Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Sep. 17th, 2005 05:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFocus on the Family/FRC spin on Roberts's comments about a right to privacy - they say it's extremely limited and not to worry about it, saying it won't stop him from overturning Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas;
"Light of Life Rescue Mission" wants to be able to continue refusing employment based on religion - FotF supports them; I don't know whether they mean in positions involving the core religious mission (which is legal) or non-religious positions (which is not) - FotF doesn't distinguish, or, I suspect, care;
Challenges to funding of "abstinence education programs" as dishonest and/or inaccurate;
FotF article on hate-crimes bill passing house with GBLT-inclusive language; Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight accuses "homosexuals" of exploiting 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and John Roberts's confirmation hearings to get "sneak" laws passed - includes ACTION ITEM to get it taken back out;
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wants anti-abortion doctors to refer patients to doctors who will provide "appropriate care" if the patient requests - includes ACTION ITEM to oppose legislation;
Michigan anti-abortion law overturned;
Anti-marriage Constitutional amendment dies in Massachusetts legislature - fundamentalists claim victory, since the amendment didn't also ban civil unions in all forms, and they want one that does; c.f. other news items about the fight to get an anti-marriage and anti-CU amendment on the ballot;
Gov. Schwarzenegger to meet with GBLT-rights groups, who will try to talk him out of vetoing marriage in California; Focus on the Family sends out a NATIONAL action-item to tell him not to "resist the pressure tactics" and veto the bill;
Senate condemns law holding "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional;
Missouri passes tighter parental-consent laws in special session called by Governor Blunt;
Senate committee passes addition to Federal Employee nondiscrimination policy - putting sexual orientation back into the list, after Bush administration officials had been busily taking it out; CWA is outraged, talks about sneaky queers exploiting Hurricane Katrina as a distraction - includes ACTION ITEM to pull it back out;
CWA implies that Roberts wouldn't overturn laws of the kind they like - they're really, really, really enthusiastic about him, still;
CWA reports with glee about the "scientific community [having] its knickers in a twist" over the political successes of creationism;
CWA promotes planning for anti-gay "Day of Truth" to counter "pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence' campaign" at schools;
CWA has an updated item against Plan B emergency-contraception, there's a new FDA comment period ending November 1st; CWA claims makers are running ads telling college women in California to have multiple sex partners and solve their problems with Plan B - includes ACTION ITEM to tell the FDA to keep it from going OTC;
Free Congress Foundation head Paul M. Weyrich wants Federal subsidies to encourage a massive return to family farming as a measure to promote "the next conservatism"; I'm pro-family farms and against the current subsidies the corporation farms get - tho' it's interesting to see more and more conservative steering of tax dollars (and larger government) around;
CWA press release against GBLT-folk being included in the hate-crimes law;
Agape Press talks about the California marriage law planned veto, and repeats Robert Knight's claim that queers exploit distractions created by national disasters to pass laws;
CWA links to Boston Globe column about the attempts to block Plan B; not sure why, they don't usually link to opposition;
Traditional Values Organisation article on John Roberts confirmation hearings, mostly a screed against the Usual Suspects for imposing "liberal litmus tests" like "the separation of church and state," "privacy rights," "promotion of the homosexual agenda," and a very interesting comment about how the 14th Amendment shouldn't let the Federal government interfere in state affairs;
Baylor University (Texas) orders campus Starbucks to remove cups containing Armistead Maupin quote on the basis that it "promotes homosexuality";
Presumably-fundamentalist Christians in San Diego rallied to pray and fast against Pagan Pride Day event; flyer describes neopagan practices as "vile... extreme witchcraft, curses, demonic rituals, sacrificial altars and occultism";
Family Research Council rallies against marriage rights in Florida; includes ACTION ITEM to collect signatures for anti-marriage state constitutional amendment;
Family Research Council claims adding sexual orientation to existing hate-crimes law (as per the previously-described amendment) is "bigotry," claims that crimes committed against "homosexuals" would result in special punishment. THIS IS A LIE: 1) it's sexual orientation, so if somebody kills a straight person on the basis of their sexual orientation, it's still a hate crime, and 2) it's already there for race, religion, etc; the list has just been made larger.
----- 1 -----
Q&A: 'Roberts Owns These Hearings'
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
September 14, 2005
SUMMARY: One pro-family expert predicts the Supreme Court
nominee will be confirmed.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037925.cfm
John Roberts' bid to become Chief Justice of the United
States entered its third day. Just how is he doing?
CitizenLink put the question to Pat Trueman, senior legal
counsel for the Family Research Council, who is attending
the hearings.
[...]
Q. What about the answers he has given on issues close to
our heart, such as abortion and the right to privacy?
A. On abortion, they've tried six ways from Sunday to get
him to tip his hand. You'd think this was a confirmation
hearing for the next executive director of NARAL. But this
is what primarily concerns Democrats on the Judiciary
Committee.
But John Roberts won't give an inch. And his
characterization of the right to privacy, on which the Roe
v. Wade abortion decision hangs, is very limited. What
Roberts said about the right to privacy is that he will
recognize a marital right to privacy. Well, we know that
what the Supreme Court has recognized in abortion is not a
marital right, but a right between a woman and her
physician. John Roberts is limiting that right in his
characterization of the right to privacy before the
committee.
Those who supported the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy
-- where the court said there is a right to privacy
between two homosexuals to engage in sodomy have to wonder
-- John Roberts is describing the right to privacy as
something that certainly would not encompass the "right"
to sodomy.
So I think people should be heartened by the limited
characterization Roberts is giving to this right to
privacy -- this right the Supreme Court uses to strike
down moral laws like laws against sodomy, or abortion.
Q. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Tuesday made allusions
to Roberts' religious beliefs. She asked him if he would
follow President Kennedy's famous dictum of essentially
pledging not to allow the Catholic Church to make his
decisions as a public servant. What do you make of her
comment?
A. I think Sen. Feinstein is wrong to question John
Roberts on his Catholicism -- and ask if he could separate
his religion from his duties on the court. That is not a
question that Feinstein -- or anyone else in my memory --
has asked a Jewish or Protestant nominee to come before
that Judiciary Committee. It is something that has been
asked of Catholics. It intimates a religious test for
service -- and that's wrong.
No one in America should be prohibited from public service
because of their religion. Dianne Feinstein was skating on
the thin ice of religious discrimination by inquiring as
she did.
The second point that Sen. Feinstein tried to make is that
there is an absolute separation of church and state in the
United States -- and she tried to get John Roberts to
agree to that. Of course, that's one of the most
controversial issues of the day. And no one -- except the
ACLU and a limited number of radical groups in this
country -- believes there is an absolute separation of
church and state.
[more at URL]
----- 2 -----
EEOC Considers Forcing Christian Group to Hire Non-Christians
Focus on the Family
from staff reports
September 14, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037923.cfm
SUMMARY: Experts say religious groups have a right to hire
people who agree with them.
A complaint against the Light of Life Rescue Mission in
Pittsburgh, Pa., has led to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission proposing that the mission stop
hiring only Christians.
Steve Burger, executive director of the Association of
Gospel Rescue Missions, said religious organizations have
a right to hire employees who agree with their religious
beliefs. But he added if a suit is filed in the Pittsburgh
case, it would create many problems.
"Personally, I am concerned whenever an organization
that's been founded to preach the Gospel is put in a
position that they can't do what God has called them to
do," he told Family News in Focus.
[...]
Burger said forcing Christian rescue missions to hire
non-Christians would make them just another social service
agency.
[A little more at URL]
----- 3 -----
Abstinence Funding Challenged
Focus on the Family
September 14, 2005
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
Two groups that promote sex education are now looking to a
little-known law to de-fund abstinence education, Kaiser
network reported.
They filed a petition under the Information Quality Act.
The act allows "affected persons" to ask the federal
government -- in this case the Department of Health and
Human Services -- to correct information it is responsible
for disseminating if it is found to be "erroneous and
ineffective."
Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the United States promote
contraception education as the best way to prevent
pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, claimed
the government is putting money into programs that have no
proven impact.
"We'll use this and any other tool at our disposal to
ensure that youth receive honest and accurate sex
education," he said.
Leslie Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse,
called the challenge "baseless."
"Abstinence education programs are among the most heavily
referenced and thoroughly monitored in the United States
educational system," she said. "These false allegations
show promiscuity promoters are up against the ropes. They
have to hide the truth of their own programs by attacking
healthy, responsible abstinence education."
According to Unruh, comprehensive sex-ed groups are the
ones generating dangerous and misleading information.
"The contraceptive sex educators had a 30-year,
multi-billion-dollar monopoly in schools that led teens
into disease, dysfunction and dissatisfaction," she said.
"It is the increase in abstinence that has led to the
record low teen birth and pregnancy rates."
----- 4 -----
Hate Crimes Language Passes the House
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037939.cfm
SUMMARY: Pro-gay amendment was attached to a bill
concerning sex offenders who commit crimes against
children.
Pro-family organizations are crying fowl over the House
passing language that would -- in an attempt to codify
specify rights for homosexuals -- punish a criminal for
perceived motivation.
The amendment, brought by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., was
tacked onto the important and needed Children's Safety
Act.
The language stipulates that crimes "motivated by
prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability of the victim" shall be punished by
up to life in prison. It also authorizes $10 million to
prosecute such crimes.
30 Republicans joined 192 Democrats in passing the
amendment.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute,
said gay activists and their supporters in Congress took
advantage of the national distraction of Hurricane Katrina
and the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
"This was a total surprise -- a sneak attack," he said.
"We got 40 minutes notice that the vote was going to take
place, which is hardly time to do anything that matters.
And minutes after they passed that amendment, they passed
the whole Children's Safety Act.
"The overall bill, tightens the law against sexual
offenders. It's geared to protect kids. It's ironic that a
bill that would promote the homosexual agenda is tucked
into such a bill."
Knight said gay activists -- and their legislative friends
-- have been sneaky before.
"In California, they passed a domestic partners bill the
day after 9/11," Knight said. "They also passed the
gay-marriage bill right after Hurricane Katrina. They do
this all the time."
The bill now goes to the Senate.
TAKE ACTION: Please contact your senators and ask them to
oppose so-called hate crimes legislation. For help in
contacting your lawmakers, please see the CitizenLink
Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
If you’d like to see how your representative voted in the
House:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/issues/votes/?votenum=469&chamber=H&congress=1091
----- 5 -----
Doctors Group Seeks to Take Away Doctors' Right of Conscience
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037934.cfm
SUMMARY: Letter to senators argues that pro-life doctors
should refer patients to abortionists.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG) is hoping to gut the 2004 Hyde-Weldon amendment
that provides conscience protections to pro-life doctors.
"Doctors who morally object to abortion should be required
to refer patients to other physicians who will provide
appropriate care," the group said in a letter it sent to
every senator.
[...]
TAKE ACTION: Contact your senators and ask them to uphold
the 2004 Hyde-Weldon amendment that protects pro-life
doctors' right of conscience. You can find contact
information in our Action Center:
Long URL - click to use
----- 6 -----
Pro-Life Law Struck Down in the Wolverine State
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
[Received in email; No URL]
A U.S. District Court judge declared a Michigan law that
would have banned partial-birth abortion unconstitutional,
The Associated Press reported.
Supporters of the law said it was a much-needed ban on the
gruesome practice, while opponents predictably said it
would ban almost all abortion.
In her ruling, Judge Denise Page Hood said the law was
confusing and vague because it "does not describe any
specific procedure to be banned. The act also does not
distinguish between induced abortion and pregnancy loss."
Hood was also at odds with the law's health exception and
said it was meaningless because it required doctors to
balance the interest of the woman and the pre-born baby.
The law in question, The Legal Birth Definition Act,
passed the Michigan Legislature in June, 2004, then was
vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Supporters of the law
pressed on and signed petitions that allowed the bill to
become law without the approval of the governor.
Because the law was then challenged by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan, the Center for Reproductive
Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the
law was put on hold until Hood made a decision in the
case.
Wendy Wagenheim, spokeswomen for the ACLU of Michigan,
said the law -- if left to stand -- would have banned even
first-trimester abortions.
"The courts have affirmed that an abortion is a decision
that should be made by a woman in consultation with her
physician and not by politicians," Wagenheim said. "This
is a victory for all Michigan families."
Dave Maluchnik, spokesman for the Michigan Catholic
Conference, said his group is urging Michigan's Attorney
General Mike Cox to appeal the ruling.
"The fight to end heinous partial-birth abortion will
continue," he said.
----- 7 -----
Only State with Gay Marriage Won't Change Yet
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
[Received in email; No URL]
The Massachusetts Legislature Wednesday rejected a
proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
but for many, the fight to preserve traditional marriage
is far from over in the Bay State, The Associated Press
reported.
With both sides declaring victory, it was no surprise the
measure failed. The amendment would have banned gay
marriage but allowed civil unions similar to those allowed
in the state of Vermont -- something opponents of gay
marriage were against.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family
Institute, said this gives supporters of traditional
marriage a chance to push for stronger language in an
amendment.
"We're excited," he said. "This is exactly what we
wanted."
Democratic Rep. Phil Travis said living in the only state
that allows a same-sex union to be called a "marriage"
isn't a good thing.
"The union of two women and two men can never consummate a
marriage," he said. "The other 49 states are right and we
are wrong."
Because the Legislature must approve such a proposal in
two consecutive sessions before it could move to the
state-wide ballot, the next opportunity Massachusetts
voters will have for a ballot measure would be 2008.
----- 8 -----
Schwarzenegger to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage with Gay Groups
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
[Received in email; No URL]
Leaders of the homosexual community will meet with
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss his
intent to veto legislation that would allow same-sex
marriage, 365Gay.com reported.
After the governor vowed to veto, his staff contacted
Equality California (EQCA) to request the meeting.
Eddie Gutierrez, spokesperson for EQCA, said its pressure
tactics are having an effect.
"The wisdom of our message is working," he said, "and our
'12 Days of Equality' project to educate the governor
about our families is certainly on the right path toward
full equality."
Two proposed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex
marriage are on the meeting agenda, as well.
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please respectfully
encourage Gov. Schwarzenegger to resist the pressure
tactics employed by lesbian and gay activists. Ask him to
stay the course and veto the gay-marriage bill.
To contact Schwarzenegger, use the CitizenLink Action
Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=141270&type=GV&state=CA/
You can also learn more about the issue by reading the
CitizenLink article "Urge Schwarzenegger to Veto
Gay-Marriage Bill," published Sept. 9.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0037876.cfm
----- 9 -----
Attorney General and the Senate Condemn Pledge Ruling
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
Focus on the Family
September 16, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037953.cfm
SUMMARY: Leaders vow to defend the phrase "under God."
Following a federal district court decision that once
again declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional
in public schools, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowed
on Thursday to fight to overturn the ruling and the U.S.
Senate passed a resolution condemning the decision, The
Associated Press reported.
Three Sacramento area families, represented by atheist
Michael Newdow filed the suit challenging the
constitutionality of the Pledge.
Judge Lawrence Karlton declared "one nation, under God" a
violation of the students' right to be "free from a
coercive requirement to affirm God."
Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., sponsored the Senate resolution.
"The Senate today is expressing its resolve that the
Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional," Talent said.
"It's unfortunate that the Senate is once again compelled
to defend the Pledge of Allegiance because of the actions
of a federal court.
"For more than 50 years, the Pledge has been an
affirmation that our country was established as a union,
'under God.' No person should ever be forced to say 'under
God' when reciting the Pledge, but the Senate believes the
Pledge of Allegiance is a fully constitutional expression
of patriotism."
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Show-Me State Passes Stricter Parental Consent
Focus on the Family
September 16, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
During a special session called by Republican Gov. Matt
Blunt, the Missouri State House voted Wednesday to approve
a bill to tighten parental consent laws, The Associated
Press reported.
The state Senate had already passed it last week. The
governor signed it on Thursday.
The law requires any teen seeking abortion services to be
accompanied by a parent and it will allow parents to sue
anyone who helps a child younger than 18 to get an
abortion without their consent.
Paula Gianino, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of
the St. Louis Region, immediately filed suit along with
other pro-abortion groups to stop the law from going into
effect.
"We are concerned about the health and safety of teens and
for all women in Missouri," Gianino said. "Planned
Parenthood plans to do everything we can through the
courts to challenge this law."
Blunt said the bill is "a good pro-life piece of
legislation that will reduce the number of abortions in
our state, cultivating a culture that values human life
and the rights of the unborn."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus
on the Family Action, said she's pleased that Missouri's
new law ensures that parents can sue anyone who might take
their daughter out of state for an abortion in order to
bypass parental notification.
"Abortion is a surgical procedure that can cause physical
and psychological problems," she said. "Parents have a
right and responsibility to know if their teenage daughter
is pregnant and considering an abortion."
----- 11 -----
House Panel Adds ‘Sexual Orientation’ to Federal Workplace Policy
9/16/2005
Concerned Women for America
By Robert Knight
GOP-Chaired Committee Hands Homosexual Activists Second Victory in Two Days.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8981/CFI/nation/index.htm
A day after the full U.S. House of Representatives surprised observers by voting for a “hate crimes” amendment to a child safety bill, the House Committee on Government Reform passed a bill on Thursday creating a new civil rights category for federal employees based on “sexual orientation.”
The bill’s introduction states: “To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary.”
The committee, chaired by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia), approved the measure on a unanimous voice vote, according to the homosexual pressure group Human Rights Campaign. A call to the committee today by Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Culture & Family Institute confirmed the measure’s passage.
The bill, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act (HR 3128), sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-California) and Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut), is designed to put into the law Bill Clinton’s executive order, crafted by homosexual activist attorney Elaine Kaplan, who headed the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The bill was introduced on June 30, 2005, by Waxman and Shays, along with Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland); Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts); Mark Foley (R-Florida); Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Eliot Engel (D-New York); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-District of Columbia).
Late last year, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch wisely and courageously declined to treat “sexual orientation” as a preferred category in federal civil rights policy, saying that homosexual employees had the same rights as anyone else, and that Congress never authorized a special protection based on “sexual orientation.”
After failing to have Bloch publicly flogged by the White House, which mildly rebuked him but let the policy stand, the activists went for the legislative fix. For details, see the CWA report.
Apparently, homosexual activists and their allies are doing a full-court press in Congress while Hill watchers are distracted by the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Judge John Roberts and the unfolding aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
[...]
Anyone with access to GOP leaders or Democratic leaders needs to make his or her voice heard now. From its Web site, Here is the membership of the committee:
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Ten Commandments Ruling and Roberts
Concerned Women for America
9/16/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8968/CWA/nation/index.htm
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. This case was the second attempt by atheist Michael Newdow to ban the recitation of the Pledge in public schools. As Chief Counsel Jan LaRue notes, this ruling comes at a pivotal time. Click here to listen.
[Jan LaRue, Chief Council, CWA: "Michael Newdow is like trying to get rid of the mold in the house, he's forever there... he went out shopping for parents who had standing... parents willing to become his clients, and a US District COurt Judge... said he was absolutely bound by the 9th circuit... for the pledge of allegiance in public schools... to be declared unconstitutional." "It will be reversed." "It certainly should be the last wake-up call to Americans who think the confirmation of a Federal judge doesn't affect their lives." "[John Roberts] understands our Constitution, he understands the first amendment, and would never concur to such a wacky interpretation of the establishment clause." "We certainly need John Roberts confirmed, he will be, the question is by how big a majority." "We have all kinds of reasonable bases in which to be confident that John Roberts will be the kind of Chief Justice all of us want. For example, when he was questioned on what is the role of a judge... 'Our job is a different one... whether a particular piece of legislation is constitutional. And we have to limit ourselves... to applying the law. And not in any way substituting ourselves for the policy choices you [senators] have made.'" "John Roberts gets it, and he should get an 'aye' vote from all the members of the Senate."]
Click here to see Judge Roberts talk about the role of a judge, as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[Not transcribed]
----- 13 -----
The Intelligent Design Debate
9/15/2005
Concerned Women for America
By Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
Dr. Janice Crouse on the policy, political and cultural implications.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8963/BLI/education/index.htm
Editor’s Note: Dr. Crouse presented this paper at the America’s Future Foundation Roundtable, “What’s the Future With Intelligent Design,” on September 14 in Washington, D.C.
Introduction
It’s too bad the “perfect storm” analogy has worn so thin because it would describe so well the factors that have merged in American society to propel Intelligent Design forward as one of today’s hottest topics.
How hot is it?
* Time magazine had a cover story just last month.
* More than 400 scientists have signed a statement –– “Dissent from Darwin.”
* A Zogby poll reveals that 71 percent of the public favors allowing teachers to acknowledge the scientific controversy over the origins of life.
At the same time, the scientific community really has its knickers in a twist.
Just how upset are they?
For years, they have argued among themselves. The scientific journals are full of problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory. But major scholars aren’t willing to break ranks to go public with their questions or doubts.
After all, the Darwinists are the 800-pound gorillas in academia (pun intended).
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Day of Truth Comes to Public Schools
9/15/2005
September 15, 2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8962/CWA/family/index.htm
Students now have a creative way to counter the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” campaign held every year in public schools. Last April, the Alliance Defense Fund launched the Day of Truth campaign as a way for students to promote a counter message. Plans are now underway for this school year. Martha Kleder recently spoke with Bob Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute and Joe Infranco, Senior Attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. Click here to listen.
[Joe Infranco: "A Day of Silence... they inflate their figures, frankly... they say up to 400,000 students are involved in various schools... 'I'm being silent to protest discrimination against homosexuality.'" "Even though you would consider it something disruptive to the school functioning..." The fundy response is Day of Truth, which hands out cards and has students wear T-shirts. "We cannot remain silent while you are engaging in self-destructive behaviour." Robert: "The Gay, Lesbian, and straight education network has been at this for year... they're really promoting homosexuality of homosexuality... the underlying message is that if you don't, you're full of hate... the issue isn't one of tolerance..." Joe: "We were really heartened by it... we had about 1,200 students who registered on the web site, more participated but we only counted the ones who registered and ordered T-shirts... there was enormous interest... we had responses around the country afterward, we want to be a part of this next year... 'where has this been?'" "People are just upset... there is no opportunity to speak and counter this homosexual activist agenda... this is a good, loving, measured way to respond."
Talks about the Alliance Defense Fund's promotion of "merry christmas" last year.
Bob: "If you think your school's safe, because you're in the South or the Midwest... this isn't coming from the kids. GLSTN has a more than $5M budget... with one of them on it all year long.
Joe: "When tolerance heads at the top of the description, head for the exit as soon as you can, because you know it's coming..." Claims schools are too supportive of Day of Silence. Robert Knight attacks "no-name-calling" Day as "the quest to sell homosexuality to kids." Joe claims schools "try to give kids a hard time" on the "Day of Truth" action, by contrast.
Gives out contact info - telladf.org - or call 800.tell-adf. Asks churches and other organisations to download their how-to packets on how to put together a local version, includes talking points, T-shirts, cards. Joe describes their package as,"How to do [Day of Truth] from A-Z. It's a turn-key kit."]
----- 15 -----
FDA Seeks Your Input on Morning-After Pill
Concerned Women for America
9/14/2005
By Wendy Wright
Abortion groups press to make controversial drug available without prescription.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8951/CWA/life/index.htm
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced it needs guidance on whether the controversial morning-after pill should be available without a prescription but with age restrictions. Since the FDA has never approved over-the-counter status for a drug based on the buyer’s age, it has asked for advice on whether the agency has the authority to do it, and if an age restriction could be enforced.
Citizens have until November 1, 2005, to submit comments.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has raised numerous objections to this scheme, including that easy access would create a health hazard to women and the public. It appears that some within the FDA are listening. Pro-abortion groups and politicians have conducted a full-on political and media campaign to demand that the FDA make Plan B, a morning-after pill, available without a prescription.
In an effort that could be seen as an attempt to increase its sales, the drug’s original owner, Women’s Capital Corporation, hired a public relations firm that placed disturbing ads in college newspapers. The ads advocated that young women have multiple sex partners, and then pop Plan B pills in the morning to reduce the fear of pregnancy.
[...]
The FDA has asked for comment on three issues:
Should the FDA create and define a regulation to allow for a drug to be available both with a prescription and without?
Does the FDA have the authority or ability to enforce restricting a drug from a subpopulation when it would be available to the larger population?
Can a drug that is approved both with a prescription for some and without a prescription for others have the same packaging, or would it require different warning labels and instructions?
The FDA has provided a unique opportunity that will affect families throughout America.
You can help ensure that the FDA does not rely solely on the unsubstantiated assurance by abortion advocacy groups (which would lose customers if it were true) that easy access to the morning-after pill would reduce pregnancies. Nor should it rely upon a drug company that will make huge profits if the drug is easy to buy, even if its promises prove to be untrue. Parents can step in to ensure that a government agency does not make a drug available to any adult, including molesters seeking to cover their crimes against girls.
Take Action:
Here is how to send comments to the FDA. Note: All submissions must include the agency name (Food and Drug Administration) and either the Docket Number 2005N-0345 or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0910-AF72.
Submit written comments in the following ways:
Fax: 301-827-6870.
Mail/hand delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):
Division of Dockets Management
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, Maryland 20852
E-mail: To ensure more timely processing of comments, the FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by random e-mails. However, electronic comments can be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov or the agency Web site http://www.fda.gov/comments.html. (Keyword: 2005N-0345)
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm. Insert the docket number into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to:
Division of Dockets Management
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville MD 20852.
For further information, contact the FDA at 301-827-0002 or by e-mail at pcomments@fda.gov. This phone number and this e-mail account have been set up to address questions relating to this notice.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
The Next Conservatism: Country Life
A Series by Paul M. Weyrich
9/12/2005
By Paul M. Weyrich
Free Congress Foundation
There are good reasons why the next conservatism should think about rural life.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8913/CWA/misc/index.htm
Editor's Note: This article is part of a series on "The Next Conservatism" by Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Mr. Weyrich is a major influence in the modern conservative movement and a personal friend of Concerned Women for America's (CWA) founder and chairman, Beverly LaHaye. In this series Mr. Weyrich seeks to spark a discussion among conservatives about the future of the movement and how we may best achieve lasting results. The opinions expressed in this important series are not necessarily those of Concerned Women for America. We offer it for your candid reflection.
In my next two columns, I intend to write about two places the next conservatism needs to consider: the countryside and cities. Perhaps because most conservatives, including myself, live in suburbs, we don't think about rural life or cities very often. But there are good reasons why the next conservatism should think about both.
Earlier generations of conservatives were agrarians. They thought that life on a family farm was a good life for many people. It built strong families and communities, communities where faith and morals could flourish. I believe that is still true, and I therefore think that bringing back the family farm as a viable way of life should be an important part of the next conservatism.
Some people may object that such a program is simply not possible. The family farm cannot be made economically viable in today's world. I am not certain on that point. I do know that most of the billions we spend each year for agricultural subsidies go to support big agribusiness, not family farms. What if we changed that? What if instead of subsidizing factory farming, we provided financial support for people who were trying to start new family farms? Such support should not go on forever, but if it were in the form of a revolving fund, it could help them get started.
...
The next conservatism should look toward a world where, as Tolkien put it, there is less noise and more green. Our goal should be to make agrarian life, in all its dimensions, available to as many Americans as possible, both those who work family farms for their living and those who earn their incomes in other ways but want a tie to the countryside. In this respect, the next conservatism should be like an older conservatism we seem to have forgotten. Conservatives should become agrarians again.
----- 17 -----
CWALAC: Senate Must Prevent Special Treatment and Reject ‘Hate Crimes’ Amendment
Concerned Women for America
9/15/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8966/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Washington, D.C.—Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) is urging the Senate to reject any “hate crimes” language in its version of the Children’s Safety Act. On Wednesday, the House passed an amendment to the Act sponsored by Michigan Democrat John Conyers that adds “sexual orientation” to federal “hate crimes” law. Then the House passed the full bill. Thirty Republicans joined 192 Democrats and one Independent in voting for the “hate crimes” amendment.
“The GOP-controlled House seems more interested in rewarding the homosexual lobby and following a left-wing liberal Democrat like John Conyers than in making sure dangerous laws like the ‘hate crimes’ amendment are defeated,” said Robert Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. “It’s up to the Senate to safeguard our liberties by rejecting this attempt to give homosexuals more protection under the law than other crime victims. The ‘hate crimes’ law, promoted for years by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), is a major strategic goal of the homosexual activist movement.
“A similar state law in Pennsylvania led directly to the arrests of 11 Christians in Philadelphia in a public park last year and the felony prosecution of five of those Christians. Proponents claim that these laws are about protecting people, but they are really about creating a false new ‘civil rights’ category based on sex behavior, putting into place a system to suppress speech critical of homosexuality, and giving homosexuals more protection under the law than grandma gets.”
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 18 -----
Calif. Governor Plans to Veto Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill; Traditionalists Pleased
By Jody Brown
September 9, 2005
AgapePress
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/92005c.asp
(AgapePress) - Family advocates are praising the governor of California for his intention to veto a piece of legislation that, if signed, would legal same-sex "marriage" in that state. AB 849 is on its way to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk after being passed by both houses of the California Legislature.
Since the first of September, the Democrat-controlled California Senate and Assembly has voted to change the wording in the state's marriage laws to describe it as a union of "two persons" rather than "a man and a woman." The measure, however, is in direct conflict of the state constitution, which states that legislators cannot overturn a voter-approved initiative. In March 2000, 61.4 percent of California's voters approved Proposition 22, which stated that in California only the union of a man and a woman would be recognized as marriage.
It is for that reason that Governor Schwarzenegger has indicated he will veto the bill. His press secretary stated on Wednesday night "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849."
Randy Thomasson, president of the Sacramento-based Campaign for Children and Families, reacted to the governor's announcement. "We thank the governor for understanding the constitutional restrictions on the Legislature, and [for] announcing he will respect the peoples' vote to protect marriage licenses for a man and a woman," he stated in a press release.
Schwarzenegger's quick decision, says Thomasson, has spared both the governor and the people of his state "much grief." But the CCF leader says the battle is not over.
"This terrible debacle of destroying the definition of marriage will repeat itself unless the people rise up and support the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign to fully protect marriage in the State Constitution -- above the reach of the politicians and judges," he says.
One family advocate on the other side of the country is applauding Schwarzenegger for his intention to veto the measure. "[The governor] has done the right thing in promising to veto this illegal bill," says Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. "It's evidence that [Concerned Women of America] of California and other pro-family groups got their message through to him." That message? "We don't want counterfeit marriage," says Knight.
As for the timing of the legislation, the CFI director says it suggests to him that the California Legislature seems to follow a national disaster by creating its own social disaster. He recalls what happened on September 12, 2001.
"The ... day after New York [City] was devastated by the [terrorist] attack, they passed a sweeping domestic partners law, thus attacking marriage," he explains. "Here they now pass a law sweeping away marriage completely, saying it doesn't even need a man and a woman anymore, while the nation is reeling from the unfolding tragedy in the Gulf States with Hurricane Katrina."
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
ELLEN GOODMAN
Saving Plan B from the zealots
By Ellen Goodman | September 16, 2005
The Boston Globe
Long URL, click here
NOW THAT we have waved ''Bye, Bye, Brownie" to Michael Brown, the hapless head of FEMA, could we turn our sights back to another agency on the skids: the Food and Drug Administration?
If FEMA is an example of a government run on cronyism, the FDA has become a portrait of a government run on ideology. After its blunders over Vioxx and defective heart devices, it has now deliberately tanked the homeland emergency contraceptives.
Days before Katrina hit New Orleans and flooded the news, FDA chief Lester Crawford announced that he was indefinitely postponing the sale of Plan B over the counter. As Susan Wood, the respected head of the FDA's Office of Women's Health, said when she resigned in protest, ''This time delay is denial."
I will spare you the long, convoluted history of the morning-after pill and the FDA. Plan B was planted firmly in the common ground in the culture wars. Pregnancy prevention is, after all, abortion prevention. It's something we agree on.
Putting Plan B on the drugstore shelf would mean that women who had unprotected sex or contraceptive failures could easily and quickly prevent pregnancy.
But under pressure from the prolife fringe that insists against all evidence that emergency contraception is abortion in disguise, the FDA caved. Executing a fandango that Karl Rove would admire, the FDA first boxed the manufacturer into seeking permission for over-the-counter sales only to those 17 or over. Then it rejected the adults-only plan on the grounds that the pills could still fall into the hands of younger teens.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Liberal Senators Push Roberts To Commit To Leftist Cultural Agenda
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2429
September 15, 2005 – Senators Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Joseph Biden, and others have pushed Judge Roberts during his hearings to express support for a number of liberal litmus tests for confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States.
Those liberal litmus tests include support for abortion on demand; the separation of church and state; affirmative action; the power of the federal government to intervene in state issues by using the 14th Amendment; and other liberal social agendas often disguised as concern for “privacy rights” (this includes promotion of the homosexual agenda).
Senators Kennedy and Biden were the most rude to Judge Roberts, who routinely responded with kindness and with a thorough knowledge of the law.
Kennedy criticized Roberts for memos he’d written 24 years ago about expanding the Voting Rights Act of 1965. According to Kennedy, “I’m deeply troubled by a narrow and cramped and perhaps even mean-spirited view of the law that appears in some of your writings.”
In several exchanges between Kennedy and Roberts, the Senator interrupted him before he could answer and was chastised by Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee. In one exchange, Kennedy claimed that Roberts opposed the Civil Rights Restoration Act and claimed that if Roberts had had his way, it would be legal to discriminate against women in athletics and the hiring of female teachers.
Roberts rebutted him immediately: “Senator, you did not accurately represent my position.”
Sen. Biden was also rude and interrupted Roberts on several occasions. In his questioning, Biden stated: “His answers are misleading.” Roberts answered: “With respect, they are my answers. And, with respect, they’re not misleading, they’re accurate.”
[...]
Schumer did compliment Roberts at the end of his questioning: “As I said, some of the things you’ve said I found pleasantly surprising today.”
Sen. Feinstein attempted to get Roberts to express unqualified support for abortion on demand and questioned his commitment to “women’s rights.” In response, Roberts stated: “I was very pleased when I saw, for example, the report of the National Association of Women Lawyers, who went out and talked and interviewed with women lawyers who have worked with he, who have appeared before me. And the conclusion was that I not only always treated women lawyers with respect and equal dignity, but that I had made special accommodations for life/work issues to ensure that women could continue to progress, for example, at my law firm, and had always treated women who appeared before me in a perfectly professional way.”
Feinstein also brought up the issue of the separation of church and state and asked Roberts if he believed in an “absolute” separation. Roberts replied, “Well, I don’t know what you mean by absolute separation of church and state.” He noted that the Supreme Court recently upheld the public display of the Ten Commandments in Texas but rejected a public display in Kentucky. “Is it correct to cell the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds with the Ten Commandments, is that that an absolute separation or is that an accommodation of a particular monument along with others that five of the justices found was consistent with the First Amendment? So, I don’t know what that means when you say absolute separation. I do know this: that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source.”
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Starbucks cup promotes homosexuality?
Baylor University orders removal from campus store
Posted: September 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
(C) 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46371
Officials at Baylor University told the Starbucks store on its Waco, Texas, campus to remove a cup said to promote homosexuality.
The offending cup, part of a series with quotes from various American thinkers called "The Way I See It," features the words of homosexual novelist Armistead Maupin.
It reads:
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Christians pray to counter 'Pagan Pride Day'
San Diego's famous Balboa Park hosting event today
Posted: September 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
(C) 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46372
Christians in San Diego are being summoned for "emergency" prayer and fasting to counter the "Pagan Pride" event scheduled for today in the seaside city.
The third annual event, titled San Diego for Pagan Pride 2005, aims to "foster pride in pagan identity through education, activism, charity and community."
But San Diegan James Hartline distributed an e-mail warning Christians that the "activities of Pagan Pride are so vile, that this notice could not reveal everything in one writing that they do. Extreme witchcraft, curses, demonic rituals, sacrificial altars and occultism are just some of the highlighted events occurring at Pagan Pride."
Hartline notes Pagan Pride will take place in the city's famous Balboa Park, which attracts thousands of tourists to its features, including the San Diego Zoo.
"Hundreds of pagans, witches, warlocks, wiccans, psychics and black magic practitioners are all marching on the park for their demonic festival," he said.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Florida's Opportunity to Protect Marriage is Now!
September 16, 2005 - Friday
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05I09
Marriage is under attack in the state of Florida. Homosexual activists and liberal judges are trying to overturn the laws of Florida which protect marriage. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is intended to define marriage between a man and a woman in the Florida constitution. Fewer than one million petitions are needed by the end of 2005 to get this amendment on the ballot in 2006.
Your help is needed now! You can do several things to support this effort to protect marriage in Florida:
--Print out and sign the official petition if you have not done so already, and mail it in with an original signature. Go to www.Florida4Marriage.org to download the petition.
--Double your effectiveness and forward this email, or the petition, to a friend or family member and ask them to do the same.
--Let your pastor know about Marriage Protection Sunday, taking place on September 25, 2005. This will kick-off of several weeks of petition gathering at churches throughout Florida. Please bring this to the attention of your pastor and offer to help with the effort in your church. All the information is available at: www.Florida4Marriage.org. In the "Resources for Pastors" section you will find the Marriage Protection Sunday Action Kit.
So take a moment right now to help protect marriage in Florida by visiting: www.Florida4Marriage.org to access the information on how you can help this important effort.
----- 24 -----
Stop Making Bigotry Law
September 15, 2005 - Thursday
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05I08
A bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ believing they, as a group, deserve special treatment above and beyond everyone else. If you ask most Members of the House of Representatives what they thought of bigotry they would rightfully condemn the act, which makes it inexplicable that 223 Members of Congress would vote last night to make a new tier of hate crimes - one for homosexuals, with harsher penalties, and another for everyone else.
The measure was attached as an amendment to the "Children's Safety Act." Somehow the sponsor of the Amendment missed the irony of attaching an amendment giving special rights to homosexuals to a bill designed to protect children. Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions and creating special categories of victims are contrary to our entire system of laws. Furthermore, granting special protections based on one's 'sexual orientation' has repeatedly been rejected by Congress.
"Light of Life Rescue Mission" wants to be able to continue refusing employment based on religion - FotF supports them; I don't know whether they mean in positions involving the core religious mission (which is legal) or non-religious positions (which is not) - FotF doesn't distinguish, or, I suspect, care;
Challenges to funding of "abstinence education programs" as dishonest and/or inaccurate;
FotF article on hate-crimes bill passing house with GBLT-inclusive language; Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight accuses "homosexuals" of exploiting 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and John Roberts's confirmation hearings to get "sneak" laws passed - includes ACTION ITEM to get it taken back out;
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wants anti-abortion doctors to refer patients to doctors who will provide "appropriate care" if the patient requests - includes ACTION ITEM to oppose legislation;
Michigan anti-abortion law overturned;
Anti-marriage Constitutional amendment dies in Massachusetts legislature - fundamentalists claim victory, since the amendment didn't also ban civil unions in all forms, and they want one that does; c.f. other news items about the fight to get an anti-marriage and anti-CU amendment on the ballot;
Gov. Schwarzenegger to meet with GBLT-rights groups, who will try to talk him out of vetoing marriage in California; Focus on the Family sends out a NATIONAL action-item to tell him not to "resist the pressure tactics" and veto the bill;
Senate condemns law holding "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional;
Missouri passes tighter parental-consent laws in special session called by Governor Blunt;
Senate committee passes addition to Federal Employee nondiscrimination policy - putting sexual orientation back into the list, after Bush administration officials had been busily taking it out; CWA is outraged, talks about sneaky queers exploiting Hurricane Katrina as a distraction - includes ACTION ITEM to pull it back out;
CWA implies that Roberts wouldn't overturn laws of the kind they like - they're really, really, really enthusiastic about him, still;
CWA reports with glee about the "scientific community [having] its knickers in a twist" over the political successes of creationism;
CWA promotes planning for anti-gay "Day of Truth" to counter "pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence' campaign" at schools;
CWA has an updated item against Plan B emergency-contraception, there's a new FDA comment period ending November 1st; CWA claims makers are running ads telling college women in California to have multiple sex partners and solve their problems with Plan B - includes ACTION ITEM to tell the FDA to keep it from going OTC;
Free Congress Foundation head Paul M. Weyrich wants Federal subsidies to encourage a massive return to family farming as a measure to promote "the next conservatism"; I'm pro-family farms and against the current subsidies the corporation farms get - tho' it's interesting to see more and more conservative steering of tax dollars (and larger government) around;
CWA press release against GBLT-folk being included in the hate-crimes law;
Agape Press talks about the California marriage law planned veto, and repeats Robert Knight's claim that queers exploit distractions created by national disasters to pass laws;
CWA links to Boston Globe column about the attempts to block Plan B; not sure why, they don't usually link to opposition;
Traditional Values Organisation article on John Roberts confirmation hearings, mostly a screed against the Usual Suspects for imposing "liberal litmus tests" like "the separation of church and state," "privacy rights," "promotion of the homosexual agenda," and a very interesting comment about how the 14th Amendment shouldn't let the Federal government interfere in state affairs;
Baylor University (Texas) orders campus Starbucks to remove cups containing Armistead Maupin quote on the basis that it "promotes homosexuality";
Presumably-fundamentalist Christians in San Diego rallied to pray and fast against Pagan Pride Day event; flyer describes neopagan practices as "vile... extreme witchcraft, curses, demonic rituals, sacrificial altars and occultism";
Family Research Council rallies against marriage rights in Florida; includes ACTION ITEM to collect signatures for anti-marriage state constitutional amendment;
Family Research Council claims adding sexual orientation to existing hate-crimes law (as per the previously-described amendment) is "bigotry," claims that crimes committed against "homosexuals" would result in special punishment. THIS IS A LIE: 1) it's sexual orientation, so if somebody kills a straight person on the basis of their sexual orientation, it's still a hate crime, and 2) it's already there for race, religion, etc; the list has just been made larger.
----- 1 -----
Q&A: 'Roberts Owns These Hearings'
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
September 14, 2005
SUMMARY: One pro-family expert predicts the Supreme Court
nominee will be confirmed.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037925.cfm
John Roberts' bid to become Chief Justice of the United
States entered its third day. Just how is he doing?
CitizenLink put the question to Pat Trueman, senior legal
counsel for the Family Research Council, who is attending
the hearings.
[...]
Q. What about the answers he has given on issues close to
our heart, such as abortion and the right to privacy?
A. On abortion, they've tried six ways from Sunday to get
him to tip his hand. You'd think this was a confirmation
hearing for the next executive director of NARAL. But this
is what primarily concerns Democrats on the Judiciary
Committee.
But John Roberts won't give an inch. And his
characterization of the right to privacy, on which the Roe
v. Wade abortion decision hangs, is very limited. What
Roberts said about the right to privacy is that he will
recognize a marital right to privacy. Well, we know that
what the Supreme Court has recognized in abortion is not a
marital right, but a right between a woman and her
physician. John Roberts is limiting that right in his
characterization of the right to privacy before the
committee.
Those who supported the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy
-- where the court said there is a right to privacy
between two homosexuals to engage in sodomy have to wonder
-- John Roberts is describing the right to privacy as
something that certainly would not encompass the "right"
to sodomy.
So I think people should be heartened by the limited
characterization Roberts is giving to this right to
privacy -- this right the Supreme Court uses to strike
down moral laws like laws against sodomy, or abortion.
Q. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Tuesday made allusions
to Roberts' religious beliefs. She asked him if he would
follow President Kennedy's famous dictum of essentially
pledging not to allow the Catholic Church to make his
decisions as a public servant. What do you make of her
comment?
A. I think Sen. Feinstein is wrong to question John
Roberts on his Catholicism -- and ask if he could separate
his religion from his duties on the court. That is not a
question that Feinstein -- or anyone else in my memory --
has asked a Jewish or Protestant nominee to come before
that Judiciary Committee. It is something that has been
asked of Catholics. It intimates a religious test for
service -- and that's wrong.
No one in America should be prohibited from public service
because of their religion. Dianne Feinstein was skating on
the thin ice of religious discrimination by inquiring as
she did.
The second point that Sen. Feinstein tried to make is that
there is an absolute separation of church and state in the
United States -- and she tried to get John Roberts to
agree to that. Of course, that's one of the most
controversial issues of the day. And no one -- except the
ACLU and a limited number of radical groups in this
country -- believes there is an absolute separation of
church and state.
[more at URL]
----- 2 -----
EEOC Considers Forcing Christian Group to Hire Non-Christians
Focus on the Family
from staff reports
September 14, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037923.cfm
SUMMARY: Experts say religious groups have a right to hire
people who agree with them.
A complaint against the Light of Life Rescue Mission in
Pittsburgh, Pa., has led to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission proposing that the mission stop
hiring only Christians.
Steve Burger, executive director of the Association of
Gospel Rescue Missions, said religious organizations have
a right to hire employees who agree with their religious
beliefs. But he added if a suit is filed in the Pittsburgh
case, it would create many problems.
"Personally, I am concerned whenever an organization
that's been founded to preach the Gospel is put in a
position that they can't do what God has called them to
do," he told Family News in Focus.
[...]
Burger said forcing Christian rescue missions to hire
non-Christians would make them just another social service
agency.
[A little more at URL]
----- 3 -----
Abstinence Funding Challenged
Focus on the Family
September 14, 2005
Newsbriefs
[Received in email; no URL]
Two groups that promote sex education are now looking to a
little-known law to de-fund abstinence education, Kaiser
network reported.
They filed a petition under the Information Quality Act.
The act allows "affected persons" to ask the federal
government -- in this case the Department of Health and
Human Services -- to correct information it is responsible
for disseminating if it is found to be "erroneous and
ineffective."
Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the United States promote
contraception education as the best way to prevent
pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, claimed
the government is putting money into programs that have no
proven impact.
"We'll use this and any other tool at our disposal to
ensure that youth receive honest and accurate sex
education," he said.
Leslie Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse,
called the challenge "baseless."
"Abstinence education programs are among the most heavily
referenced and thoroughly monitored in the United States
educational system," she said. "These false allegations
show promiscuity promoters are up against the ropes. They
have to hide the truth of their own programs by attacking
healthy, responsible abstinence education."
According to Unruh, comprehensive sex-ed groups are the
ones generating dangerous and misleading information.
"The contraceptive sex educators had a 30-year,
multi-billion-dollar monopoly in schools that led teens
into disease, dysfunction and dissatisfaction," she said.
"It is the increase in abstinence that has led to the
record low teen birth and pregnancy rates."
----- 4 -----
Hate Crimes Language Passes the House
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037939.cfm
SUMMARY: Pro-gay amendment was attached to a bill
concerning sex offenders who commit crimes against
children.
Pro-family organizations are crying fowl over the House
passing language that would -- in an attempt to codify
specify rights for homosexuals -- punish a criminal for
perceived motivation.
The amendment, brought by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., was
tacked onto the important and needed Children's Safety
Act.
The language stipulates that crimes "motivated by
prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity or disability of the victim" shall be punished by
up to life in prison. It also authorizes $10 million to
prosecute such crimes.
30 Republicans joined 192 Democrats in passing the
amendment.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute,
said gay activists and their supporters in Congress took
advantage of the national distraction of Hurricane Katrina
and the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
"This was a total surprise -- a sneak attack," he said.
"We got 40 minutes notice that the vote was going to take
place, which is hardly time to do anything that matters.
And minutes after they passed that amendment, they passed
the whole Children's Safety Act.
"The overall bill, tightens the law against sexual
offenders. It's geared to protect kids. It's ironic that a
bill that would promote the homosexual agenda is tucked
into such a bill."
Knight said gay activists -- and their legislative friends
-- have been sneaky before.
"In California, they passed a domestic partners bill the
day after 9/11," Knight said. "They also passed the
gay-marriage bill right after Hurricane Katrina. They do
this all the time."
The bill now goes to the Senate.
TAKE ACTION: Please contact your senators and ask them to
oppose so-called hate crimes legislation. For help in
contacting your lawmakers, please see the CitizenLink
Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
If you’d like to see how your representative voted in the
House:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/issues/votes/?votenum=469&chamber=H&congress=1091
----- 5 -----
Doctors Group Seeks to Take Away Doctors' Right of Conscience
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037934.cfm
SUMMARY: Letter to senators argues that pro-life doctors
should refer patients to abortionists.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG) is hoping to gut the 2004 Hyde-Weldon amendment
that provides conscience protections to pro-life doctors.
"Doctors who morally object to abortion should be required
to refer patients to other physicians who will provide
appropriate care," the group said in a letter it sent to
every senator.
[...]
TAKE ACTION: Contact your senators and ask them to uphold
the 2004 Hyde-Weldon amendment that protects pro-life
doctors' right of conscience. You can find contact
information in our Action Center:
Long URL - click to use
----- 6 -----
Pro-Life Law Struck Down in the Wolverine State
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
[Received in email; No URL]
A U.S. District Court judge declared a Michigan law that
would have banned partial-birth abortion unconstitutional,
The Associated Press reported.
Supporters of the law said it was a much-needed ban on the
gruesome practice, while opponents predictably said it
would ban almost all abortion.
In her ruling, Judge Denise Page Hood said the law was
confusing and vague because it "does not describe any
specific procedure to be banned. The act also does not
distinguish between induced abortion and pregnancy loss."
Hood was also at odds with the law's health exception and
said it was meaningless because it required doctors to
balance the interest of the woman and the pre-born baby.
The law in question, The Legal Birth Definition Act,
passed the Michigan Legislature in June, 2004, then was
vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Supporters of the law
pressed on and signed petitions that allowed the bill to
become law without the approval of the governor.
Because the law was then challenged by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan, the Center for Reproductive
Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the
law was put on hold until Hood made a decision in the
case.
Wendy Wagenheim, spokeswomen for the ACLU of Michigan,
said the law -- if left to stand -- would have banned even
first-trimester abortions.
"The courts have affirmed that an abortion is a decision
that should be made by a woman in consultation with her
physician and not by politicians," Wagenheim said. "This
is a victory for all Michigan families."
Dave Maluchnik, spokesman for the Michigan Catholic
Conference, said his group is urging Michigan's Attorney
General Mike Cox to appeal the ruling.
"The fight to end heinous partial-birth abortion will
continue," he said.
----- 7 -----
Only State with Gay Marriage Won't Change Yet
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
[Received in email; No URL]
The Massachusetts Legislature Wednesday rejected a
proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
but for many, the fight to preserve traditional marriage
is far from over in the Bay State, The Associated Press
reported.
With both sides declaring victory, it was no surprise the
measure failed. The amendment would have banned gay
marriage but allowed civil unions similar to those allowed
in the state of Vermont -- something opponents of gay
marriage were against.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family
Institute, said this gives supporters of traditional
marriage a chance to push for stronger language in an
amendment.
"We're excited," he said. "This is exactly what we
wanted."
Democratic Rep. Phil Travis said living in the only state
that allows a same-sex union to be called a "marriage"
isn't a good thing.
"The union of two women and two men can never consummate a
marriage," he said. "The other 49 states are right and we
are wrong."
Because the Legislature must approve such a proposal in
two consecutive sessions before it could move to the
state-wide ballot, the next opportunity Massachusetts
voters will have for a ballot measure would be 2008.
----- 8 -----
Schwarzenegger to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage with Gay Groups
Focus on the Family
September 15, 2005
[Received in email; No URL]
Leaders of the homosexual community will meet with
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss his
intent to veto legislation that would allow same-sex
marriage, 365Gay.com reported.
After the governor vowed to veto, his staff contacted
Equality California (EQCA) to request the meeting.
Eddie Gutierrez, spokesperson for EQCA, said its pressure
tactics are having an effect.
"The wisdom of our message is working," he said, "and our
'12 Days of Equality' project to educate the governor
about our families is certainly on the right path toward
full equality."
Two proposed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex
marriage are on the meeting agenda, as well.
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please respectfully
encourage Gov. Schwarzenegger to resist the pressure
tactics employed by lesbian and gay activists. Ask him to
stay the course and veto the gay-marriage bill.
To contact Schwarzenegger, use the CitizenLink Action
Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=141270&type=GV&state=CA/
You can also learn more about the issue by reading the
CitizenLink article "Urge Schwarzenegger to Veto
Gay-Marriage Bill," published Sept. 9.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0037876.cfm
----- 9 -----
Attorney General and the Senate Condemn Pledge Ruling
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
Focus on the Family
September 16, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037953.cfm
SUMMARY: Leaders vow to defend the phrase "under God."
Following a federal district court decision that once
again declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional
in public schools, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowed
on Thursday to fight to overturn the ruling and the U.S.
Senate passed a resolution condemning the decision, The
Associated Press reported.
Three Sacramento area families, represented by atheist
Michael Newdow filed the suit challenging the
constitutionality of the Pledge.
Judge Lawrence Karlton declared "one nation, under God" a
violation of the students' right to be "free from a
coercive requirement to affirm God."
Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., sponsored the Senate resolution.
"The Senate today is expressing its resolve that the
Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional," Talent said.
"It's unfortunate that the Senate is once again compelled
to defend the Pledge of Allegiance because of the actions
of a federal court.
"For more than 50 years, the Pledge has been an
affirmation that our country was established as a union,
'under God.' No person should ever be forced to say 'under
God' when reciting the Pledge, but the Senate believes the
Pledge of Allegiance is a fully constitutional expression
of patriotism."
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Show-Me State Passes Stricter Parental Consent
Focus on the Family
September 16, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
During a special session called by Republican Gov. Matt
Blunt, the Missouri State House voted Wednesday to approve
a bill to tighten parental consent laws, The Associated
Press reported.
The state Senate had already passed it last week. The
governor signed it on Thursday.
The law requires any teen seeking abortion services to be
accompanied by a parent and it will allow parents to sue
anyone who helps a child younger than 18 to get an
abortion without their consent.
Paula Gianino, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of
the St. Louis Region, immediately filed suit along with
other pro-abortion groups to stop the law from going into
effect.
"We are concerned about the health and safety of teens and
for all women in Missouri," Gianino said. "Planned
Parenthood plans to do everything we can through the
courts to challenge this law."
Blunt said the bill is "a good pro-life piece of
legislation that will reduce the number of abortions in
our state, cultivating a culture that values human life
and the rights of the unborn."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus
on the Family Action, said she's pleased that Missouri's
new law ensures that parents can sue anyone who might take
their daughter out of state for an abortion in order to
bypass parental notification.
"Abortion is a surgical procedure that can cause physical
and psychological problems," she said. "Parents have a
right and responsibility to know if their teenage daughter
is pregnant and considering an abortion."
----- 11 -----
House Panel Adds ‘Sexual Orientation’ to Federal Workplace Policy
9/16/2005
Concerned Women for America
By Robert Knight
GOP-Chaired Committee Hands Homosexual Activists Second Victory in Two Days.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8981/CFI/nation/index.htm
A day after the full U.S. House of Representatives surprised observers by voting for a “hate crimes” amendment to a child safety bill, the House Committee on Government Reform passed a bill on Thursday creating a new civil rights category for federal employees based on “sexual orientation.”
The bill’s introduction states: “To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary.”
The committee, chaired by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia), approved the measure on a unanimous voice vote, according to the homosexual pressure group Human Rights Campaign. A call to the committee today by Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Culture & Family Institute confirmed the measure’s passage.
The bill, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act (HR 3128), sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-California) and Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut), is designed to put into the law Bill Clinton’s executive order, crafted by homosexual activist attorney Elaine Kaplan, who headed the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The bill was introduced on June 30, 2005, by Waxman and Shays, along with Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland); Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts); Mark Foley (R-Florida); Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Eliot Engel (D-New York); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-District of Columbia).
Late last year, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch wisely and courageously declined to treat “sexual orientation” as a preferred category in federal civil rights policy, saying that homosexual employees had the same rights as anyone else, and that Congress never authorized a special protection based on “sexual orientation.”
After failing to have Bloch publicly flogged by the White House, which mildly rebuked him but let the policy stand, the activists went for the legislative fix. For details, see the CWA report.
Apparently, homosexual activists and their allies are doing a full-court press in Congress while Hill watchers are distracted by the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Judge John Roberts and the unfolding aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
[...]
Anyone with access to GOP leaders or Democratic leaders needs to make his or her voice heard now. From its Web site, Here is the membership of the committee:
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Ten Commandments Ruling and Roberts
Concerned Women for America
9/16/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8968/CWA/nation/index.htm
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. This case was the second attempt by atheist Michael Newdow to ban the recitation of the Pledge in public schools. As Chief Counsel Jan LaRue notes, this ruling comes at a pivotal time. Click here to listen.
[Jan LaRue, Chief Council, CWA: "Michael Newdow is like trying to get rid of the mold in the house, he's forever there... he went out shopping for parents who had standing... parents willing to become his clients, and a US District COurt Judge... said he was absolutely bound by the 9th circuit... for the pledge of allegiance in public schools... to be declared unconstitutional." "It will be reversed." "It certainly should be the last wake-up call to Americans who think the confirmation of a Federal judge doesn't affect their lives." "[John Roberts] understands our Constitution, he understands the first amendment, and would never concur to such a wacky interpretation of the establishment clause." "We certainly need John Roberts confirmed, he will be, the question is by how big a majority." "We have all kinds of reasonable bases in which to be confident that John Roberts will be the kind of Chief Justice all of us want. For example, when he was questioned on what is the role of a judge... 'Our job is a different one... whether a particular piece of legislation is constitutional. And we have to limit ourselves... to applying the law. And not in any way substituting ourselves for the policy choices you [senators] have made.'" "John Roberts gets it, and he should get an 'aye' vote from all the members of the Senate."]
Click here to see Judge Roberts talk about the role of a judge, as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[Not transcribed]
----- 13 -----
The Intelligent Design Debate
9/15/2005
Concerned Women for America
By Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
Dr. Janice Crouse on the policy, political and cultural implications.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8963/BLI/education/index.htm
Editor’s Note: Dr. Crouse presented this paper at the America’s Future Foundation Roundtable, “What’s the Future With Intelligent Design,” on September 14 in Washington, D.C.
Introduction
It’s too bad the “perfect storm” analogy has worn so thin because it would describe so well the factors that have merged in American society to propel Intelligent Design forward as one of today’s hottest topics.
How hot is it?
* Time magazine had a cover story just last month.
* More than 400 scientists have signed a statement –– “Dissent from Darwin.”
* A Zogby poll reveals that 71 percent of the public favors allowing teachers to acknowledge the scientific controversy over the origins of life.
At the same time, the scientific community really has its knickers in a twist.
Just how upset are they?
For years, they have argued among themselves. The scientific journals are full of problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory. But major scholars aren’t willing to break ranks to go public with their questions or doubts.
After all, the Darwinists are the 800-pound gorillas in academia (pun intended).
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Day of Truth Comes to Public Schools
9/15/2005
September 15, 2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8962/CWA/family/index.htm
Students now have a creative way to counter the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” campaign held every year in public schools. Last April, the Alliance Defense Fund launched the Day of Truth campaign as a way for students to promote a counter message. Plans are now underway for this school year. Martha Kleder recently spoke with Bob Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute and Joe Infranco, Senior Attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. Click here to listen.
[Joe Infranco: "A Day of Silence... they inflate their figures, frankly... they say up to 400,000 students are involved in various schools... 'I'm being silent to protest discrimination against homosexuality.'" "Even though you would consider it something disruptive to the school functioning..." The fundy response is Day of Truth, which hands out cards and has students wear T-shirts. "We cannot remain silent while you are engaging in self-destructive behaviour." Robert: "The Gay, Lesbian, and straight education network has been at this for year... they're really promoting homosexuality of homosexuality... the underlying message is that if you don't, you're full of hate... the issue isn't one of tolerance..." Joe: "We were really heartened by it... we had about 1,200 students who registered on the web site, more participated but we only counted the ones who registered and ordered T-shirts... there was enormous interest... we had responses around the country afterward, we want to be a part of this next year... 'where has this been?'" "People are just upset... there is no opportunity to speak and counter this homosexual activist agenda... this is a good, loving, measured way to respond."
Talks about the Alliance Defense Fund's promotion of "merry christmas" last year.
Bob: "If you think your school's safe, because you're in the South or the Midwest... this isn't coming from the kids. GLSTN has a more than $5M budget... with one of them on it all year long.
Joe: "When tolerance heads at the top of the description, head for the exit as soon as you can, because you know it's coming..." Claims schools are too supportive of Day of Silence. Robert Knight attacks "no-name-calling" Day as "the quest to sell homosexuality to kids." Joe claims schools "try to give kids a hard time" on the "Day of Truth" action, by contrast.
Gives out contact info - telladf.org - or call 800.tell-adf. Asks churches and other organisations to download their how-to packets on how to put together a local version, includes talking points, T-shirts, cards. Joe describes their package as,"How to do [Day of Truth] from A-Z. It's a turn-key kit."]
----- 15 -----
FDA Seeks Your Input on Morning-After Pill
Concerned Women for America
9/14/2005
By Wendy Wright
Abortion groups press to make controversial drug available without prescription.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8951/CWA/life/index.htm
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced it needs guidance on whether the controversial morning-after pill should be available without a prescription but with age restrictions. Since the FDA has never approved over-the-counter status for a drug based on the buyer’s age, it has asked for advice on whether the agency has the authority to do it, and if an age restriction could be enforced.
Citizens have until November 1, 2005, to submit comments.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has raised numerous objections to this scheme, including that easy access would create a health hazard to women and the public. It appears that some within the FDA are listening. Pro-abortion groups and politicians have conducted a full-on political and media campaign to demand that the FDA make Plan B, a morning-after pill, available without a prescription.
In an effort that could be seen as an attempt to increase its sales, the drug’s original owner, Women’s Capital Corporation, hired a public relations firm that placed disturbing ads in college newspapers. The ads advocated that young women have multiple sex partners, and then pop Plan B pills in the morning to reduce the fear of pregnancy.
[...]
The FDA has asked for comment on three issues:
Should the FDA create and define a regulation to allow for a drug to be available both with a prescription and without?
Does the FDA have the authority or ability to enforce restricting a drug from a subpopulation when it would be available to the larger population?
Can a drug that is approved both with a prescription for some and without a prescription for others have the same packaging, or would it require different warning labels and instructions?
The FDA has provided a unique opportunity that will affect families throughout America.
You can help ensure that the FDA does not rely solely on the unsubstantiated assurance by abortion advocacy groups (which would lose customers if it were true) that easy access to the morning-after pill would reduce pregnancies. Nor should it rely upon a drug company that will make huge profits if the drug is easy to buy, even if its promises prove to be untrue. Parents can step in to ensure that a government agency does not make a drug available to any adult, including molesters seeking to cover their crimes against girls.
Take Action:
Here is how to send comments to the FDA. Note: All submissions must include the agency name (Food and Drug Administration) and either the Docket Number 2005N-0345 or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0910-AF72.
Submit written comments in the following ways:
Fax: 301-827-6870.
Mail/hand delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):
Division of Dockets Management
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, Maryland 20852
E-mail: To ensure more timely processing of comments, the FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by random e-mails. However, electronic comments can be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov or the agency Web site http://www.fda.gov/comments.html. (Keyword: 2005N-0345)
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm. Insert the docket number into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to:
Division of Dockets Management
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville MD 20852.
For further information, contact the FDA at 301-827-0002 or by e-mail at pcomments@fda.gov. This phone number and this e-mail account have been set up to address questions relating to this notice.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
The Next Conservatism: Country Life
A Series by Paul M. Weyrich
9/12/2005
By Paul M. Weyrich
Free Congress Foundation
There are good reasons why the next conservatism should think about rural life.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8913/CWA/misc/index.htm
Editor's Note: This article is part of a series on "The Next Conservatism" by Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Mr. Weyrich is a major influence in the modern conservative movement and a personal friend of Concerned Women for America's (CWA) founder and chairman, Beverly LaHaye. In this series Mr. Weyrich seeks to spark a discussion among conservatives about the future of the movement and how we may best achieve lasting results. The opinions expressed in this important series are not necessarily those of Concerned Women for America. We offer it for your candid reflection.
In my next two columns, I intend to write about two places the next conservatism needs to consider: the countryside and cities. Perhaps because most conservatives, including myself, live in suburbs, we don't think about rural life or cities very often. But there are good reasons why the next conservatism should think about both.
Earlier generations of conservatives were agrarians. They thought that life on a family farm was a good life for many people. It built strong families and communities, communities where faith and morals could flourish. I believe that is still true, and I therefore think that bringing back the family farm as a viable way of life should be an important part of the next conservatism.
Some people may object that such a program is simply not possible. The family farm cannot be made economically viable in today's world. I am not certain on that point. I do know that most of the billions we spend each year for agricultural subsidies go to support big agribusiness, not family farms. What if we changed that? What if instead of subsidizing factory farming, we provided financial support for people who were trying to start new family farms? Such support should not go on forever, but if it were in the form of a revolving fund, it could help them get started.
...
The next conservatism should look toward a world where, as Tolkien put it, there is less noise and more green. Our goal should be to make agrarian life, in all its dimensions, available to as many Americans as possible, both those who work family farms for their living and those who earn their incomes in other ways but want a tie to the countryside. In this respect, the next conservatism should be like an older conservatism we seem to have forgotten. Conservatives should become agrarians again.
----- 17 -----
CWALAC: Senate Must Prevent Special Treatment and Reject ‘Hate Crimes’ Amendment
Concerned Women for America
9/15/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8966/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Washington, D.C.—Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) is urging the Senate to reject any “hate crimes” language in its version of the Children’s Safety Act. On Wednesday, the House passed an amendment to the Act sponsored by Michigan Democrat John Conyers that adds “sexual orientation” to federal “hate crimes” law. Then the House passed the full bill. Thirty Republicans joined 192 Democrats and one Independent in voting for the “hate crimes” amendment.
“The GOP-controlled House seems more interested in rewarding the homosexual lobby and following a left-wing liberal Democrat like John Conyers than in making sure dangerous laws like the ‘hate crimes’ amendment are defeated,” said Robert Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. “It’s up to the Senate to safeguard our liberties by rejecting this attempt to give homosexuals more protection under the law than other crime victims. The ‘hate crimes’ law, promoted for years by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), is a major strategic goal of the homosexual activist movement.
“A similar state law in Pennsylvania led directly to the arrests of 11 Christians in Philadelphia in a public park last year and the felony prosecution of five of those Christians. Proponents claim that these laws are about protecting people, but they are really about creating a false new ‘civil rights’ category based on sex behavior, putting into place a system to suppress speech critical of homosexuality, and giving homosexuals more protection under the law than grandma gets.”
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 18 -----
Calif. Governor Plans to Veto Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill; Traditionalists Pleased
By Jody Brown
September 9, 2005
AgapePress
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/92005c.asp
(AgapePress) - Family advocates are praising the governor of California for his intention to veto a piece of legislation that, if signed, would legal same-sex "marriage" in that state. AB 849 is on its way to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk after being passed by both houses of the California Legislature.
Since the first of September, the Democrat-controlled California Senate and Assembly has voted to change the wording in the state's marriage laws to describe it as a union of "two persons" rather than "a man and a woman." The measure, however, is in direct conflict of the state constitution, which states that legislators cannot overturn a voter-approved initiative. In March 2000, 61.4 percent of California's voters approved Proposition 22, which stated that in California only the union of a man and a woman would be recognized as marriage.
It is for that reason that Governor Schwarzenegger has indicated he will veto the bill. His press secretary stated on Wednesday night "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849."
Randy Thomasson, president of the Sacramento-based Campaign for Children and Families, reacted to the governor's announcement. "We thank the governor for understanding the constitutional restrictions on the Legislature, and [for] announcing he will respect the peoples' vote to protect marriage licenses for a man and a woman," he stated in a press release.
Schwarzenegger's quick decision, says Thomasson, has spared both the governor and the people of his state "much grief." But the CCF leader says the battle is not over.
"This terrible debacle of destroying the definition of marriage will repeat itself unless the people rise up and support the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign to fully protect marriage in the State Constitution -- above the reach of the politicians and judges," he says.
One family advocate on the other side of the country is applauding Schwarzenegger for his intention to veto the measure. "[The governor] has done the right thing in promising to veto this illegal bill," says Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. "It's evidence that [Concerned Women of America] of California and other pro-family groups got their message through to him." That message? "We don't want counterfeit marriage," says Knight.
As for the timing of the legislation, the CFI director says it suggests to him that the California Legislature seems to follow a national disaster by creating its own social disaster. He recalls what happened on September 12, 2001.
"The ... day after New York [City] was devastated by the [terrorist] attack, they passed a sweeping domestic partners law, thus attacking marriage," he explains. "Here they now pass a law sweeping away marriage completely, saying it doesn't even need a man and a woman anymore, while the nation is reeling from the unfolding tragedy in the Gulf States with Hurricane Katrina."
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
ELLEN GOODMAN
Saving Plan B from the zealots
By Ellen Goodman | September 16, 2005
The Boston Globe
Long URL, click here
NOW THAT we have waved ''Bye, Bye, Brownie" to Michael Brown, the hapless head of FEMA, could we turn our sights back to another agency on the skids: the Food and Drug Administration?
If FEMA is an example of a government run on cronyism, the FDA has become a portrait of a government run on ideology. After its blunders over Vioxx and defective heart devices, it has now deliberately tanked the homeland emergency contraceptives.
Days before Katrina hit New Orleans and flooded the news, FDA chief Lester Crawford announced that he was indefinitely postponing the sale of Plan B over the counter. As Susan Wood, the respected head of the FDA's Office of Women's Health, said when she resigned in protest, ''This time delay is denial."
I will spare you the long, convoluted history of the morning-after pill and the FDA. Plan B was planted firmly in the common ground in the culture wars. Pregnancy prevention is, after all, abortion prevention. It's something we agree on.
Putting Plan B on the drugstore shelf would mean that women who had unprotected sex or contraceptive failures could easily and quickly prevent pregnancy.
But under pressure from the prolife fringe that insists against all evidence that emergency contraception is abortion in disguise, the FDA caved. Executing a fandango that Karl Rove would admire, the FDA first boxed the manufacturer into seeking permission for over-the-counter sales only to those 17 or over. Then it rejected the adults-only plan on the grounds that the pills could still fall into the hands of younger teens.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Liberal Senators Push Roberts To Commit To Leftist Cultural Agenda
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2429
September 15, 2005 – Senators Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Joseph Biden, and others have pushed Judge Roberts during his hearings to express support for a number of liberal litmus tests for confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States.
Those liberal litmus tests include support for abortion on demand; the separation of church and state; affirmative action; the power of the federal government to intervene in state issues by using the 14th Amendment; and other liberal social agendas often disguised as concern for “privacy rights” (this includes promotion of the homosexual agenda).
Senators Kennedy and Biden were the most rude to Judge Roberts, who routinely responded with kindness and with a thorough knowledge of the law.
Kennedy criticized Roberts for memos he’d written 24 years ago about expanding the Voting Rights Act of 1965. According to Kennedy, “I’m deeply troubled by a narrow and cramped and perhaps even mean-spirited view of the law that appears in some of your writings.”
In several exchanges between Kennedy and Roberts, the Senator interrupted him before he could answer and was chastised by Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee. In one exchange, Kennedy claimed that Roberts opposed the Civil Rights Restoration Act and claimed that if Roberts had had his way, it would be legal to discriminate against women in athletics and the hiring of female teachers.
Roberts rebutted him immediately: “Senator, you did not accurately represent my position.”
Sen. Biden was also rude and interrupted Roberts on several occasions. In his questioning, Biden stated: “His answers are misleading.” Roberts answered: “With respect, they are my answers. And, with respect, they’re not misleading, they’re accurate.”
[...]
Schumer did compliment Roberts at the end of his questioning: “As I said, some of the things you’ve said I found pleasantly surprising today.”
Sen. Feinstein attempted to get Roberts to express unqualified support for abortion on demand and questioned his commitment to “women’s rights.” In response, Roberts stated: “I was very pleased when I saw, for example, the report of the National Association of Women Lawyers, who went out and talked and interviewed with women lawyers who have worked with he, who have appeared before me. And the conclusion was that I not only always treated women lawyers with respect and equal dignity, but that I had made special accommodations for life/work issues to ensure that women could continue to progress, for example, at my law firm, and had always treated women who appeared before me in a perfectly professional way.”
Feinstein also brought up the issue of the separation of church and state and asked Roberts if he believed in an “absolute” separation. Roberts replied, “Well, I don’t know what you mean by absolute separation of church and state.” He noted that the Supreme Court recently upheld the public display of the Ten Commandments in Texas but rejected a public display in Kentucky. “Is it correct to cell the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds with the Ten Commandments, is that that an absolute separation or is that an accommodation of a particular monument along with others that five of the justices found was consistent with the First Amendment? So, I don’t know what that means when you say absolute separation. I do know this: that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source.”
[More at URL]
----- 21 -----
Starbucks cup promotes homosexuality?
Baylor University orders removal from campus store
Posted: September 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
(C) 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46371
Officials at Baylor University told the Starbucks store on its Waco, Texas, campus to remove a cup said to promote homosexuality.
The offending cup, part of a series with quotes from various American thinkers called "The Way I See It," features the words of homosexual novelist Armistead Maupin.
It reads:
"My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short."Baylor University, the world's largest Baptist school, refused to comment on the issue, said KCEN-TV in central Texas. Employees at the campus Starbucks said none of their customers had complained about the cup, but they removed it.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Christians pray to counter 'Pagan Pride Day'
San Diego's famous Balboa Park hosting event today
Posted: September 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
(C) 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46372
Christians in San Diego are being summoned for "emergency" prayer and fasting to counter the "Pagan Pride" event scheduled for today in the seaside city.
The third annual event, titled San Diego for Pagan Pride 2005, aims to "foster pride in pagan identity through education, activism, charity and community."
But San Diegan James Hartline distributed an e-mail warning Christians that the "activities of Pagan Pride are so vile, that this notice could not reveal everything in one writing that they do. Extreme witchcraft, curses, demonic rituals, sacrificial altars and occultism are just some of the highlighted events occurring at Pagan Pride."
Hartline notes Pagan Pride will take place in the city's famous Balboa Park, which attracts thousands of tourists to its features, including the San Diego Zoo.
"Hundreds of pagans, witches, warlocks, wiccans, psychics and black magic practitioners are all marching on the park for their demonic festival," he said.
[More at URL]
----- 23 -----
Florida's Opportunity to Protect Marriage is Now!
September 16, 2005 - Friday
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05I09
Marriage is under attack in the state of Florida. Homosexual activists and liberal judges are trying to overturn the laws of Florida which protect marriage. The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is intended to define marriage between a man and a woman in the Florida constitution. Fewer than one million petitions are needed by the end of 2005 to get this amendment on the ballot in 2006.
Your help is needed now! You can do several things to support this effort to protect marriage in Florida:
--Print out and sign the official petition if you have not done so already, and mail it in with an original signature. Go to www.Florida4Marriage.org to download the petition.
--Double your effectiveness and forward this email, or the petition, to a friend or family member and ask them to do the same.
--Let your pastor know about Marriage Protection Sunday, taking place on September 25, 2005. This will kick-off of several weeks of petition gathering at churches throughout Florida. Please bring this to the attention of your pastor and offer to help with the effort in your church. All the information is available at: www.Florida4Marriage.org. In the "Resources for Pastors" section you will find the Marriage Protection Sunday Action Kit.
So take a moment right now to help protect marriage in Florida by visiting: www.Florida4Marriage.org to access the information on how you can help this important effort.
----- 24 -----
Stop Making Bigotry Law
September 15, 2005 - Thursday
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05I08
A bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ believing they, as a group, deserve special treatment above and beyond everyone else. If you ask most Members of the House of Representatives what they thought of bigotry they would rightfully condemn the act, which makes it inexplicable that 223 Members of Congress would vote last night to make a new tier of hate crimes - one for homosexuals, with harsher penalties, and another for everyone else.
The measure was attached as an amendment to the "Children's Safety Act." Somehow the sponsor of the Amendment missed the irony of attaching an amendment giving special rights to homosexuals to a bill designed to protect children. Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions and creating special categories of victims are contrary to our entire system of laws. Furthermore, granting special protections based on one's 'sexual orientation' has repeatedly been rejected by Congress.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 08:52 pm (UTC)