Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Sep. 27th, 2005 11:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFDA names, then retracts, veterinarian as head of FDA Office of Women's Health;
Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America rip into Ruth Ginsburg for comments on what kind of justice should be nominated to replace O'Connor, suggests impeachment; includes ACTION ITEM to President Bush for their kind of nominee;
FotF article on the next nominee; again encourages action to lobby for one of their favourites;
FotF article on support for creationism being taught as science in public schools - obviously, they're for it;
FotF: American Baptist Church USA (California-based Baptist denomination) is "losing churches" for being "soft on homosexuality;"
President Bush asks Supreme Court to uphold so-called "partial birth" abortion ban;
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Proposition 73, requiring parental notification from health care providers if anyone under 18 seeks out abortion;
Legal challenge to Oregon's anti-marriage amendment starts in Oregon courts;
FotF thinks that any school discussion of diversity that involves gayfolk should be treated as a sexual discussion and opt-out pre-notification should be provided for parents;
More on the attempt to exempt religious groups receiving Federal funding from civil rights hiring law, so they can hire and fire based on religion when spending Federal tax dollars - obviously, the fundamentalists are for it;
FotF article demanding Scalia-like justice nomination to replace O'Connor;
Patty Murray talks about cutting FDA funding over the Plan B mess - includes ACTION ITEM to tell the FDA not to allow Plan B sales OTC;
Salt Lake City mayor extends DP benefits to same-sex partners; fundamentalists to sue, saying it's illegal to offer DP benefits to fags; state legislator plans to submit a bill making it illegal if it's not already;
Rush Limbaugh endorses "Help! There are Liberals Under my Bed!" a "children's book that warns of the nefarious influence of liberals" - it went up to #44 on Amazon;
FotF reports on the Catholic Church's decision to bar abstinent gay men from seminary, tying it (as they do) to child molestation and rape;
Somewhat bizarre rant on Concerned Women for America about Justice Ginsburg's comments to the NY Bar Association; includes suggestions that she resign;
Paul Weyrich calls for reducing decision-making to the most local possible level, which is strange given their constant and massive Federal involvement;
Concerned Women for America get started on the next nominee, calling for someone as far to the fundamentalist as possible;
Agape Press and National Clergy Council call for "strong conservative" for next nominee, someone much more like Scalia and less like Roberts - the NCC lists the late former Chief Justice Rehnquist as a _liberal_ on the court, talking about the previous court having "seven liberal votes";
Agape Press calls for a "pro-lifer" nominee to replace O'Connor who will definitely work to overturn Roe v. Wade;
Republican donor and fundraiser appointed Chair of Corporation for Public Broadcasting; former chair of GOPAC (trained as an interiour decorator) appointed vice-chair;
California marriage rights bill goes to governor; Traditional Values Coalition urges him to veto it as earlier promised. If he does nothing, it becomes law.
----- 1 -----
FDA Does Damage Control, Naming New Head of Women's Health
Feminist Daily News Wire
September 21, 2005
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9286
Women's groups reported in shock last week that Norris Alderson, PhD, a specialist in veterinary medicine, had been appointed to replace Susan Wood as acting director of the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Women's Health. However, late on Friday, the FDA appeared to do some damage control, announcing the appointment of Theresa Toigo, who has a pharmacy degree and an MBA, to the post.
On Monday, FDA spokesperson Suzanne Trevino told The Washington Post that Alderson had never been appointed to the position, despite the fact that he had been listed as acting director on the official website for the Office of Women’s Health, a statement announcing his appointment had been sent to women’s groups, and he had been introduced to the office’s staff as the acting director. Nonetheless, “There was no official decision made until we announced Theresa Toigo’s appointment,” Trevino told The Post. (Her office has not returned calls from Ms. magazine.)
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Ginsburg Draws Fire for Ultraliberal Talk
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Pete Winn, associate editor
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: Can a Supreme Court justice really call on the
president to nominate a pro-abortion justice -- and get
away with it?
Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
raised the eyebrows of pro-family legal experts when she
started answering questions from members of the New York
City Bar Association about the next high court nominee --
and the use of international law in decisions.
One thing Ginsburg, a former ACLU chief counsel, said is
that the next appointee should be a woman -- but not just
any woman, according to Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the
Concerned Women for America.
"It's obvious that she thinks that all female jurists are
not created equal," she said. "She said, and I'm quoting
--'There are some women who would not advance women's
rights or human rights.' "
La Rue is incensed.
"It doesn't take a world-class cryptographer to bust that
code. She's talking about abortion -- Roe v. Wade," she
said.
LaRue added: "It's shocking to see that a Supreme Court
justice would speak out on such a blatant litmus test
issue. It really calls into question what equal justice
under law means. Is it purely synchronized by an abortion
meter?"
Ginsburg also spoke out in defense of the high court's
reliance on the findings of international courts in its
decisions -- as it did when it struck down the nation's
sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
Ginsburg said, "I will take enlightenment wherever I can
get it. I don't want to stop at a national border."
But Jordan Lorence, a constitutional attorney with the
Alliance Defense Fund and long time Supreme Court
observer, said the Constitution itself closes the borders
to foreign law.
"If the job of a federal judge is to understand what a
written provision of the Constitution is and apply it to a
given situation in a case before them in accord with the
intent of those who drafted it," Lorence said, "then what
foreigners say about their own legal systems should make
no difference to American courts."
Liberal activist judges like Ginsburg, he said, don't
believe in "just" interpreting the Constitution -- they
are actually making up law as they go along.
"But what the justices are doing is picking and choosing
foreign decisions to buttress a dubious, or -- more likely
-- a wrong interpretation of the Constitution," Lorence
said.
Such justices are inconsistent and selective, he said,
when it comes to invoking international law.
"So when they said there's a constitutional right to
sodomy, for instance, they looked to secular Western
European law and not to Islamic law -- or more
conservative, traditionalist nations that might have had a
different view."
Lorence said most nations of the world are much more
restrictive than the U.S. and Western Europe when it comes
to abortion -- they rebuff claims that there is even a
'right' to an abortion.
"They are also much more permissive in allowing government
acknowledgement of religion and government funding of
faith-based initiatives," Lorence said.
"But you can bet, for sure, that those decisions from
foreign courts are never going to find themselves in U.S.
Supreme Court decisions because they contradict the
liberal secularist agenda that the activist judges are
trying to impose."
This is not the first time Ginsburg has made far-left
comments, according to LaRue.
"She thinks that prostitution needs to be protected by the
Constitution, and probably we should do away with Mother's
Day and Father's Day, and she certainly has mentioned
lowering the age of sexual consent down to about 12, and
segregated prisons as being unconstitutional -- it's just
a host of the wackiest, leftist ideas."
LaRue said having another Ginsburg on the court is exactly
what we don't need, and a point to ponder as the president
prepares to nominate another justice -- this time to
replace the court's first female justice, Sandra Day
O'Connor.
Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said even prior
to the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence
strongly condemned the British Crown for relying on
foreign laws to rule America.
"When justices look to the laws of other countries, they
are committing a revolutionary act, and I think that act
ought to be impeachable," Staver said.
Lorence agreed, adding the framers of the Constitution
clearly intended for impeachment to apply if federal
judges say things fundamentally at odds with the
constitutional system of government.
"Probably, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been on the court in
the late 1700s and said these things, there would have
been articles of impeachment filed against her," Lorence
said. "That's not the way Congress looks at these issues
today, however. There would be no stomach in Congress for
impeachment today."
TAKE ACTION: Please let the president know this is no time
to nominate anyone in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We
need a nominee who will defend the Constitution and
sovereignty of the U.S.
For help in contacting President Bush, visit the
CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F
----- 3 -----
Tough Court Battle Possible
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: With Roberts' confirmation a near certainty,
conservatives hope President Bush will rise to the
challenge posed by liberals and appoint another strict
constructionist to the Supreme Court.
With the Senate expected Thursday to easily confirm John
Roberts as chief justice of the United States, attention
will quickly turn to the next Supreme Court vacancy -- the
seat currently held by Sandra Day O'Connor.
Just who President Bush will tap is anybody's guess, but
prominent conservative voices are urging him to select a
"strict constructionist" who understands a judge's role is
to interpret law, not make it. And if that means a heated
battle with Senate liberals, so be it.
Some pundits, though, have suggested Bush should take a
more moderate route, mindful of his sinking popularity in
the polls in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina's
devastation. But that's bad advice, according to American
Values President Gary Bauer.
"As usual, that kind of advice inside the Beltway here in
Washington, D.C. is exactly wrong," Bauer told Family News
in Focus. "If a president is in trouble, and clearly
President Bush is, the one thing you don't want to do is
alienate your most loyal supporters."
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, agreed, saying a
good fight with congressional liberals is an opportunity
for Bush.
"This may be just what the president needs -- a good fight
over principle, conservative versus liberal," he
explained. "On the issue of judicial activism, he shares
the majority view of Americans that judges (should) not
legislate from the bench."
Fitton added that a Senate Democrats would be unwise to
block a conservative nominee with a filibuster, since such
a nominee -- Roberts -- has just been well received by the
public.
"The idea that the Senate can't vote one way or another on
a judicial nominee, especially one for the Supreme Court,
would be an extraordinary argument to make," he said. "I
don't think its going to withstand public scrutiny."
TAKE ACTION: Have an opinion on John Roberts' nomination
-- or who President Bush should select to replace Sandra
Day O'Connor? Make your views known on these and other
subjects by visiting our CitizenTalk message boards.
http://www.fotfforums.org/fusetalk/forum/index.cfm?forumid=9
----- 4 -----
Americans Weary of Darwinism
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: New survey finds interest in other theories about
the origin of life.
Most Americans aren't buying the theory of Darwinian
evolution and would like to hear some alternatives,
according to a recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion &
Public Life.
The survey concluded educators should take the public's
opinion into account and present options to evolution in
public schools.
David Masci, a senior fellow for the Pew Forum, said most
Americans simply don't subscribe to Darwin anymore.
"Only about a quarter of the American public accepts the
Darwinian explanation for life's origins," he noted.
"Sixty-four percent of the American public favors teaching
creationism along with evolution."
Masci's interest in the issue was aroused by a battle in
Dover, Del. That city's school board requires instruction
on the criticisms of evolution, and the curriculum
mentions intelligent design -- the theory that life is too
complex to have been created by accident -- as an
alternative. The policy prompted a lawsuit from the
American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for
the Separation of Church and State.
Complaints from liberals aside, Focus on the Family
analyst Mark Hartwig, Ph.D., said evolution isn't
answering all the questions people have -- and most are
tired of getting only one perspective from the schools, a
perspective rooted in the fact that the majority of
scientists subscribe to Darwinian evolution.
"Americans place a high value on freedom of speech, and on
being able to investigate things for themselves," Hartwig
told Family News in Focus. "They believe that, 'Hey, look,
this is something that is a challenge to Darwinism. Why
shouldn't the kids be allowed to explore it?' "
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Few people really understand the
difference between Darwinism and intelligent design. It's
a heated topic -- but doesn't have to be. "What's Darwin
Got to Do With It?: A Friendly Conversation About
Evolution," is laid out in comic book format so that
readers can relax while taking in the facts about this hot
issue. Great for people of all ages, this fascinating book
sets the facts straight so that readers will gain a
complete understanding of the origin of life.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1565&refcd=CE05ICZL&tvar=no
----- 5 -----
American Baptist Church USA to Lose Members
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: Hundreds of churches feeling denomination
considered soft on homosexuality.
The American Baptist Church USA, which has refused to
repudiate homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture, is
about to lose hundreds of churches over its liberalism.
One of the churches in the denomination's Pacific
Southwest Region that is breaking away is Wilshire Avenue
Community Church in Fullerton, Calif. Pastor Mark
McCormick said the national church leadership is not
taking a strong enough stand on homosexuality.
"We've asked the national church to hold other churches
and leaders accountable to what we say is the biblical
authority on this issue," he told Family News in Focus.
"Our fear obviously is that this begins to place us on a
slippery slope. If you say that this is not an area of
biblical authority that does not allow us to hold people
accountable to, what else will come up?"
Rich Schramm, a spokesman for the American Baptist Church,
said the denomination is sorry to see the locals go.
"We deeply regret the action taken by the ABC of the
Pacific Southwest, whom we love in Christ, to begin
movement toward withdrawal from the Covenant of
Relationships," he said.
But the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional
Values Coalition, doesn't think that sentiment is sincere.
"It's because they don't believe that the Bible is
inspired and authoritative," he explained. "That is really
the underlying issue."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: "The Bible and Homosexuality:
Confronting the Challenge to Scriptural Authority" is a
pocket-sized booklet that provides an overview and talking
points to refute common arguments about the Bible's view
of homosexuality. Scriptural teaching on homosexual
behavior, the problem of "homosexual Christians" and more
provide the backing you need to make an intelligent,
loving argument for truth.
Includes recommended reading and referrals to ex-gay
ministries.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4940&refcd=CE05ICZL&tvar=no
----- 6 -----
Partial-Birth Abortion Fight Moving to the Supreme Court
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The Bush administration has called for the Supreme Court
to reinstate a ban on partial-birth abortions, a legal
challenge that could be decided by the president's new
choice for the court.
The Solicitor General's office filed paperwork on Friday
asking the high court to reverse a decision by the Eighth
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which declared a Nebraska
law banning partial-birth abortion unconstitutional.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) announced
today that it will file a brief in support of the U.S.
Solicitor General who is asking the Supreme Court to
uphold the national ban on partial-birth abortion.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for ACLJ, said the request
comes at a very important time.
"This will be a monumental term at the Supreme Court
concerning the issue of life," he said. "With the Supreme
Court poised to consider the constitutionality of the ban
on partial-birth abortion and the high court already
hearing cases involving abortion protests, assisted
suicide and parental notification for minors requesting
abortions -- this is a critical time at the Supreme
Court."
Sekulow said his organization is hopeful the Court takes
the case and puts an end to "this abhorrent practice" of
partial-birth abortion.
"It is clear the government does have vital and compelling
interest in preventing the spread of the practice of
abortion into infanticide," he said.
----- 7 -----
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Golden State Governor Endorses Parental Consent Law
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced his
endorsement of Proposition 73, a parental-notification
measure that will be considered by California voters this
November, LifeNews.com reported.
The measure would require abortion facilities to notify
parents if a minor was seeking an abortion.
Schwarzenegger, who has two teen daughters as well as two
pre-teen sons, told the Sacramento Bee he would be
outraged if he was not informed of an abortion.
"They call me when my daughter falls off the jungle gym in
the school and they say, 'What do you want us to use? Can
we put a Band-Aid on it? Do you want to come in?' " he
said. "I wouldn't want to have someone take my daughter
to a hospital for an abortion or something and not tell
me."
----- 8 -----
Oregon Court Considers Gay Marriage
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The issue of Oregon's law banning same-sex marriage went
to court today, as homosexual advocates challenged the
law, The Associated Press reported.
Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond was to hear
arguments that the state's voter-approved constitutional
amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and
one woman is unconstitutional.
Basic Rights Oregon, the homosexual advocacy group that
filed the lawsuit, is arguing that the law affects
multiple rights, violating a state law that restricts
numerous changes on one ballot measure.
Supporters say the one-sentence change to the constitution
is straightforward, stating that the only marriages
recognized in the state will be those between one man and
one woman.
Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family
Council, said the amendment was simpler and clearer than
amendments passed in other states.
"It appears they're searching for a judge who will
overturn the measure for them," Nashif said.
The court battle is expected to take at least two years
and to ultimately wind up before the state Supreme Court.
----- 9 -----
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
School Chief Says No Warning Needed for Pro-Gay Curriculum
Despite one parent's battle, one Massachusetts school
district said it doesn't have to tell parents when it
discusses homosexuality with students.
Dr. Paul Ash, superintendent of schools in Lexington,
Mass., submitted an article to the town's newspaper
stating he has instructed teachers and staff they are to
give no notice when addressing gay issues in the
classroom.
The article, which appeared in the Lexington Minuteman on
Thursday, was Ash's response to the public's questions
surrounding the arrest of David Parker, a parent who
insisted that he be notified when the topics of
homosexuality and transgenderism were to be discussed in
his son's kindergarten class.
Parker attended a meeting at Estabrook Elementary School
last April to voice his concern over a bag of material
sent home with his son that contained information
depicting same-sex parents as one type of family unit --
he had not been notified ahead of time as he had
previously requested. When he refused to leave at the
conclusion of the meeting, the staff called the
authorities and Parker was arrested.
Ash addressed Massachusetts law in his article, which
states that schools must provide an "opt-out" policy when
addressing human sexual behavior. Parents are notified in
advance and can pull their child out of the session if
they so desire.
Seems clear enough. However Ash then went on to explain
why he thinks discussions about homosexuality do not
qualify.
"The Massachusetts Department of Education, which is
responsible for administering Section 32A," Ash wrote,
"has explained that activities and materials designed to
promote tolerance and respect for individuals, including
recognition of differences in sexual orientation 'without
further instruction on the physical and sexual
implications' do not trigger the notice and opt-out
provisions of 32A."
In other words, according to Ash, homosexuality does not
qualify as human sexual behavior, but instead is a
diversity issue.
"Under this standard, staff has no obligation to notify
parents of discussions, activities and materials designed
to promote tolerance and respect for individuals," he
continues, "including recognition of differences in sexual
orientation."
----- 10 -----
House Conservatives Work to Protect Rights of Religious Groups
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
September 23, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038024.cfm
SUMMARY: An amendment would protect the hiring practices
of Head Start providers.
There are efforts under way in the House to change
language in the School Readiness Act that would make it
illegal for faith-based organizations to hire only those
who share their values.
Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., introduced an amendment that
would exempt faith-based groups from being sued for
religious discrimination.
"If we don't allow faith-based organizations to do this,
then we're undermining their ability to exist in an
environment where they can provide services," he said. "It
also opens them up to potential lawsuits if they hire
those who do not believe in their faith-based values."
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Capitol Hill is Already Looking Ahead to the Next High Court Nominee
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
September 23, 2005
NEWSBRIEFS
[Received in email; no URL]
Republicans and Democrats are already looking beyond Judge
John Roberts' virtually certain confirmation to who will
be the president's next nominee to the Supreme Court.
According to The Associated Press, many expect a quick
announcement from the White House and a much tougher
confirmation fight.
Stephen Wermiel, an American University law professor,
said he thinks there were people in the White House who
hoped the Democrats would all vote for Roberts,
demonstrating that he was a high-quality nominee.
"There were other people in the White House who hoped the
Democrats would all vote against him," he said, "thinking
that would help the president feel liberated to do
whatever he wanted to do next."
Some senators apparently believed that backing Roberts
placed them in a better position to oppose the next
nominee, while others thought that opposing him puts the
president on notice.
Norm Ornstein, a political analyst with the American
Enterprise Institute, said anyone familiar with this
administration knows a strong Democratic vote against
Roberts would convince Bush they would reject anyone he'd
nominate -- "so why bother nominating anyone but a
fire-breathing conservative."
The Democratic support for Roberts was a stinging defeat
for liberal groups that are lobbying energetically against
him.
"The vote shows that a strong, unapologetic, judicial
conservative in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas can not only be confirmed without
filibuster but can actually pick up Democrat votes," said
Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network.
----- 12 -----
SENATOR SEEKS TO CUT FDA FUNDING OVER PLAN B
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 22, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038005.cfm
SUMMARY: Cuts are wielded as punishment for not allowing
over-the-counter sales.
A U.S. senator is looking to cut funding to the Food and
Drug Administration after it postponed a decision on
allowing over-the-counter sales of Plan B, the so-called
morning-after pill.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is offering a series of
amendments to an Appropriations Bill to scuttle funding
for any FDA rulemaking concerning Plan B.
But, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kans., said Murray will not
find much support.
"It ultimately will not pass through," he told Family News
in Focus. "The White House will be opposed to this and so,
in the final bill negotiations, I believe we will be able
to get it out."
[...]
TAKE ACTION: Tell the FDA not to offer Plan B over the
counter. The government is inviting public comment through
Nov. 1. You can find contact information in the
CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4370&dir=fof&command=depresult2&submit.x=13&submit.y=11
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Salt Lake City Mayor OKs Domestic-Partner Benefits
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
NEWSBRIEFS
September 22, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The mayor of Salt Lake City has signed an executive order
extending domestic-partner benefits to homosexual city
employees, The Associated Press reported.
Just 1 percent of the city's 2,600 workers are likely to
take advantage of the benefit.
"This is an important step toward recognizing the needs
and equality of all city employees," Mayor Rocky Anderson
said. "Providing benefits to families, without
discriminating on the basis of marital status or sexual
orientation, will provide very real benefits to both the
adults and children in employees' families."
It also is almost certain to provide for a legal
challenge. At least one state lawmaker said he believes
same-sex benefits to be illegal in Utah -- adding that if
he's wrong, he'll introduce legislation next year to make
it so.
Although the executive order takes effect immediately, it
will take some time for the city to amend its contracts
with insurance providers. In fact, the company that
administers Salt Lake City's insurance program has
indicated it wants a judge to weigh in on the legality of
Anderson's order before implementing it.
----- 14 -----
Limbaugh Endorses Conservative Kids Book
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
NEWSBRIEFS
September 22, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Rush Limbaugh's enthusiastic endorsement has spiked sales
of a new children's book that warns of the nefarious
influence of liberals.
"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!" is the title
of the book from author Katherine DeBrecht. Limbaugh
described it in these terms on his nationally syndicated
radio talk show:
"It tells of two brothers who open a lemonade stand. Their
plans to save up their hard-earned profits to buy a swing
set go awry when a Ted Kennedy character taxes away their
profits and a pantsuit-clad Hillary Clinton look-alike
outlaws sugary drinks."
For her part, DeBrecht said she wrote the book in response
to the bullying tactics of those on the political left.
"Liberals have been foisting their ideological agenda on
our kids for years, and now they're beside themselves that
someone would stand up to them," she explained.
"Evidently, books about socialist fish and gay kings are
OK, but a story about hard work and self-reliance is too
extreme."
----- 15 -----
Catholic Church to Bar Ordination of Homosexuals
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
NEWSBRIEFS
September 22, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Strict new rules being finalized for the Catholic Church
will bar homosexuals -- even those who are celibate --
from becoming priests, The New York Times reported.
Church officials said the ban will affect only candidates
for the priesthood, not those already ordained. The
prohibition, part of a set of guidelines begun during the
papacy of John Paul II, is expected to be signed into
force by Pope Benedict XVI within the next six weeks.
Also as part of Benedict's directive to, in his words,
"purify" the church in the wake of widespread
sexual-molestation scandals, Vatican investigators have
been instructed to visit each of the 229 seminaries in the
United States.
----- 16 -----
Sometimes I Don’t ‘Enjoy Being a Girl’
Concerned Women for America
9/27/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
Respectable women jurists understand that “Equal Justice Under Law” isn’t synchronized by an abortion meter.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9039/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
Men and women are as equally capable of genius as they are at uttering babble. Case closed.
But there are times when a woman says something that makes me chuck the brand-new hairdo and eyelashes all in a curl for overalls and a fake beard.
Lately, there’s been a rash of female balderdash coming from women who sound like they’re thinking with their ovaries. And for post-menopausal women, that’s especially fruitless. What else can we conclude when every other sentence is peppered with “concern” for “reproductive rights”? Enough already.
Take for example a speech by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the New York Bar Association, September 21. Ginsburg said she wants another woman on the Court but “any woman will not do.” It seems female jurists are equal but some are more equal than others. There are some women “who would not advance women’s rights or human rights,” according to Ginsburg.
Translation—men have human rights, women get those, and then something called “women’s rights.” You don’t have to be a world-class cryptographer to bust that code.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
The Next Conservatism: Think Locally, Act Locally
A Series by Paul M. Weyrich
Free Congress Foundation
9/26/2005
By Paul M. Weyrich
Conservatives have always supported local variation, and that should continue.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9029/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.
For many years, one of the left's slogans has been, "Think Globally, Act Locally." I think the next conservatism needs to answer this with a new slogan of our own: Think Locally, Act Locally.
"Think Globally, Act Locally" reflects the left's centuries-old belief in "one world." Just as the Jacobins of the French Revolution wanted, everyone in the world should be forced to abandon their old traditions and fit one "globalist" model, based on some ideology. Today, we even see some people who call themselves conservatives (neo or otherwise) promoting globalism. Sorry, but that is not what the word "conservative" has meant.
On the contrary, conservatives have always supported local variation. We value local cultures, traditions and ways of life, based on what has grown up in a specific place over time. We want Maine to be Maine and the Deep South to remain the Deep South, rather than every place becoming California. To conservatives, a homogenized world is a danger, not a promise.
Here again we see the power of culture. Many of the forces promoting globalism are not political but cultural. Television is one of the most powerful. How can old, local ways survive when children grow up in front of the television, which reduces everything to a single, uniform (and low) common denominator?
The "world economy" works to the same end. Local producers reflect local traditions, but when they are driven out of business by cheap imports, everything local is lost.
[...]
At the same time, politics plays an important role here. The next conservatism needs to revive an important conservative truth that has to some extent been lost, even among conservatives: subsidiarity. Subsidiarity says that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. As much as possible should be decided at the local level. Only when the local level clearly cannot cope should state governments get involved. And federal involvement should be rare, because it is dangerous. Decisions made in Washington often run roughshod over local needs, traditions and realities. The public schools offer a sad example. Have America's schools gotten better since state governments and the federal government have given them more and more directives? No, they have gotten worse.
The next conservatism could take one powerful action that would do much to restore subsidiarity.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
CWA: Let Left Fumble Filibuster Folly
Concerned Women for America
9/26/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9034/MEDIA/misc/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) urges President Bush to ignore the left’s predictable threats to filibuster his next Supreme Court nominee. Selecting the right Supreme Court nominee must not be jeopardized by unprincipled partisan threats.
“Unless the President nominates Howard Dean, Barbra Streisand or Al Gore, the Democrats can be expected to filibuster,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “Any nominee who thinks the text of the Constitution should be taken more seriously than a supermarket tabloid is filibuster fodder. It isn’t about the nominee—it’s about the President. And the seven Republicans in the ‘Gang of 14’ need to remember that.”
Democrats are demanding their version of a “mainstream” nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Those who oppose Judge John Roberts’ confirmation as the Chief Justice have lost all credibility when it comes to opposing the next nominee.
“We need another nominee with a strong record that proves it’s the Constitution that must weigh in the balance, not policy-making poorly disguised as judging,” LaRue added. “Several outstanding jurists fit the bill, including Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza, Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen and Samuel Alito, to name a few. The President should let it be known that if his opponents reject his first pick, they won’t be seeing any acceptable ‘moderates,’” LaRue concluded.
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 19 ------
Roberts on Way to Senate; Focus Now on Nominee #2
By Jody Brown and Bill Fancher
September 22, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/222005e.asp
(AgapePress) - Now that President Bush's pick to be the next chief justice seems assured of confirmation, attention is turning to who his next pick might be to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. Observers agree that individual could play a major role in how the high court rules for years to come.
When today's voting was done, John G. Roberts' nomination as the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 13-5. His nomination now goes before the full Senate, where a vote is expected to take place on Monday. He is expected to be confirmed by the Senate.
All ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted for Roberts, as did Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both of Wisconsin. Other Democratic members, among them Senators Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy, had in recent days announced their opposition to the president's pick to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Joining those three in casting votes against Roberts were Joseph Biden, Charles Schumer, and Richard Durbin.
[...]
Following the strategy followed and answers given by Roberts, Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council says he wants to see a "much stronger, much more constant, much bolder conservative" nominated by the president -- "because it's the next seat that will change the balance on the court," he points out.
Most court analysts wills say the high court currently consists of five liberals, three conservatives, and one swing vote. The next nominee will be the replacement for that swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Schenck, those of the liberal persuasion say the current balance must be maintained. He finds it amusing that liberals never called for "balance" when there were seven liberal votes on the Supreme Court.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
September 26, 2005
Compiled by Jenni Parker
Agape Press
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/262005h.asp
[...]
...A cultural analyst is pointing out the fact that, even if Judge John Roberts turns out to be a staunch pro-lifer, the chances of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortion could still be a long way off. Ken Conner of the Center for a Just Society says should Judge Roberts be confirmed and turn out to be a true pro-lifer and should President George W. Bush nominate another pro-life judge to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that still will not necessarily give pro-life advocates what they have been fighting for. "Remember that we're still one vote away from reversal of Roe vs. Wade," the Center spokesman notes, "and we're still one vote away from any number of other course corrections that I think are really necessary on the court." Assuming Bush's current nominee is confirmed, Connor says, the high court to be will consist of five liberals, three conservatives (including Roberts), and the next nominee. [Bill Fancher]
[Much more at URL]
----- 21 -----
CPB Taps Two GOP Conservatives for Top Posts
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page C02
A leading Republican donor and fundraiser was elected chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting yesterday, tightening conservative control over the agency that oversees National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.
Cheryl F. Halpern, a New Jersey lawyer and real estate developer, won approval from the CPB's board. She succeeds a close board ally, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who stirred controversy earlier this year by contending that public broadcasting favors liberal views. Tomlinson's term as chairman had expired, but he will remain a member of the board.
The board also elected another conservative, Gay Hart Gaines, as its vice chairman. Gaines, an interior decorator by training, was a charter member and a chairman of GOPAC, a Republican fundraising group that then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) used to engineer the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Same-sex Marriage Bill Finally Sent to Governor Schwarzenegger
For Immediate Release
September 23, 2005
Contact: Benjamin Lopez
(714) 520-0300—office
TVC Chairman & Lobbyist Urge Governor to Stand Firm With Promised Veto.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2442
Anaheim, California —“Today Mark Leno’s political ploy comes to an end as Assembly Bill 849 is finally sent to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk,” said TVC Chairman & Founder Rev. Louis Sheldon. “Governor Schwarzenegger must not give Leno and his radical activist allies additional time and momentum by waiting several days to follow through on his word to veto AB 849. The time for the Governor to act is now; veto the bill immediately.”
TVC Lobbyist Benjamin Lopez was able to confirm through sources at the Capitol that Assembly Bill 849, Assemblyman Mark Leno’s same-sex & gender-neutral marriage bill, was delivered to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office.
The Governor has until October 9 th to either sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.
However, on September 7 th, one day after the State Assembly barely passed AB 849, the Governor’s Press Secretary Margita Thompson stated the Governor would veto the bill once it arrived on his desk.
[More at URL]
Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America rip into Ruth Ginsburg for comments on what kind of justice should be nominated to replace O'Connor, suggests impeachment; includes ACTION ITEM to President Bush for their kind of nominee;
FotF article on the next nominee; again encourages action to lobby for one of their favourites;
FotF article on support for creationism being taught as science in public schools - obviously, they're for it;
FotF: American Baptist Church USA (California-based Baptist denomination) is "losing churches" for being "soft on homosexuality;"
President Bush asks Supreme Court to uphold so-called "partial birth" abortion ban;
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Proposition 73, requiring parental notification from health care providers if anyone under 18 seeks out abortion;
Legal challenge to Oregon's anti-marriage amendment starts in Oregon courts;
FotF thinks that any school discussion of diversity that involves gayfolk should be treated as a sexual discussion and opt-out pre-notification should be provided for parents;
More on the attempt to exempt religious groups receiving Federal funding from civil rights hiring law, so they can hire and fire based on religion when spending Federal tax dollars - obviously, the fundamentalists are for it;
FotF article demanding Scalia-like justice nomination to replace O'Connor;
Patty Murray talks about cutting FDA funding over the Plan B mess - includes ACTION ITEM to tell the FDA not to allow Plan B sales OTC;
Salt Lake City mayor extends DP benefits to same-sex partners; fundamentalists to sue, saying it's illegal to offer DP benefits to fags; state legislator plans to submit a bill making it illegal if it's not already;
Rush Limbaugh endorses "Help! There are Liberals Under my Bed!" a "children's book that warns of the nefarious influence of liberals" - it went up to #44 on Amazon;
FotF reports on the Catholic Church's decision to bar abstinent gay men from seminary, tying it (as they do) to child molestation and rape;
Somewhat bizarre rant on Concerned Women for America about Justice Ginsburg's comments to the NY Bar Association; includes suggestions that she resign;
Paul Weyrich calls for reducing decision-making to the most local possible level, which is strange given their constant and massive Federal involvement;
Concerned Women for America get started on the next nominee, calling for someone as far to the fundamentalist as possible;
Agape Press and National Clergy Council call for "strong conservative" for next nominee, someone much more like Scalia and less like Roberts - the NCC lists the late former Chief Justice Rehnquist as a _liberal_ on the court, talking about the previous court having "seven liberal votes";
Agape Press calls for a "pro-lifer" nominee to replace O'Connor who will definitely work to overturn Roe v. Wade;
Republican donor and fundraiser appointed Chair of Corporation for Public Broadcasting; former chair of GOPAC (trained as an interiour decorator) appointed vice-chair;
California marriage rights bill goes to governor; Traditional Values Coalition urges him to veto it as earlier promised. If he does nothing, it becomes law.
----- 1 -----
FDA Does Damage Control, Naming New Head of Women's Health
Feminist Daily News Wire
September 21, 2005
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9286
Women's groups reported in shock last week that Norris Alderson, PhD, a specialist in veterinary medicine, had been appointed to replace Susan Wood as acting director of the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Women's Health. However, late on Friday, the FDA appeared to do some damage control, announcing the appointment of Theresa Toigo, who has a pharmacy degree and an MBA, to the post.
On Monday, FDA spokesperson Suzanne Trevino told The Washington Post that Alderson had never been appointed to the position, despite the fact that he had been listed as acting director on the official website for the Office of Women’s Health, a statement announcing his appointment had been sent to women’s groups, and he had been introduced to the office’s staff as the acting director. Nonetheless, “There was no official decision made until we announced Theresa Toigo’s appointment,” Trevino told The Post. (Her office has not returned calls from Ms. magazine.)
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Ginsburg Draws Fire for Ultraliberal Talk
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Pete Winn, associate editor
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: Can a Supreme Court justice really call on the
president to nominate a pro-abortion justice -- and get
away with it?
Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
raised the eyebrows of pro-family legal experts when she
started answering questions from members of the New York
City Bar Association about the next high court nominee --
and the use of international law in decisions.
One thing Ginsburg, a former ACLU chief counsel, said is
that the next appointee should be a woman -- but not just
any woman, according to Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the
Concerned Women for America.
"It's obvious that she thinks that all female jurists are
not created equal," she said. "She said, and I'm quoting
--'There are some women who would not advance women's
rights or human rights.' "
La Rue is incensed.
"It doesn't take a world-class cryptographer to bust that
code. She's talking about abortion -- Roe v. Wade," she
said.
LaRue added: "It's shocking to see that a Supreme Court
justice would speak out on such a blatant litmus test
issue. It really calls into question what equal justice
under law means. Is it purely synchronized by an abortion
meter?"
Ginsburg also spoke out in defense of the high court's
reliance on the findings of international courts in its
decisions -- as it did when it struck down the nation's
sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
Ginsburg said, "I will take enlightenment wherever I can
get it. I don't want to stop at a national border."
But Jordan Lorence, a constitutional attorney with the
Alliance Defense Fund and long time Supreme Court
observer, said the Constitution itself closes the borders
to foreign law.
"If the job of a federal judge is to understand what a
written provision of the Constitution is and apply it to a
given situation in a case before them in accord with the
intent of those who drafted it," Lorence said, "then what
foreigners say about their own legal systems should make
no difference to American courts."
Liberal activist judges like Ginsburg, he said, don't
believe in "just" interpreting the Constitution -- they
are actually making up law as they go along.
"But what the justices are doing is picking and choosing
foreign decisions to buttress a dubious, or -- more likely
-- a wrong interpretation of the Constitution," Lorence
said.
Such justices are inconsistent and selective, he said,
when it comes to invoking international law.
"So when they said there's a constitutional right to
sodomy, for instance, they looked to secular Western
European law and not to Islamic law -- or more
conservative, traditionalist nations that might have had a
different view."
Lorence said most nations of the world are much more
restrictive than the U.S. and Western Europe when it comes
to abortion -- they rebuff claims that there is even a
'right' to an abortion.
"They are also much more permissive in allowing government
acknowledgement of religion and government funding of
faith-based initiatives," Lorence said.
"But you can bet, for sure, that those decisions from
foreign courts are never going to find themselves in U.S.
Supreme Court decisions because they contradict the
liberal secularist agenda that the activist judges are
trying to impose."
This is not the first time Ginsburg has made far-left
comments, according to LaRue.
"She thinks that prostitution needs to be protected by the
Constitution, and probably we should do away with Mother's
Day and Father's Day, and she certainly has mentioned
lowering the age of sexual consent down to about 12, and
segregated prisons as being unconstitutional -- it's just
a host of the wackiest, leftist ideas."
LaRue said having another Ginsburg on the court is exactly
what we don't need, and a point to ponder as the president
prepares to nominate another justice -- this time to
replace the court's first female justice, Sandra Day
O'Connor.
Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said even prior
to the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence
strongly condemned the British Crown for relying on
foreign laws to rule America.
"When justices look to the laws of other countries, they
are committing a revolutionary act, and I think that act
ought to be impeachable," Staver said.
Lorence agreed, adding the framers of the Constitution
clearly intended for impeachment to apply if federal
judges say things fundamentally at odds with the
constitutional system of government.
"Probably, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been on the court in
the late 1700s and said these things, there would have
been articles of impeachment filed against her," Lorence
said. "That's not the way Congress looks at these issues
today, however. There would be no stomach in Congress for
impeachment today."
TAKE ACTION: Please let the president know this is no time
to nominate anyone in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We
need a nominee who will defend the Constitution and
sovereignty of the U.S.
For help in contacting President Bush, visit the
CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F
----- 3 -----
Tough Court Battle Possible
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: With Roberts' confirmation a near certainty,
conservatives hope President Bush will rise to the
challenge posed by liberals and appoint another strict
constructionist to the Supreme Court.
With the Senate expected Thursday to easily confirm John
Roberts as chief justice of the United States, attention
will quickly turn to the next Supreme Court vacancy -- the
seat currently held by Sandra Day O'Connor.
Just who President Bush will tap is anybody's guess, but
prominent conservative voices are urging him to select a
"strict constructionist" who understands a judge's role is
to interpret law, not make it. And if that means a heated
battle with Senate liberals, so be it.
Some pundits, though, have suggested Bush should take a
more moderate route, mindful of his sinking popularity in
the polls in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina's
devastation. But that's bad advice, according to American
Values President Gary Bauer.
"As usual, that kind of advice inside the Beltway here in
Washington, D.C. is exactly wrong," Bauer told Family News
in Focus. "If a president is in trouble, and clearly
President Bush is, the one thing you don't want to do is
alienate your most loyal supporters."
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, agreed, saying a
good fight with congressional liberals is an opportunity
for Bush.
"This may be just what the president needs -- a good fight
over principle, conservative versus liberal," he
explained. "On the issue of judicial activism, he shares
the majority view of Americans that judges (should) not
legislate from the bench."
Fitton added that a Senate Democrats would be unwise to
block a conservative nominee with a filibuster, since such
a nominee -- Roberts -- has just been well received by the
public.
"The idea that the Senate can't vote one way or another on
a judicial nominee, especially one for the Supreme Court,
would be an extraordinary argument to make," he said. "I
don't think its going to withstand public scrutiny."
TAKE ACTION: Have an opinion on John Roberts' nomination
-- or who President Bush should select to replace Sandra
Day O'Connor? Make your views known on these and other
subjects by visiting our CitizenTalk message boards.
http://www.fotfforums.org/fusetalk/forum/index.cfm?forumid=9
----- 4 -----
Americans Weary of Darwinism
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: New survey finds interest in other theories about
the origin of life.
Most Americans aren't buying the theory of Darwinian
evolution and would like to hear some alternatives,
according to a recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion &
Public Life.
The survey concluded educators should take the public's
opinion into account and present options to evolution in
public schools.
David Masci, a senior fellow for the Pew Forum, said most
Americans simply don't subscribe to Darwin anymore.
"Only about a quarter of the American public accepts the
Darwinian explanation for life's origins," he noted.
"Sixty-four percent of the American public favors teaching
creationism along with evolution."
Masci's interest in the issue was aroused by a battle in
Dover, Del. That city's school board requires instruction
on the criticisms of evolution, and the curriculum
mentions intelligent design -- the theory that life is too
complex to have been created by accident -- as an
alternative. The policy prompted a lawsuit from the
American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for
the Separation of Church and State.
Complaints from liberals aside, Focus on the Family
analyst Mark Hartwig, Ph.D., said evolution isn't
answering all the questions people have -- and most are
tired of getting only one perspective from the schools, a
perspective rooted in the fact that the majority of
scientists subscribe to Darwinian evolution.
"Americans place a high value on freedom of speech, and on
being able to investigate things for themselves," Hartwig
told Family News in Focus. "They believe that, 'Hey, look,
this is something that is a challenge to Darwinism. Why
shouldn't the kids be allowed to explore it?' "
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Few people really understand the
difference between Darwinism and intelligent design. It's
a heated topic -- but doesn't have to be. "What's Darwin
Got to Do With It?: A Friendly Conversation About
Evolution," is laid out in comic book format so that
readers can relax while taking in the facts about this hot
issue. Great for people of all ages, this fascinating book
sets the facts straight so that readers will gain a
complete understanding of the origin of life.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1565&refcd=CE05ICZL&tvar=no
----- 5 -----
American Baptist Church USA to Lose Members
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
SUMMARY: Hundreds of churches feeling denomination
considered soft on homosexuality.
The American Baptist Church USA, which has refused to
repudiate homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture, is
about to lose hundreds of churches over its liberalism.
One of the churches in the denomination's Pacific
Southwest Region that is breaking away is Wilshire Avenue
Community Church in Fullerton, Calif. Pastor Mark
McCormick said the national church leadership is not
taking a strong enough stand on homosexuality.
"We've asked the national church to hold other churches
and leaders accountable to what we say is the biblical
authority on this issue," he told Family News in Focus.
"Our fear obviously is that this begins to place us on a
slippery slope. If you say that this is not an area of
biblical authority that does not allow us to hold people
accountable to, what else will come up?"
Rich Schramm, a spokesman for the American Baptist Church,
said the denomination is sorry to see the locals go.
"We deeply regret the action taken by the ABC of the
Pacific Southwest, whom we love in Christ, to begin
movement toward withdrawal from the Covenant of
Relationships," he said.
But the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional
Values Coalition, doesn't think that sentiment is sincere.
"It's because they don't believe that the Bible is
inspired and authoritative," he explained. "That is really
the underlying issue."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: "The Bible and Homosexuality:
Confronting the Challenge to Scriptural Authority" is a
pocket-sized booklet that provides an overview and talking
points to refute common arguments about the Bible's view
of homosexuality. Scriptural teaching on homosexual
behavior, the problem of "homosexual Christians" and more
provide the backing you need to make an intelligent,
loving argument for truth.
Includes recommended reading and referrals to ex-gay
ministries.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4940&refcd=CE05ICZL&tvar=no
----- 6 -----
Partial-Birth Abortion Fight Moving to the Supreme Court
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The Bush administration has called for the Supreme Court
to reinstate a ban on partial-birth abortions, a legal
challenge that could be decided by the president's new
choice for the court.
The Solicitor General's office filed paperwork on Friday
asking the high court to reverse a decision by the Eighth
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which declared a Nebraska
law banning partial-birth abortion unconstitutional.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) announced
today that it will file a brief in support of the U.S.
Solicitor General who is asking the Supreme Court to
uphold the national ban on partial-birth abortion.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for ACLJ, said the request
comes at a very important time.
"This will be a monumental term at the Supreme Court
concerning the issue of life," he said. "With the Supreme
Court poised to consider the constitutionality of the ban
on partial-birth abortion and the high court already
hearing cases involving abortion protests, assisted
suicide and parental notification for minors requesting
abortions -- this is a critical time at the Supreme
Court."
Sekulow said his organization is hopeful the Court takes
the case and puts an end to "this abhorrent practice" of
partial-birth abortion.
"It is clear the government does have vital and compelling
interest in preventing the spread of the practice of
abortion into infanticide," he said.
----- 7 -----
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Golden State Governor Endorses Parental Consent Law
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced his
endorsement of Proposition 73, a parental-notification
measure that will be considered by California voters this
November, LifeNews.com reported.
The measure would require abortion facilities to notify
parents if a minor was seeking an abortion.
Schwarzenegger, who has two teen daughters as well as two
pre-teen sons, told the Sacramento Bee he would be
outraged if he was not informed of an abortion.
"They call me when my daughter falls off the jungle gym in
the school and they say, 'What do you want us to use? Can
we put a Band-Aid on it? Do you want to come in?' " he
said. "I wouldn't want to have someone take my daughter
to a hospital for an abortion or something and not tell
me."
----- 8 -----
Oregon Court Considers Gay Marriage
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The issue of Oregon's law banning same-sex marriage went
to court today, as homosexual advocates challenged the
law, The Associated Press reported.
Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond was to hear
arguments that the state's voter-approved constitutional
amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and
one woman is unconstitutional.
Basic Rights Oregon, the homosexual advocacy group that
filed the lawsuit, is arguing that the law affects
multiple rights, violating a state law that restricts
numerous changes on one ballot measure.
Supporters say the one-sentence change to the constitution
is straightforward, stating that the only marriages
recognized in the state will be those between one man and
one woman.
Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family
Council, said the amendment was simpler and clearer than
amendments passed in other states.
"It appears they're searching for a judge who will
overturn the measure for them," Nashif said.
The court battle is expected to take at least two years
and to ultimately wind up before the state Supreme Court.
----- 9 -----
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
September 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
School Chief Says No Warning Needed for Pro-Gay Curriculum
Despite one parent's battle, one Massachusetts school
district said it doesn't have to tell parents when it
discusses homosexuality with students.
Dr. Paul Ash, superintendent of schools in Lexington,
Mass., submitted an article to the town's newspaper
stating he has instructed teachers and staff they are to
give no notice when addressing gay issues in the
classroom.
The article, which appeared in the Lexington Minuteman on
Thursday, was Ash's response to the public's questions
surrounding the arrest of David Parker, a parent who
insisted that he be notified when the topics of
homosexuality and transgenderism were to be discussed in
his son's kindergarten class.
Parker attended a meeting at Estabrook Elementary School
last April to voice his concern over a bag of material
sent home with his son that contained information
depicting same-sex parents as one type of family unit --
he had not been notified ahead of time as he had
previously requested. When he refused to leave at the
conclusion of the meeting, the staff called the
authorities and Parker was arrested.
Ash addressed Massachusetts law in his article, which
states that schools must provide an "opt-out" policy when
addressing human sexual behavior. Parents are notified in
advance and can pull their child out of the session if
they so desire.
Seems clear enough. However Ash then went on to explain
why he thinks discussions about homosexuality do not
qualify.
"The Massachusetts Department of Education, which is
responsible for administering Section 32A," Ash wrote,
"has explained that activities and materials designed to
promote tolerance and respect for individuals, including
recognition of differences in sexual orientation 'without
further instruction on the physical and sexual
implications' do not trigger the notice and opt-out
provisions of 32A."
In other words, according to Ash, homosexuality does not
qualify as human sexual behavior, but instead is a
diversity issue.
"Under this standard, staff has no obligation to notify
parents of discussions, activities and materials designed
to promote tolerance and respect for individuals," he
continues, "including recognition of differences in sexual
orientation."
----- 10 -----
House Conservatives Work to Protect Rights of Religious Groups
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
September 23, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038024.cfm
SUMMARY: An amendment would protect the hiring practices
of Head Start providers.
There are efforts under way in the House to change
language in the School Readiness Act that would make it
illegal for faith-based organizations to hire only those
who share their values.
Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., introduced an amendment that
would exempt faith-based groups from being sued for
religious discrimination.
"If we don't allow faith-based organizations to do this,
then we're undermining their ability to exist in an
environment where they can provide services," he said. "It
also opens them up to potential lawsuits if they hire
those who do not believe in their faith-based values."
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Capitol Hill is Already Looking Ahead to the Next High Court Nominee
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
September 23, 2005
NEWSBRIEFS
[Received in email; no URL]
Republicans and Democrats are already looking beyond Judge
John Roberts' virtually certain confirmation to who will
be the president's next nominee to the Supreme Court.
According to The Associated Press, many expect a quick
announcement from the White House and a much tougher
confirmation fight.
Stephen Wermiel, an American University law professor,
said he thinks there were people in the White House who
hoped the Democrats would all vote for Roberts,
demonstrating that he was a high-quality nominee.
"There were other people in the White House who hoped the
Democrats would all vote against him," he said, "thinking
that would help the president feel liberated to do
whatever he wanted to do next."
Some senators apparently believed that backing Roberts
placed them in a better position to oppose the next
nominee, while others thought that opposing him puts the
president on notice.
Norm Ornstein, a political analyst with the American
Enterprise Institute, said anyone familiar with this
administration knows a strong Democratic vote against
Roberts would convince Bush they would reject anyone he'd
nominate -- "so why bother nominating anyone but a
fire-breathing conservative."
The Democratic support for Roberts was a stinging defeat
for liberal groups that are lobbying energetically against
him.
"The vote shows that a strong, unapologetic, judicial
conservative in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas can not only be confirmed without
filibuster but can actually pick up Democrat votes," said
Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network.
----- 12 -----
SENATOR SEEKS TO CUT FDA FUNDING OVER PLAN B
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
from staff reports
September 22, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038005.cfm
SUMMARY: Cuts are wielded as punishment for not allowing
over-the-counter sales.
A U.S. senator is looking to cut funding to the Food and
Drug Administration after it postponed a decision on
allowing over-the-counter sales of Plan B, the so-called
morning-after pill.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is offering a series of
amendments to an Appropriations Bill to scuttle funding
for any FDA rulemaking concerning Plan B.
But, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kans., said Murray will not
find much support.
"It ultimately will not pass through," he told Family News
in Focus. "The White House will be opposed to this and so,
in the final bill negotiations, I believe we will be able
to get it out."
[...]
TAKE ACTION: Tell the FDA not to offer Plan B over the
counter. The government is inviting public comment through
Nov. 1. You can find contact information in the
CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4370&dir=fof&command=depresult2&submit.x=13&submit.y=11
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Salt Lake City Mayor OKs Domestic-Partner Benefits
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
NEWSBRIEFS
September 22, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The mayor of Salt Lake City has signed an executive order
extending domestic-partner benefits to homosexual city
employees, The Associated Press reported.
Just 1 percent of the city's 2,600 workers are likely to
take advantage of the benefit.
"This is an important step toward recognizing the needs
and equality of all city employees," Mayor Rocky Anderson
said. "Providing benefits to families, without
discriminating on the basis of marital status or sexual
orientation, will provide very real benefits to both the
adults and children in employees' families."
It also is almost certain to provide for a legal
challenge. At least one state lawmaker said he believes
same-sex benefits to be illegal in Utah -- adding that if
he's wrong, he'll introduce legislation next year to make
it so.
Although the executive order takes effect immediately, it
will take some time for the city to amend its contracts
with insurance providers. In fact, the company that
administers Salt Lake City's insurance program has
indicated it wants a judge to weigh in on the legality of
Anderson's order before implementing it.
----- 14 -----
Limbaugh Endorses Conservative Kids Book
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
NEWSBRIEFS
September 22, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Rush Limbaugh's enthusiastic endorsement has spiked sales
of a new children's book that warns of the nefarious
influence of liberals.
"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!" is the title
of the book from author Katherine DeBrecht. Limbaugh
described it in these terms on his nationally syndicated
radio talk show:
"It tells of two brothers who open a lemonade stand. Their
plans to save up their hard-earned profits to buy a swing
set go awry when a Ted Kennedy character taxes away their
profits and a pantsuit-clad Hillary Clinton look-alike
outlaws sugary drinks."
For her part, DeBrecht said she wrote the book in response
to the bullying tactics of those on the political left.
"Liberals have been foisting their ideological agenda on
our kids for years, and now they're beside themselves that
someone would stand up to them," she explained.
"Evidently, books about socialist fish and gay kings are
OK, but a story about hard work and self-reliance is too
extreme."
----- 15 -----
Catholic Church to Bar Ordination of Homosexuals
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
NEWSBRIEFS
September 22, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Strict new rules being finalized for the Catholic Church
will bar homosexuals -- even those who are celibate --
from becoming priests, The New York Times reported.
Church officials said the ban will affect only candidates
for the priesthood, not those already ordained. The
prohibition, part of a set of guidelines begun during the
papacy of John Paul II, is expected to be signed into
force by Pope Benedict XVI within the next six weeks.
Also as part of Benedict's directive to, in his words,
"purify" the church in the wake of widespread
sexual-molestation scandals, Vatican investigators have
been instructed to visit each of the 229 seminaries in the
United States.
----- 16 -----
Sometimes I Don’t ‘Enjoy Being a Girl’
Concerned Women for America
9/27/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
Respectable women jurists understand that “Equal Justice Under Law” isn’t synchronized by an abortion meter.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9039/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
Men and women are as equally capable of genius as they are at uttering babble. Case closed.
But there are times when a woman says something that makes me chuck the brand-new hairdo and eyelashes all in a curl for overalls and a fake beard.
Lately, there’s been a rash of female balderdash coming from women who sound like they’re thinking with their ovaries. And for post-menopausal women, that’s especially fruitless. What else can we conclude when every other sentence is peppered with “concern” for “reproductive rights”? Enough already.
Take for example a speech by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the New York Bar Association, September 21. Ginsburg said she wants another woman on the Court but “any woman will not do.” It seems female jurists are equal but some are more equal than others. There are some women “who would not advance women’s rights or human rights,” according to Ginsburg.
Translation—men have human rights, women get those, and then something called “women’s rights.” You don’t have to be a world-class cryptographer to bust that code.
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
The Next Conservatism: Think Locally, Act Locally
A Series by Paul M. Weyrich
Free Congress Foundation
9/26/2005
By Paul M. Weyrich
Conservatives have always supported local variation, and that should continue.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9029/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.
For many years, one of the left's slogans has been, "Think Globally, Act Locally." I think the next conservatism needs to answer this with a new slogan of our own: Think Locally, Act Locally.
"Think Globally, Act Locally" reflects the left's centuries-old belief in "one world." Just as the Jacobins of the French Revolution wanted, everyone in the world should be forced to abandon their old traditions and fit one "globalist" model, based on some ideology. Today, we even see some people who call themselves conservatives (neo or otherwise) promoting globalism. Sorry, but that is not what the word "conservative" has meant.
On the contrary, conservatives have always supported local variation. We value local cultures, traditions and ways of life, based on what has grown up in a specific place over time. We want Maine to be Maine and the Deep South to remain the Deep South, rather than every place becoming California. To conservatives, a homogenized world is a danger, not a promise.
Here again we see the power of culture. Many of the forces promoting globalism are not political but cultural. Television is one of the most powerful. How can old, local ways survive when children grow up in front of the television, which reduces everything to a single, uniform (and low) common denominator?
The "world economy" works to the same end. Local producers reflect local traditions, but when they are driven out of business by cheap imports, everything local is lost.
[...]
At the same time, politics plays an important role here. The next conservatism needs to revive an important conservative truth that has to some extent been lost, even among conservatives: subsidiarity. Subsidiarity says that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. As much as possible should be decided at the local level. Only when the local level clearly cannot cope should state governments get involved. And federal involvement should be rare, because it is dangerous. Decisions made in Washington often run roughshod over local needs, traditions and realities. The public schools offer a sad example. Have America's schools gotten better since state governments and the federal government have given them more and more directives? No, they have gotten worse.
The next conservatism could take one powerful action that would do much to restore subsidiarity.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
CWA: Let Left Fumble Filibuster Folly
Concerned Women for America
9/26/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9034/MEDIA/misc/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) urges President Bush to ignore the left’s predictable threats to filibuster his next Supreme Court nominee. Selecting the right Supreme Court nominee must not be jeopardized by unprincipled partisan threats.
“Unless the President nominates Howard Dean, Barbra Streisand or Al Gore, the Democrats can be expected to filibuster,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “Any nominee who thinks the text of the Constitution should be taken more seriously than a supermarket tabloid is filibuster fodder. It isn’t about the nominee—it’s about the President. And the seven Republicans in the ‘Gang of 14’ need to remember that.”
Democrats are demanding their version of a “mainstream” nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Those who oppose Judge John Roberts’ confirmation as the Chief Justice have lost all credibility when it comes to opposing the next nominee.
“We need another nominee with a strong record that proves it’s the Constitution that must weigh in the balance, not policy-making poorly disguised as judging,” LaRue added. “Several outstanding jurists fit the bill, including Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza, Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen and Samuel Alito, to name a few. The President should let it be known that if his opponents reject his first pick, they won’t be seeing any acceptable ‘moderates,’” LaRue concluded.
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 19 ------
Roberts on Way to Senate; Focus Now on Nominee #2
By Jody Brown and Bill Fancher
September 22, 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/222005e.asp
(AgapePress) - Now that President Bush's pick to be the next chief justice seems assured of confirmation, attention is turning to who his next pick might be to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. Observers agree that individual could play a major role in how the high court rules for years to come.
When today's voting was done, John G. Roberts' nomination as the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 13-5. His nomination now goes before the full Senate, where a vote is expected to take place on Monday. He is expected to be confirmed by the Senate.
All ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted for Roberts, as did Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both of Wisconsin. Other Democratic members, among them Senators Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy, had in recent days announced their opposition to the president's pick to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Joining those three in casting votes against Roberts were Joseph Biden, Charles Schumer, and Richard Durbin.
[...]
Following the strategy followed and answers given by Roberts, Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council says he wants to see a "much stronger, much more constant, much bolder conservative" nominated by the president -- "because it's the next seat that will change the balance on the court," he points out.
Most court analysts wills say the high court currently consists of five liberals, three conservatives, and one swing vote. The next nominee will be the replacement for that swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Schenck, those of the liberal persuasion say the current balance must be maintained. He finds it amusing that liberals never called for "balance" when there were seven liberal votes on the Supreme Court.
[More at URL]
----- 20 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
September 26, 2005
Compiled by Jenni Parker
Agape Press
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/262005h.asp
[...]
...A cultural analyst is pointing out the fact that, even if Judge John Roberts turns out to be a staunch pro-lifer, the chances of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortion could still be a long way off. Ken Conner of the Center for a Just Society says should Judge Roberts be confirmed and turn out to be a true pro-lifer and should President George W. Bush nominate another pro-life judge to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that still will not necessarily give pro-life advocates what they have been fighting for. "Remember that we're still one vote away from reversal of Roe vs. Wade," the Center spokesman notes, "and we're still one vote away from any number of other course corrections that I think are really necessary on the court." Assuming Bush's current nominee is confirmed, Connor says, the high court to be will consist of five liberals, three conservatives (including Roberts), and the next nominee. [Bill Fancher]
[Much more at URL]
----- 21 -----
CPB Taps Two GOP Conservatives for Top Posts
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page C02
A leading Republican donor and fundraiser was elected chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting yesterday, tightening conservative control over the agency that oversees National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.
Cheryl F. Halpern, a New Jersey lawyer and real estate developer, won approval from the CPB's board. She succeeds a close board ally, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who stirred controversy earlier this year by contending that public broadcasting favors liberal views. Tomlinson's term as chairman had expired, but he will remain a member of the board.
The board also elected another conservative, Gay Hart Gaines, as its vice chairman. Gaines, an interior decorator by training, was a charter member and a chairman of GOPAC, a Republican fundraising group that then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) used to engineer the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.
[More at URL]
----- 22 -----
Same-sex Marriage Bill Finally Sent to Governor Schwarzenegger
For Immediate Release
September 23, 2005
Contact: Benjamin Lopez
(714) 520-0300—office
TVC Chairman & Lobbyist Urge Governor to Stand Firm With Promised Veto.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2442
Anaheim, California —“Today Mark Leno’s political ploy comes to an end as Assembly Bill 849 is finally sent to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk,” said TVC Chairman & Founder Rev. Louis Sheldon. “Governor Schwarzenegger must not give Leno and his radical activist allies additional time and momentum by waiting several days to follow through on his word to veto AB 849. The time for the Governor to act is now; veto the bill immediately.”
TVC Lobbyist Benjamin Lopez was able to confirm through sources at the Capitol that Assembly Bill 849, Assemblyman Mark Leno’s same-sex & gender-neutral marriage bill, was delivered to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office.
The Governor has until October 9 th to either sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.
However, on September 7 th, one day after the State Assembly barely passed AB 849, the Governor’s Press Secretary Margita Thompson stated the Governor would veto the bill once it arrived on his desk.
[More at URL]
