel name-calling." The contention of many Christians, that they hate the sin but love the sinner, is "a hard one to swallow," according to Potok. "When perpetrators of hate crimes against gays use identical words to describe their victims, you have to wonder where it began," he states.
Under the heading, "A Mighty Army," the SPLC's Intelligence Report lists "a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups" that it claims "help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade." The list includes the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
"Fundamentalist Christians have every right to their views of religion," Potok states. "But when they use that right to launch vicious personal attacks on an entire group based on characteristics that most scientists see as immutable, they poison the political debate and subject the objects of their scorn to the very real possibility of violence and even death.
"And that can only damage a healthy democratic society," Potok adds.
According to its website, the Southern Poverty Law Center "was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm." Today, the Montgomery, Ala.-based organization "is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups."
'Badge of honor'
Cybercast News Service contacted representatives of several organizations on the SPLC's list, and most agreed with Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, that "the company looks pretty good to me from here.
"I would use different terminology" than the center does, he said, "but to the extent that we oppose the homosexual social and political agenda and were named by this group, we wear it as a badge of honor."
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
The Supreme Court Shortlist
The views of the likely candidates.
By Emily Bazelon and David Newman
Updated Friday, July 1, 2005, at 8:34 AM PT
http://slate.com/id/2121270/
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced Friday that she is stepping down from the Supreme Court. In anticipation of resignations—Chief Justice William Rehnquist's had been thought most likely—the Bush administration has floated several names for possible nominees. What views have the president's shortlisters expressed, on and off the bench? In order of our best guess as to the likelihood that they'll be chosen, here's a guide to the prospective nominees' records.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Radicals Lobby U.N. for ‘Sexual Freedom,’ Even for Youth
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
By Lindsey Douthit
They are willing to sacrifice any youthful innocence.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8459&department=CWA&categoryid=nation
Adolescent girls walking into clinics and getting contraception. Little boys encouraged to “explore their sexuality.” Abortions on demand for those barely old enough to conceive. Sound crazy? Not to certain radical groups, as was made clear at the United Nations recently.
The June 24-25 “informal interactive hearings” between the U.N. General Assembly and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civil society and the private sector, held in New York City, became a forum for various issues relevant to the liberal agenda. Radical groups such as Women’s Environment and Development Organization, International Planned Parenthood and MADRE (an “international women’s human rights organization”) used their statuses as active speakers to lobby for universal "reproductive freedom" and homosexual rights. One aspect of their demands was the right of young people to enjoy unlimited sexual freedom.
In a disturbing twist, radical groups often shifted the focus of reproductive freedom to youth. “We recommend all aspects of reproductive rights for adolescents,” declared Djeneba Diallo, representing Family Care International of Burkina Faso. Her sentiments were echoed by representatives from other groups such as Action Health Incorporated and National Youth Network for Reproductive Rights in Ecuador. They all stated the same thing: The concept of universal "reproductive rights" has no age limit.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Sandra Day O'Connor Retires After Nearly 24 Years on Supreme Court
Family Research Council
July 1, 2005 - Friday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 1, 2005 CONTACT: Amber Hildebrand, (202) 393-2100
"I am confident that President Bush will name a replacement for Justice O'Connor who has the same judicial philosophy as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas"
~Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05G02
Washington, D.C. - Family Research Council thanks Justice O'Connor, the first woman on the United States Supreme Court, for her nearly twenty-four years of public service.
"The Family Research Council often found itself on the opposite side of her most controversial decisions," said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.
"This past week Justice O'Connor sided with judicial activists and ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments on public property in two cases before the high court that have offended the values of a great segment of the American public.
"I am confident that President Bush will name a replacement for Justice O'Connor who has the same judicial philosophy as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he indicated he would in his reelection campaign.
"The public is primed for the fight it will take to confirm a nominee. FRC can motivate significant grassroots support for the President's nominees. We will wage an unprecedented effort for a fair and prompt up or down vote through the mobilization of 20,000 churches across the nation, weekly conference calls in targeted states, the strengthening of the FRC team and activation of grassroots through www.frc.org "
----- 20 -----
Struck Down - 10 Commandments Suffer Blow
June 27, 2005 - Monday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 27, 2005
CONTACT: Amber Hildebrand, (202) 393-2100
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against 10 Commandments Displays
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05F11;
Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Supreme Court issued a devastating decision and ruled against the constitutionality of Ten Commandment displays on public property.
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council released the following statement condemning today's Supreme Court decision:
"The Ten Commandments have played a crucial role in shaping the values and legal system of the United States and of all Western Civilization as is evident in many of the buildings here in Washington. In fact, the Supreme Court building itself boasts three different displays.
"This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only denigrating to our culture but it undermines the very laws we already have in place. Forbidding the Ten Commandments opens the door to hostility toward religion, which is contrary to the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Today's court decision is contrary to the Constitutional history of this country.
"This country has a legacy of religious freedom and religious tolerance. Banning displays of the Ten Commandments suggests otherwise and that is lamentable."
The Supreme Court decision will be posted on www.frc.org by 11:00 am EDT.
----- 21 -----
** CITIZENLINK SPECIAL REPORT **
July 1, 2005
Focus on the Family
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR RESIGNS FROM U.S. SUPREME
COURT
[Received in email; no URL]
Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson,
Ph.D., issued the following statement today in response to
the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor:
"Today marks a watershed moment in American history: the
resignation of a swing-vote justice on the Supreme Court
and the opportunity to change the Court's direction. The
rulings by the Court this June, particularly the
schizophrenic decisions on the 10 Commandments cases, have
once again demonstrated the desperate need for justices
who will interpret the Constitution as it was written, not
as the latest fads of legal theorists dictate.
"President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial
philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer
about this than the President himself, who said during his
campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of
Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence
that he will carry out that pledge."
Today's CitizenLink Update will include reaction to the
resignation from other pro-family leaders, analysis of how
the vacancy may impact the balance of the court, and
insight into the judicial philosophy that would return the
court's decisions back to a more constitutional
perspective.
This is, of course, one of the moments that the fundamentalist movement has been waiting for. (Part of their effectiveness comes from the fact that they don't want for one moment; they work for many. That's something other groups could learn from.) They may have lost the filibuster battle, but do not think that they will be less effective for it. They won't be. They've been keeping the fires stoked; they've been keeping their people ready. And they have promised everything they delivered last time, and more.
Do not expect that President Bush will pick a libertarian-leaning justice as a compromise. He has said since day one of his campaign that he wants more Scalias and Thomases on the court, and I cannot imagine he won't try.
I don't suppose I need to remind the readers of this journal that both Scalia and Thomas aren't just reliable votes against abortion rights, but also voted to uphold laws criminalising the lives of gayfolk. Scalia in particular is also strongly hostile to minourity religions, writing just last week that the concerns of polytheists and atheists could simply be ignored in the law. Scalia has also written that any religious practice may be banned by government, as long as oppressing the religion is not the specific and stated goal of the legislation.
Neither of these justices share any great love for liberty in general - only in the specific and narrow areas they prefer. They may have voted the right way in Kelo v. New London - and I applaud them for that, tho' I see it very much a case of the stopped clock being right twice a day - but in almost every other way, they are a disaster for the freedom of the person.
And they're what President Bush has said, repeatedly, consistantly, from 2000 to as recently as late last year, that he wants more of on the courts.
And now, the news.
ABC News's story - investigation into "gay conversion" camp called off;
Focus on the Family story supporting Republicans on the hill agitating for more judicial replacements, also talking about using funding restrictions to block enforcement of court rulings;
FotF article talking up two of their preferred judicial nominees - both of whom are stridently anti-abortion - includes action item to support overturning the filibuster compromise;
FotF rails against gay male couples raising children and surrogate-mother agencies who work with gay couples as, "another attempt to marginalize traditional values" and "legitimize the homosexual lifestyle";
Maryland sex-ed case (FotF story) results in settlement where school board agrees not to "denigrate" fundamentalist religious beliefs;
FotF notes, in a tiny, buried article, that Spain extended marriage rights to gayfolk; Catholic bishops issue a call for defiance, but don't say how;
FotF rails against Canadian parliamentary extension of marriage rights, calls for resistance and legislative action at the provincial level;
FotF newsbrief AND secondary action item against the Today Show for allowing gay couples in states with legal marriage to participate in their marriage contests;
Sen. Tom Coburn trying to get the FDA to remove information showing that condoms help prevent transmission of many STDs;
Today's Family News in Focus;
Concerned Women for America is on top of the retirement story - this is very quick for them. First a press release demanding another Scalia or Thomas;
CWFA story on retirement with audio component... which is so far broken, but I'll keep trying: "This is the moment [we] have been gearing up for";
CWFA story: new Supreme Court nominee will not be "Borked" - includes immediate action item, no waiting for an actual nominee;
CWFA attacks AMA for saying pharmacists who refuse to dispense legal medications for religious reasons should make an "immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference" - note that there have been a flurry of cases of pharmacists refusing to hand back prescriptions and berating customers over medications they find objectionable;
CWFA demands vote on an appeals court judge who is known for being particularly anti-abortion-rights;
AFA says that the "company looks pretty good to me from here," talks about being proud of being part of the anti-gay alliance;
Slate lists their shortlist of probable nominees, with some background information on each;
CWA rails against UN stand on reproductive rights - in general, in terms of control over having sex, control over birth control, not just abortion; they're unhappy because it includes women under 18;
Family Research Council issues statement: nominate a Scalia or Thomas - "We will wage an unprecedented effort [to support such a nominee] through the mobilization of 20,000 churches across the nation, weekly conference calls in targeted states, the strengthening of the FRC team and activation of grassroots through www.frc.org";
FRC: "10 Commandments suffer blow" in previous Supreme Court ruling;
Focus on the Family gets their act together and sends out a special report calling for another Thomas or Scalia to be nominated, as pledged in his election campaign.
----- 1 -----
ABC News Original Report
Ex-Gay Camp Investigation Called Off
Investigation Was Prompted by Teen's Blog
By ROSE PALAZZOLO
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=878912&page=1
June 28, 2005 — Tennessee officials closed an investigation into a so-called ex-gay ministry because of a lack of evidence to support child abuse allegations. But the Memphis organization that says instilling Christian beliefs can keep gays from acting on their homosexual desires continues to be the center of controversy.
The Tennessee Department of Children's Services began an investigation into Love In Action, which advertises homosexual conversion therapy for adolescents, after a 16-year-old boy's blog started causing a stir in the blogosphere.
"Zach" wrote in his blog that he was admitted into the facility by his parents after he told them he was gay.
He said he was to be admitted to Refuge, a camp associated with Love In Action on June 6 and was to remain there at least until June 20, according to a June 3 blog entry. According to some fellow bloggers who have been in intermittent contact with Zach, he gets dropped off at the facility daily and returns home with his parents.
Love In Action is supported by several Memphis-area churches, and accredited by Exodus International, an organization that describes itself as "a worldwide interdenominational, Christian organization called to encourage, strengthen, unify and equip Christians to minister the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those affected by homosexuality."
"DCS dispatched its special investigations unit to the facility, and after conducting a full investigation, determined that the child abuse allegations were unfounded," Rob Johnson, an agency spokesman, told The Associated Press.
John Smid, executive director of Love In Action, said the allegations were never described to him but he assumed they involved a complaint of psychological abuse.
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
CONGRESS MULLS COURT RESTRICTIONS
Lawmakers eyeing ways to curb the activism of the federal courts.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037046.cfm
by Bill Wilson, Washington, D.C., correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Lawmakers eyeing ways to curb the activism of the
federal courts.
A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that
it's OK for the government to display the Ten Commandments
if the intent is secular, but it is unconstitutional if
the monument's purpose is solely religious.
Many in Congress are troubled by the decision and intend
to do something about it. One of them is Rep. John
Hostettler, R-Ind., who said the "unconstitutional
decisions" by the high court do not have to be tolerated
by Congress or the White House.
"Congress can remove funds for the enforcement of this
unconstitutional ruling," he said. "And the president, in
his executive prerogative, exercising his executive
prerogative, can, as we say, just say no to the court."
[...]
...Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the ultimate
solution is to replace activist judges.
"(Monday's Commandments cases) were decided 5-4," he
noted, "and again that points to the need to get judges on
the court that are strict constructionists and will stand
by the Constitution and not try to rewrite it or interpret
it as their own whim might find."
Both Hostettler and Brownback said Congress will keep a
watchful eye on the Court and will consider several
legislative initiatives to stop its judicial activism.
Hostettler, in fact, has already amended a House spending
bill to prohibit funding to remove a Ten Commandments
display in his district. It could become a model for the
rest of the nation.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
TWO TABOO JUDICIAL NOMINEES REMAIN ON HOLD
A pair of federal nominees continue waiting in the wings,
but few are talking about it.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037058.cfm
Focus on the Family
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: A pair of federal nominees continue waiting in
the wings, but few are talking about it.
The fight for President Bush's judicial nominees isn't
over, and the Third Branch Conference has issued a call to
arms. Conference Chair Manuel Miranda today expressed the
coalition's concern over the stalled nominations of Henry
Saad and William Myers.
The two are pending confirmation before the Senate and
their fates are questionable, said Jan LaRue, chief
counsel of Concerned Women for America, one of the groups
in the conference. She criticized the 14 senators whose
compromise deal thwarted a plan to end the filibusters
through a rules change.
"The 'Gang of 14' in their backroom deal threw Saad and
Myers over the precipice by leaving them out of the deal,"
she said. "So they are subject to being filibustered."
Myers has been passed out of the Senate Judiciary
Committee but Saad has yet to come before the confirming
body. Miranda said that's where the American people can
make a difference, especially with Sens. Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.
"We want Graham and DeWine to not play politics," Miranda
said. "If Democrats are going to filibuster, fine, but we
need to push for Saad to have his chance at an up-or-down
vote."
The opposition to Saad is because of his support for
pro-life issues, according to Bruce Hausknecht, judicial
analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
"Not only is Saad the beneficiary of bipartisan support in
his home state, but he is a rare judge indeed," he said.
"One who isn't afraid, as in the Kevorkian case, to take a
position that the sanctity of life and the rule of law go
hand in hand."
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
GAY COUPLES SEEKING SURROGATES
Analysts say it's part of an effort to legitimize the
homosexual lifestyle.
By Kim Trobee, correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Analysts say it's part of an effort to legitimize
the homosexual lifestyle.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037043.cfm
A growing number of surrogate moms are having babies for
homosexual couples, with close to half of the surrogate
agencies in the country working with homosexual partners
or seeking to.
What's behind the increase?
"There's legislative pressure against gay and lesbian
adoption, and so they're looking to parent through other
means," explained Doug Donnelly, who works with adoptions
in California.
Homosexual parents, he explained, lend credibility to the
gay and lesbian agenda.
[...]
But Robert Walmsley, a surrogacy lawyer, said he wonders
if that strategy works.
"I don't think the vast majority of society is prepared to
accept two people of the same gender having a child and
raising a child," he said.
As for the children of same-sex couples, Walmsley said he
worries they will struggle.
[...]
In the last analysis, Donnelly noted, the gay surrogacy
push is just another attempt to marginalize traditional
values.
"There's a cultural war going on," he said, "between those
who embrace traditional notions of the family and those
who are trying to recast the family in a whole new way."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Maryland School Board Settles Lawsuit
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 30, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
In a first-of-its-kind action, school board members in
Montgomery County, Md., have decided to settle a lawsuit
filed by a local citizens committee and Parents and
Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) over a controversial
sex-ed curriculum.
Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, who filed the
suit on behalf of PFOX and Citizens for a Responsible
Curriculum, said the 7-0 vote came after a judge issued an
order blocking the implementation of the curriculum.
The curriculum contains statements such as: "Fact: Sex
play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon
during early adolescence and does not prove long-term
sexual orientation"; and "Jesus said absolutely nothing at
all about homosexuality"; and "Human sexuality is a
continuum"; and "abstinence until marriage is detrimental
to GLBT youth."
Another message students were expected to absorb: "Family"
was defined as "two or more people who are joined together
by emotional feelings or who are related to one another."
Among other provisions, the settlement bars the school
board from "denigrating religious beliefs" regarding
homosexuality. The board must also give parents the
opportunity to find out what their children are being
taught and to make an informed decision as to whether
their child will be permitted to attend.
----- 6 -----
Spain Creates Same-Sex Marriage
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 30, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Spain today became the fourth country to legalize same-sex
marriage, when its Congress of Deputies passed a
gay-marriage measure, 187-147.
The move saw Spanish gay activists blowing kisses to
lawmakers -- while the nation's Catholic bishops issued
calls for defiance.
----- 7 -----
CANADA CREATES GAY MARRIAGE
Our neighbors to the North will soon redefine marriage.
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Our neighbors to the North will soon become the
third nation to redefine marriage.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037040.cfm
The Canadian House of Commons Tuesday evening voted to
create marriage rights for homosexual couples throughout
the country despite strong opposition from the
Conservative Party -- and something of a revolt within the
ruling Liberal Party.
"The fight is not over," said Anna Marie White, director
of communications at Focus on the Family Canada. "The
results of last night's vote provide a renewed impetus for
Canadians to work harder than ever to promote the value of
marriage between a man and woman within our society."
The bill must go through the Canadian Senate, but White
concedes that's a mere formality -- it's expected to
become law within a week to ten days.
But she said pro-family forces in Canada are "encouraged
by the number of politicians who have shown principled
leadership in this debate."
"We had a cabinet minister resign from his position
yesterday because he was forced by the prime minister to
vote with the government," she said. "He could not do that
-- he would be voting against the wishes of his
constituents. They were very clear that they wanted him to
support traditional marriage."
[...]
White said the vote has galvanized Christians within the
general Canadian population.
"There is a realization now that we have to get out
there," she said. "If we don't protect what we have, we
are going to lose it."
The vote came after two years of court decisions that had
created same-sex marriage in eight of the 10 provinces
plus one of the three northern territories.
The Conservative Party of Canada has promised to revoke
the legislation if it wins power in the next election,
setting up a potentially divisive political campaign.
Stephen Harper, the party's leader, said most Canadians
believe that the traditional definition of marriage should
be recognized.
"If we refuse to speak about this issue," he said, "who
will stand up and protect your faith and your religion?"
[...]
The real battle now moves to the provinces, because under
the Canadian system they are semi-autonomous governments
that have a great deal of say about laws and Canadian
life.
"We don't think we'll get what we need out of the courts,"
White said. "So we want to see some very strong
legislation coming out of the provinces."
She thanked pro-family Canadians who have taken on the
task of protecting marriage over the last few months.
"Parliament and members of Parliament have received
literally millions of faxes and telephone calls and visits
from Canadians who care about marriage. Let's not stop
here. This is just the beginning for us -- and we move
forward from this point."
----- 8 -----
NBC Offers Gay Couples Chance to Wed on TV
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 29, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Under pressure from gay activists, the Today Show has
announced it's opening up its annual wedding contest to
gay couples, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
In past years, Today's entry rules said couples must
consist of one male and one female. That language changed
for this year's contest. Now it simply reads "currently
engaged couples, who are legal residents of the United
States."
Allison Gollust, a representative for NBC, said the change
in policy was in response to gay advocacy groups. And
since the winning couple will be married in their home
state, homosexual couples who live in states where gay
marriage is legal are qualified to enter.
"(Today) is not taking a stand for or against same-sex
marriage," she said. "We're just clarifying the rules
based on new developments in the law. Anyone who can
legally get married should be able to participate."
All of the details of the winning couple's wedding will be
chosen by Today viewers over the course of several weeks
with the ceremony set to take place Sept. 16.
[Received later in separate email:]
Contact the Today Show About its Marriage Contest
A number of you asked how you could contact NBC's Today
Show to voice your opinion about the program opening up
its annual marriage contest to same-sex couples. You can
e-mail the show's executive producer through our Action
Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/media/?command=ind_pages&ind_id=1435
----- 9 -----
Condom Labels Hold FDA Appointee at Bay
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
June 29, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn is delaying nomination of Food
and Drug Administration commissioner Lester Crawford to
pressure the Administration to change condom labels,
reported The Associated Press.
Currently condom labels are required to read: "If used
properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of
transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other
sexually transmitted diseases."
Coburn argues that description is out of step with
scientific research.
"As a practicing physician, I have seen the ravaging
effects of STDs first hand," Coburn said. "In many cases,
STDs lurk undetected in the body for months or years
before unleashing their terrible effects. For example,
5,000 women in this county die every year from cervical
cancer, which is caused by HPV, the human papilloma
virus."
Condoms have been proven ineffective against HPV.
Dr. Shari Brasner, an obstetrician/gynecologist at mount
Sinai Medical Center in New York said conservatives are
taking on issues like condoms and the morning after pill
with "unrealistic" expectations of youth.
"They'll leave us with nothing," she said.
[Ed. Note: Part of the fundamentalist line is that condoms
won't help prevent STDs, even though for the most part,
they do. For example, most (if not all) fundamentalist groups
oppose condom distribution in Africa, even in the most
AIDS-ravaged countries, alleging that only their abstinence-
only programmes will work, data to the otherwise be damned.
This kind of approach sacrifices the lives of millions to their
moral demands, and I find it beyond reprehensible. As
always, a good rule of thumb is: if your political agenda
requires that other people die for you, it's probably evil.
But then, this is the same crew that has started quoting Stalin
without irony.]
----- 10 -----
Family News in Focus
Friday, July 01, 2005
Focus on the Family
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus/
* Fallout continues from Supreme Court's rulings on monuments to the Ten Commandments – now a constitutional amendment being suggested
1. "Hostile towards religious freedom... some say funding to the high court should be cut. Others are proposing a constitutional amendment." "Religious Freedom Coalition": Clarify religious freedom for the court. Istook issues Religious Freedom Amendment: guarantees "all courts will change course in the future." "Too many of our justices are distorted or ignored the free exercise clause... that protects all our religious liberties." Talk of cutting Supreme Court funding and impeaching judges, but that's too difficult.
* Ratings on recently concluded Supreme Court session are coming in....we'll have our own assessment
2. "Political intrigue over the future of aging justices." "The most closely divided term that we've had in decades." Talk about how most important decisions were 5-4. Talk about 10 Commandments cases as most important, with Kelo v. New London second because it could be used to seize churches. Allegations that justices aren't actually arguing cases anymore because they know each other too well.
* New ad campaign highlights religiously bigoted statements made by liberal politicians
3. Catholic group running series of ads, calls for DNC chair Dean to "keep religious arguments out of upcoming Supreme Court nomination hearings." Group says "men and women of faith" should not have to "check their beliefs at the door." Accuses the Democratic party of "a vile brand of hate politics." Claims they say, "a moral compass keeps them from making sound decisions as a judge." Accuses Democrats of trying to use religion to divide the country. Ads will include action items.
* Most doctors believe in God according to new study from University of Chicago
5. Claim that this "contradicts previous research [claiming] that people become less religion as education and income increase." "The practice of medicine provides a way to live out a commitment that is central to virtually all religious traditions." Other person claims that "an honest look at creation and the human body" provides obvious truth of creationism.
* Movie star and musician Will Smith wants gangster rappers to tone down music saying it's a bad influence on kids in other countries; perhaps it's time to question what it’s doing to our kids
4. Comments made at BET Awards.
* ABC reality series 'Welcome to the Neighborhood' pulled before airing thanks in part to complaints from both the Family Research Council and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
6. FRC and GLAAD both cranky, claims show risked "fostering prejudice." FRC: "They managed to offend everyone by stereotyping every group imaginable." FRC was "particularly worried about the show's portrayal of evangelicals." [Ed. note: that would presumably be the three conservative white families who would be deciding who of the competing groups could move into the neighbourhood; the format was that they, who are currently neighbourhood homeowners, would be the judges deciding which of the various petitioning families would win the house and get to move in.]
----- 11 -----
CWA Wishes O’Connor Well: President Urged to Name ‘Scalia/Thomas-like’ Nominee as Promised
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8457/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) wishes Justice Sandra Day O’Connor well as she announced her retirement today after 23 years on the Supreme Court.
“The President has the historic opportunity to keep faith with the promise he has repeated numerous times, which is to name justices who are like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel. “The Democrats have shown that their filibusters and condemnations of the President’s circuit court nominees were baseless. They will threaten more of the same unless he names a clone of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example.”
The President should not yield to the left’s demands to consult with the Senate before making a nomination. The Constitution is clear that it’s his right alone to make nominations and the Supreme Court agrees.
“O’Connor was known as a ‘swing-vote’ but that’s no reason for the President to swing away from his promise and yield to the left’s demands not to ‘upset the balance of the Court.’ That’s not a constitutional requirement. The American people understood and relied on his promise to name judges who will interpret the law and not write it. They expect him to keep that promise,” LaRue concluded.
For Information Contact:
Rebecca Jones
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 12 -----
Justice O’Connor Retires; Senate Battle Ahead
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8458/CWA/nation/index.htm
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has announced her retirement. Once her successor is named by the White House, the Senate confirmation battle will begin. While this battle will be a little different than the one most had anticipated, Lanier Swann, CWA’s director of government relations, says that this is the moment pro-family Americans have been gearing up for. Click here to listen.
[
----- 13 -----
High Court Nominee Will Not Be ‘Borked’
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8461/CWA/nation/index.htm
Americans lost the opportunity to have Judge Robert Bork on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court because conservatives were not anticipating a fierce confirmation battle. Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel, says that will not happen to the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court because CWA and like-minded groups have been preparing for this battle for a long time. She adds that the public doesn’t need to wait for a nominee to be announced to take action. Click here to listen.
[Rough transcription: Jan LaRue: CWA Chief Council. OMG, a woman speaking for CWA. "First of all, we at CWA wish her and her family well in her retirement... we are expecting that President Bush will fulfill his many campaign promises to name a justice who will be in the likeness of Justices Scalia and Thomas. We expect him to do that and we look forward to hearing about a good nomination." Pundants calling for a moderate, like O'Conner. "The left uses those tactics to try to intimidate both the Senate and the President and to convince him and them that they are in control. Well, we're ready, as we were not ready when Robert Bork faced his debacle." Reiterates call for a Scalia or Thomas. "We are prepared to use all means to get the truth out to America... the idea that only a moderate concerned is absolute nonsense." Claims to have been working [Ed. note: this is true] for either retirement, Rehnquist or O'Conner. Says nominating a moderate is "exactly what he should NOT do."
Urge to call the President and White House demanding a hard right nominee. "Tell him that you trust him to keep his promise to nominate judges... such as Scalia and Thomas."
Notes Senate is on break; nothing to happen. Nominee may be listed July 8th, but there won't be anything until the Senate is back "when the left starts their usual smear attack." "They will attack anybody who is not a clone of somebody like Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Says the filibustering is "a baseless sham," but expects one - "I wouldn't put _anything_ past them."]
[Ed. Note: I'm amazed how pissed off they apparently still are over a nomination back in the 80s. Personally, having listened to Robert Bork talk, I think he was a total nutter and should never have been nominated. For example, I've heard him _say_ that freedom of speech applies only and exclusively to overtly political speech, and that everything else is fair game. Fuck that noise, you shambling wackjob.]
----- 14 -----
The AMA Should Prefer Hippocratic Oath to Hypocrisy
6/30/2005
Concerned Women for America
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
Premiere medical association disses pharmacists’ right of conscience.
Commentary
The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a measure June 20 in favor of legislation mandating that pharmacists fill prescriptions for all legal drugs, including those that cause abortions. “This is an issue of access to care for patients,” Dr. Mary Frank, a California physician told delegates before the vote, according to Life News.
The measure is a response to pharmacists in Illinois who’ve filed three lawsuits to stop Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) executive order that forces pharmacists to dispense all lawful drugs. The pharmacists claim that the order violates Illinois law, which allows medical professionals to opt out of morally offensive acts.
The AMA says it supports a pharmacist’s right to refuse to prescribe some drugs, but wants pharmacists to make sure a patient has access to the drugs by making an “immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference,” according to the resolution. Many pharmacists say that’s the same as forcing them to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs.
I like doctors. But then, I like lawyers. As with other professions, members tend to be far more conservative than the leadership who set the policies of their particular trade associations, such as the American Bar Association and the AMA.
The AMA’s Code of Ethics grants physicians the right to decline to accept an individual as a patient. Section E-9.06 Free Choice states in part: “Although the concept of free choice assures that an individual can generally choose a physician, likewise a physician may decline to accept that individual as a patient.” There’s no mention of a duty to refer the individual to an “appropriate alternative” physician.
One would think that since the AMA protects the right of doctors to decline to accept a patient, it would respect and support the right of pharmacists to decline a customer, especially when based on matters of conscience. But the AMA’s zealous support of abortion seems to matter more than consistency.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
CWA Urges U.S. Senate: Debunk Smear of Judge Saad and Vote!
Concerned Women for America Press Release
6/30/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8454/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) urged the U.S. Senate to put a stop to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nevada) smear campaign against Judge Henry Saad and support the President’s nominee to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals by bringing the nomination to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.
Even though two U.S. presidents have nominated Judge Saad to the federal bench a total of four times, requiring the FBI to perform four separate background investigations of his record, Sen. Reid still got by with a drive-by attack on the nominee when he implied on May 12, 2005 that there is a problem in Saad’s FBI file, to which Reid is denied access. Reid said:
“Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there.”
“One can hardly imagine a greater act of political cowardice and underhandedness than making such a race-baiting attack on an Arab-American judge in a post 9-ll environment, especially when his position does not afford him the freedom to respond,” CWA’s Chief Counsel Jan LaRue said in her statement today at a press conference hosted by the Third Branch Conference. “Wouldn’t you want to respond if it had been done to you? Wouldn’t you expect those who know you and are in a position to defend you to do so? But sadly, in Judge Saad’s case, few have who should have. We are unwilling to leave a judge of superb integrity and qualifications twisting in the wind.”
“The President and virtually every Republican senator have said repeatedly, ‘Every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.’ It’s been repeated by the seven Republican members of the ‘Gang of 14’ who denied Judge Saad the no-filibuster benefit of their backroom bargain.
“It’s time for the Senate to respond to Reid’s cowardly attack on Judge Saad by bringing his nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. He deserves their full, strong support, which is long overdue,” said LaRue.
For Information Contact:
Rebecca Jones
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 16 -----
Christian 'Hate Groups' Accused of 'Anti-Gay Crusade'
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 30, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200506\CUL20050630a.html
(CNSNews.com) - A civil rights organization that has spent the last 25 years monitoring "hate groups" and "extremists" such as the Ku Klux Klan now has a new target -- the religious right -- which the group claims is conducting a "holy war" against homosexuals.
In the current issue of its quarterly magazine "Intelligence Report," the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) contends that "religious leaders have engaged in 30 years of name-calling and bogus 'science' in their attack on gays. But only now is their crusade reaching biblical proportions."
In response, the spokesman for one pro-family group said it's the SPLC that is guilty of "engaging in hate speech." Another conservative said his group wears the criticism from the SPLC as a "badge of honor."
Along with an article on "Curious Cures" for homosexuality and a feature on the myth that homosexuals helped mastermind the Holocaust, the SPLC's latest Intelligence Report contains a timeline of the "anti-gay movement" from Anita Bryant's efforts to repeal a "gay rights" ordinance in Florida in 1977 to the present.
In an editorial, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok asserted that "the religiously based crusade against homosexuals in America" reached a turning point in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision struck down state anti-sodomy laws.
Since then, the Christian right has increased fund raising and poured millions of dollars into TV, newspaper and radio ads, including during last year's successful campaign to pass constitutional amendments in 13 states to define marriage as between one man and one woman. More such measures are set to go before voters in November of 2006.
Potok in his editorial also charged that leaders of the religious right were guilty of using "bully-boy tactics" such as "cruel name-calling." The contention of many Christians, that they hate the sin but love the sinner, is "a hard one to swallow," according to Potok. "When perpetrators of hate crimes against gays use identical words to describe their victims, you have to wonder where it began," he states.
Under the heading, "A Mighty Army," the SPLC's Intelligence Report lists "a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups" that it claims "help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade." The list includes the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
"Fundamentalist Christians have every right to their views of religion," Potok states. "But when they use that right to launch vicious personal attacks on an entire group based on characteristics that most scientists see as immutable, they poison the political debate and subject the objects of their scorn to the very real possibility of violence and even death.
"And that can only damage a healthy democratic society," Potok adds.
According to its website, the Southern Poverty Law Center "was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm." Today, the Montgomery, Ala.-based organization "is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups."
'Badge of honor'
Cybercast News Service contacted representatives of several organizations on the SPLC's list, and most agreed with Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, that "the company looks pretty good to me from here.
"I would use different terminology" than the center does, he said, "but to the extent that we oppose the homosexual social and political agenda and were named by this group, we wear it as a badge of honor."
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
The Supreme Court Shortlist
The views of the likely candidates.
By Emily Bazelon and David Newman
Updated Friday, July 1, 2005, at 8:34 AM PT
http://slate.com/id/2121270/
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced Friday that she is stepping down from the Supreme Court. In anticipation of resignations—Chief Justice William Rehnquist's had been thought most likely—the Bush administration has floated several names for possible nominees. What views have the president's shortlisters expressed, on and off the bench? In order of our best guess as to the likelihood that they'll be chosen, here's a guide to the prospective nominees' records.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Radicals Lobby U.N. for ‘Sexual Freedom,’ Even for Youth
Concerned Women for America
7/1/2005
By Lindsey Douthit
They are willing to sacrifice any youthful innocence.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8459&department=CWA&categoryid=nation
Adolescent girls walking into clinics and getting contraception. Little boys encouraged to “explore their sexuality.” Abortions on demand for those barely old enough to conceive. Sound crazy? Not to certain radical groups, as was made clear at the United Nations recently.
The June 24-25 “informal interactive hearings” between the U.N. General Assembly and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civil society and the private sector, held in New York City, became a forum for various issues relevant to the liberal agenda. Radical groups such as Women’s Environment and Development Organization, International Planned Parenthood and MADRE (an “international women’s human rights organization”) used their statuses as active speakers to lobby for universal "reproductive freedom" and homosexual rights. One aspect of their demands was the right of young people to enjoy unlimited sexual freedom.
In a disturbing twist, radical groups often shifted the focus of reproductive freedom to youth. “We recommend all aspects of reproductive rights for adolescents,” declared Djeneba Diallo, representing Family Care International of Burkina Faso. Her sentiments were echoed by representatives from other groups such as Action Health Incorporated and National Youth Network for Reproductive Rights in Ecuador. They all stated the same thing: The concept of universal "reproductive rights" has no age limit.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
Sandra Day O'Connor Retires After Nearly 24 Years on Supreme Court
Family Research Council
July 1, 2005 - Friday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 1, 2005 CONTACT: Amber Hildebrand, (202) 393-2100
"I am confident that President Bush will name a replacement for Justice O'Connor who has the same judicial philosophy as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas"
~Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05G02
Washington, D.C. - Family Research Council thanks Justice O'Connor, the first woman on the United States Supreme Court, for her nearly twenty-four years of public service.
"The Family Research Council often found itself on the opposite side of her most controversial decisions," said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.
"This past week Justice O'Connor sided with judicial activists and ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments on public property in two cases before the high court that have offended the values of a great segment of the American public.
"I am confident that President Bush will name a replacement for Justice O'Connor who has the same judicial philosophy as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he indicated he would in his reelection campaign.
"The public is primed for the fight it will take to confirm a nominee. FRC can motivate significant grassroots support for the President's nominees. We will wage an unprecedented effort for a fair and prompt up or down vote through the mobilization of 20,000 churches across the nation, weekly conference calls in targeted states, the strengthening of the FRC team and activation of grassroots through www.frc.org "
----- 20 -----
Struck Down - 10 Commandments Suffer Blow
June 27, 2005 - Monday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 27, 2005
CONTACT: Amber Hildebrand, (202) 393-2100
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against 10 Commandments Displays
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05F11;
Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Supreme Court issued a devastating decision and ruled against the constitutionality of Ten Commandment displays on public property.
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council released the following statement condemning today's Supreme Court decision:
"The Ten Commandments have played a crucial role in shaping the values and legal system of the United States and of all Western Civilization as is evident in many of the buildings here in Washington. In fact, the Supreme Court building itself boasts three different displays.
"This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only denigrating to our culture but it undermines the very laws we already have in place. Forbidding the Ten Commandments opens the door to hostility toward religion, which is contrary to the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Today's court decision is contrary to the Constitutional history of this country.
"This country has a legacy of religious freedom and religious tolerance. Banning displays of the Ten Commandments suggests otherwise and that is lamentable."
The Supreme Court decision will be posted on www.frc.org by 11:00 am EDT.
----- 21 -----
** CITIZENLINK SPECIAL REPORT **
July 1, 2005
Focus on the Family
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR RESIGNS FROM U.S. SUPREME
COURT
[Received in email; no URL]
Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson,
Ph.D., issued the following statement today in response to
the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor:
"Today marks a watershed moment in American history: the
resignation of a swing-vote justice on the Supreme Court
and the opportunity to change the Court's direction. The
rulings by the Court this June, particularly the
schizophrenic decisions on the 10 Commandments cases, have
once again demonstrated the desperate need for justices
who will interpret the Constitution as it was written, not
as the latest fads of legal theorists dictate.
"President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial
philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer
about this than the President himself, who said during his
campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of
Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence
that he will carry out that pledge."
Today's CitizenLink Update will include reaction to the
resignation from other pro-family leaders, analysis of how
the vacancy may impact the balance of the court, and
insight into the judicial philosophy that would return the
court's decisions back to a more constitutional
perspective.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 08:45 pm (UTC)I think I still have your permission to cross-post, but would you prefer that I copied the post instead of directing folks back here? I don't want to clog your blog, directly or indirectly.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 11:21 pm (UTC)Whilst the investigation re *abuse* at the facility has ended (which is not entirely surprising--it is reportedly almost impossible to prove emotional abuse in Tennessee, and *MOST* states are still far behind in regards to spiritual abuse in general and stopping kids from being victims thereof) there *is* still an active investigation as to whether the operation of Love In Action is legal (specifically, it appears it may be operating under Tennessee law as an unlicensed drug/alcohol counseling facility; under a new Tennessee law, *all* facilities purporting to treat drug/alcohol addiction must be specifically licensed unless they are "12-step" programs, and *specifically* any facilities that claim to have licensed drug/alcohol counselors (as LIA does).
Also, at least one kid who was threatened with being sent to LIA was able to use this successfully in a bid for legal emancipation (the article does not indicate whether he was emancipated, but it does indicate that a settlement was reached wherein his parents *cannot* commit him to any facility that practices "de-gaying" therapy) and the "Christian counselor" who referred his parents to LIA has been permanently barred from practice in the state of Tennessee for ethics violations *directly* related to promotion of "De-gaying" therapy. (TN's ethics laws for therapists/social workers and psychiatrists are directly lifted from the main sanctioning bodies (the American Association of Social Workers and American Psychiatric Association respectively); both organisations condemn "reparative therapy" aka "de-gaying therapy" and the APA will actively remove certification of doctors promoting "reparative therapy"; the *only* group actively promoting it is NARTH, an association of dominionist doctors, "social workers", and laypersons--you do not have to have any formal training at *all* to be a NARTH member)
http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=5967 has the article on the latest action, in case you're interested.
There is also active work on determining if the parties running LIA *are* in fact properly licensed in Tennessee and, if so, on getting the licensure revoked for ethics violations.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-05 11:53 pm (UTC)