Today's Cultural Warfare Update

[solarbird]

Massachusetts Episcopal Bishop Thomas Shaw presides over nuptial mass for gay couple; condemned by all kinds of people;

Fundamentalist Target boycott ended over so-called "War on Christmas";

New York State appeals court rules against marriage as an equal protection issue, says marriage is for children;

Focus on the Family condemns Brokeback Mountain; quoted as "twisted," "neo-Marxist homosexual propaganda," and "a high ick factor"; warns against boycott, fearing a boycott would bring it more business - they've learned from their mistakes on that front, unfortunately;

"Justice Sunday III" set for January 8th; Greater Exodus Baptist Church of Philadelphia to host; usual suspects to show up and speak;

FCC pledges more indecency prosecutions in broadcast;

Concerned Women for America continues its "Merry Christmas ONLY!" demands on retailers, listing by those who use only "Christmas" references, and explicitly docking those who use both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays"; oddly, White House and Bill O'Reilly not on list;

Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's run to the social right is tripped up: hospitals must provide emergency contraception if rape victims request it; this is a reversal of his previous position, and is in response to a new law;

Walgreens does not allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they dislike on religious grounds; some pharmacists decided to do so anyway (emergency contraception, in this case), and were put on unpaid leave; they're now suing Walgreens for religious discrimination;

Ted Stevens may have scrapped a follow-up panel on broadcast "indecency";

LifeNews.com action item against Planned Parenthood's Christmas cards - yes, really;

CWA endorses government-mandated al la carte cable channel plans;

Family Research Council joins "War on Christmas" paranoia bandwagon;

FRC ACTION ITEM against marriage rights, for anti-marriage amendment to Pennsylvania constitution;

FRC press release for Justice Sunday III;

Exodus International condemns Brokeback Mountain;

Agape Press: 70% of Alabama residents think creationism and intelligent design should be taught at science; fewer think evolutionary theory should be; happy religion professor credits conservative Baptist churches for the poll result.


----- 1 -----
Bay State ECUSA Bishop Draws Conservative Anglican Condemnation
Canon Decries Massachusetts Cleric's Involvement in Same-Sex 'Wedding' Celebration
By Jim Brown
December 6, 2005

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/afa/62005d.asp

(AgapePress) - A conservative Anglican theologian is denouncing the Episcopal Bishop of Massachusetts, Bishop Thomas Shaw, for presiding over a so-called "nuptial mass" for a homosexual couple immediately after their "wedding." Shaw recently celebrated the Eucharist, the Episcopal rite of Holy Communion, at the same-sex wedding of two men who, reportedly, had their first date in a monastery.

According to Anglican insider David Virtue, Bishop Shaw is "a leading contender to replace Frank Griswold as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church." But Anglican theologian Dr. Kendall Harmon says the Massachusetts church leader has chosen to ignore a document addressing the crisis in the worldwide Anglican Communion, the "Windsor Report," which calls on the Episcopal Church to stop blessing same-sex unions.

"The Bishop of Massachusetts, by doing this, is again showing tremendous disrespect for the rest of the Anglican Communion, who have been pleading for restraint on the part of the Episcopal Church," Harmon says. "It's just another example of the Western arrogance that is underneath so much of the Episcopal Church's actions, and they're making a bad situation much worse."

[More at URL]


----- 2 -----
TARGET BOYCOTT ENDS
After hearing from hundreds of thousands of customers, a major retailer blinks.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Pete Winn, associate editor

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038888.cfm

The American Family Association (AFA) has ended its
boycott against Target -- a boycott that began because the
retailer failed to include any mention of Christmas in its
advertising and in-store promotions.

Why did it end? Because the corporation blinked.

In an official statement, Target said: "Over the course of
the next few weeks, our advertising, marketing and
merchandising will become more specific to the holiday
that is approaching -- referring directly to holidays like
Christmas and Hanukkah. For example, you will see
reference to Christmas in select television commercials,
circulars and in-store advertising."

The Minneapolis-based company's statement went on to say:
"We do not have a policy or intention of excluding the
word 'Christmas' from our holiday advertising or
marketing. Christmas images and themes have been used in
our advertising and marketing in the past and you will
continue to see these images and themes in the future."

[More at URL]


----- 3 -----
Court Affirms Marriage in the Empire State
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
December 9, 2005
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor

SUMMARY: A New York appeals court ruled gay marriage has
no constitutional basis, but the fight isn't over.

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038885.cfm

A New York intermediate appeals court on Thursday rejected
a challenge to the state's marriage law brought by five
same-sex couples and affirmed marriage in the process.

A panel ruled 4-to-1 that a lower-court decision in favor
of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples was not
lawful, and stated the law clearly "sets up heterosexual
marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal."

The gay couples had argued that marriage laws deny them
the right of equal protection and due process as
guaranteed by the state constitution.

Last February, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan declared that
homosexuals should have the right to marry.

[...]

The ruling also addressed the obligation to society to
protect the institution of marriage as a social construct.

"The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes traditional,
heterosexual marriage as a fundamental right," the court
explained. Marriage is the ideal to "encourage sufficient
marital childbearing to sustain the population and
society; the entire society, even those who do not marry,
depend on a healthy marriage culture for this latter,
critical, but presently undervalued, benefit. Marriage
laws are not primarily about adult needs for official
recognition and support, but about the well-being of
children and society.

[More at URL]


----- 4 -----
REVIEWERS CALL 'BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN' TWISTED
Gay love story carries a high "ick" factor.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
December 8, 2005
by Pete Winn, associate editor

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038874.cfm

"Brokeback Mountain" is a cowboy movie where neither of
the leading men gets the girl -- they get each other.

The "gay Western love story" that will premiere Friday has
won film-festival awards and is drawing lots of media
attention. Reviewers have called it a "landmark."

Focus on the Family Action Analyst Caleb H. Price said
Hollywood is doing all it can to get people interested in
a film that they know most moviegoers will not want to
see. Set in Wyoming in the 1960s, the R-rated love affair
between two cowboys culminates in explicit gay sexuality.

"If you read what Hollywood is saying about it, they're
calling it 'an achingly beautiful love story,' " Price
said.

"But I don't see it that way at all. You see two
characters obsessed with a type of bondage that they don't
know what to do with. They don't know where it came from,
and they don't know how to resolve it. And they both end
up experiencing tragic consequences in their lives."

Youth could easily be led astray, he said, into thinking
that gay sexuality is perfectly normal -- a message that
homosexual activist groups have been harping about for
years.

[...]

"If you're not looking at this through the eyes of someone
caught up in the 'love affair' between these two men,"
Baehr said, "then the movie appears to be twisted,
laughable, frustrating and boring Neo-Marxist homosexual
propaganda."

[More at URL]


----- 5 -----
Justice Sunday III Scheduled for January
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 8, 2005

[Received in email; no URL]

The Family Research Council (FRC) will bring its third
nationwide broadcast aimed at educating citizens about the
attempts by activist judges to remove all mention of God
from the public square.

Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pa., will
host the "Justice Sunday III - Proclaim Liberty Throughout
the Land" on Jan. 8. It will be beamed by satellite to
churches and to individuals via the Internet. Hundreds of
radio stations will also carry the broadcast.

Speakers include Tony Perkins, president of FRC, Dr. James
Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family
Action, and Herbert Lusk, pastor of Greater Exodus Baptist
Church.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Learn more about Justice Sunday III
by visiting its Web site. It includes information on how
your church may participate.

http://www.justicesunday.com/


----- 6 -----
Broadcast Indecency Has Gone Unpunished So Far This Year
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
December 8, 2005

[Received in email; no URL]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received
more than 189,000 complaints about indecency on the
airwaves this year, but with just three weeks left in 2005
has yet to issue any fines.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said last month that at least 50
reported incidents would receive fines, expressing a
desire to streamline the way complaints are handled.

"We are working very hard to address the backlog of
complaints before us, which is fairly substantial," Martin
said in November. "In clearing out this backlog, we are
trying to act in a consistent and comprehensive manner."

FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy said the commissioners
have not seen a package of proposed indecency fines for
sign-off, but expects them to be issued before the end of
the year. If no action is taken in 2005, it will be the
first time since 1993 that no fines were proposed.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: The FCC has made it even easier to
file complaints about indecency and obscenity on the
airwaves. Please see CitizenLink for more information.

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038520.cfm


----- 7 -----
CWA: He’s Making a List and Checking it Twice, Gonna Find Out who’s Naughty or Nice
Concerned Women for America
12/9/2005

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9657/MEDIA/family/index.htm

Washington, D.C.—Concerned Women for America (CWA) presents our first Christmas list showing which businesses are honoring the Reason for the Season (the birth of Jesus), which ones are not, and which have mixed records.

Macy’s joins the NICE list because it has returned the explicit mention of Christmas and Merry Christmas to its stores and its ads. L.L. Bean, on the other hand, just barely escapes the Grinch list and gets a middle rating because, while its first seasonal catalog says Christmas 2005, all subsequent catalogs say Holiday 2005, culminating in the Best of Holiday 2005 (surrounded by Christmas items).

“More and more retailers are realizing, too late, that Christian consumers now understand that the constant use of ‘happy holidays’ and ‘holiday’ is grating and insulting,” said Robert Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. “It’s an act of cultural cowardice and even an overt attack on Christmas and ultimately the Christian faith.

[More at URL]


----- 8 -----
Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law
He reverses stand on Plan B
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | December 9, 2005

Long URL elided

Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.

The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.

Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.

''And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said at the State House after signing a bill on capital gains taxes.

[More at URL]


----- 9 -----
Walgreens Pharmacists File Discrimination Complaint Over Plan B Firings
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 8, 2005

http://www.lifenews.com/state1317.html

St. Louis, MO (LifeNews.com) -- Four Walgreens pharmacists who were fired from their jobs in southern Illinois have filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying they were discriminated against because of their religious views on dispensing the morning after pill.

The pharmacists said they were "effectively fired" from their jobs when Walgreens put them on unpaid leave last week because they wouldn't follow a directive from Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, mandating that all pharmacists in the state fill all prescriptions for legal drugs.

That order, which has been challenged in court, would force pharmacists to dispense the Plan B drugs, which can sometimes cause an abortion.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a pro-life law firm, filed the complaint on the pharmacists' behalf.

"Since the pharmacists believe that human life begins at conception, they conclude that dispensing such drugs would require them to participate in the moral equivalent of abortion," ACLJ said in a statement.

[More at URL]


----- 10 -----
CongressDaily
Senate Panel May Scrap 'Decency' Forum Followup
By David Hatch
National Journal

Long URL elided

(Wednesday, December 7) The Senate Commerce Committee is considering scrapping its plan for a followup next Monday to its forum on indecency issues held last month.

The Nov. 29 forum explored legislative and industry initiatives designed to safeguard viewers from explicit content on television. Senate Commerce Committee staffers acknowledged that next week's meeting, which it emphasized was never officially scheduled, is now uncertain.

A committee spokeswoman cited several reasons -- including scheduling pressures and a new industry initiative on television ratings -- for the possible change in plans.

Word that the second meeting might be sidelined did not sit well with at least one group monitoring the issue.

"The fact that it may not go forward is just another indication that [Commerce Chairman] Stevens is allowing this issue to stall in his committee. It's unfortunate and it's unfair to American families," said Lanier Swann, director of government relations for Concerned Women for America -- a group that supports higher broadcast indecency fines and tougher content restrictions for cable.

[More at URL]


----- 11 -----
Planned Parenthood Brings Back Pro-Abortion "Choice on Earth" Christmas Cards
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 8, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Planned Parenthood has brought back its offensive Choice on Earth Christmas cards, turning a holiday celebrating Jesus' birth into a fundraising opportunity to support abortion.

In an email Thursday encouraging its members to "send a holiday gift with real meaning" Planned Parenthood tells potential donors they can choose from one of five "Choice on Earth" Christmas cards.

The abortion business hopes donors will make a contribution in honor of a friend or relative and send them a pro-abortion Christmas card as an acknowledgment.

The cards come in five varieties this year and four feature the message "Choice on Earth." On even includes the Christian dove symbolizing peace and another extols the virtues of "hope, justice, and empowerment."

Wendy Wright, the executive vice president of Concerned Women for America, told LifeNews.com "Planned Parenthood revels in offending others."

"Its mockery of Jesus Christ's birthday is intended to stick it to Christians," Wright explained.

"But in its attempt to hijack Christmas from a celebration of Jesus’ birth to reveling in the killing of innocent babies, its commemoration hearkens to another event that occurred over 2000 years ago – Herod’s order to kill all the Hebrew baby boys," she told LifeNews.com.

"But even the Grinches at Planned Parenthood can't steal the joy of Christmas," Wright said.

"Its distasteful cards are a reminder of a timeless struggle, that evil never relents in its pursuit to pervert and destroy what is good, and how even powerful and rich leaders cannot prevail over God."

ACTION: Send a note to Planned Parenthood telling them about their offensive Christma cards at: communications@ppfa.org. You can also call them at 212/541-7800 or send a fax to 212/245-1845.

Related web sites:
Concerned Women for America - http://www.cwfa.org
Planned Parenthood's Christmas cards - http://www.ppaction.org/network/cardviews.html


----- 12 -----
CWA Urges Support for Legally Mandated Cable Choice
By Bill Fancher and Jenni Parker
AgapePress
December 8, 2005

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/82005e.asp

(AgapePress) - The pro-family group Concerned Women for America has commended the Federal Communications Commission for standing up for family values by announcing the agency's support for cable companies offering customers cable choice options instead of forcing them to purchase pre-packaged channel bundles. Now CWA is calling on Congress and a reluctant cable industry to give U.S. families "channel choice."

CWA president Beverly LaHaye notes that cable television has long been offered to the American public on a "take it or leave it" basis, since consumers have few viable competitors to turn to when fed up with their cable providers. As a result, she says, pro-family consumers have rallied around "the only option open to them -- a la carte pricing, which offers consumers choice of which channels they want to pay for."

Lanier Swann, CWA's director of government relations, says cable choice is the logical solution to the growing problem of negative influences coming into American families' lives through cable programming. A growing number of people feel consumers should be allowed to choose the television networks they want to allow into their homes and should not be forced to pay for those they find offensive or inappropriate.

The effort by a groundswell of pro-family forces to get the a la carte cable packaging or "channel choice" solution implemented is "a campaign that just aims to put the power back into the hands that matter most, and that is the American consumer, the American families who subscribe to cable," Swann says. That is why CWA, the largest women's public policy organization in the United States, is throwing its weight behind the concept.

[More at URL]


----- 13 -----
Christmas the "Endangered Holiday"
Issue No.: 29
by: James Sunday
Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CU05L05&f=PG03I03

As the abyss of political correctness engulfs our nation, it seems that not even Christmas  is safe from being sucked into the abyss of political correctness.  Across the U.S., nativity scenes and Christmas displays with Christian themes are now taboo.  Phrases such as "Merry Christmas" are considered "humbug," and even Jesus is being excluded from the navitity scene.  Library officials in Memphis, Tennessee believe that having Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus, and the wise men in a navitity scene is 'inappropriate.' A nativity scene without Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and the wise men? If this continues, soon we won't be able refer to Christmas as Christmas, but as the "Nondenominational Winter Holiday." Target retail stores have kicked the Salvation Army to the curb, as bell ringing to raise funds for the poor seems to be in "poor taste" and not political correct.  So much for the Christmas phrase "good will and cheer to men." Even the Christmas Carol "Silent Night" is in trouble.  In Wisconsin, an elementary school changed the lyrics, and is calling the song "Cold in the Night." So what are Christians to do as they face the prospect of Christmas becoming an "endangered holiday?"  Say "Merry Christmas" and order your Christmas Pamphlet from the Alliance Defense Fund, so you can learn how to protect your rights to celebrate Christmas.   


----- 14 -----
Help Preserve Traditional Marriage in Pennsylvania
December 8, 2005 - Thursday
Forward to a Friend!
Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05L02&f=PG03I03

We need your help to pass a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution in order to protect marriage for ourselves and our posterity, and now is the time!

As we've witnessed in other states such as Massachusetts, this issue will be decided one way or another. The real question is: Who Decides: activist judges or us (through our elected officials)?

Marriage Protection Amendment legislation will be introduced in January 2006 by Pennsylvania State Rep. Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster); joined by Rep. Daryl Metalfe (R-Butler), Rep. Tom Yewcic (D-Johnstown), Rep. Katie True (R-Lancaster) and Rep. Teresa Forcier (R-Crawford).

Rep. Boyd is actively seeking co-sponsors for his bill and you can join the effort by helping to get your representative to sign on as a co-sponsor.

What you can do to help:

Contact your own state representative and urge him or her to contact Rep. Scott Boyd's office to cosponsor the Marriage Protection legislation.

Message - Marriage between one man and one woman must be preserved in Pennsylvania. We need a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution.

Spread the word - Forward this alert to your family and friends in Pennsylvania. Tell your pastor. Make an announcement in your church this Sunday.

Pray for marriage to be protected in Pennsylvania.

Purpose - A Marriage Protection Amendment would:
* Protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
* Protect the public institution of marriage from any counterfeit or alternative "civil unions."
* Protect Pennsylvania's marriage statute (strengthened in 1996) from being overturned by activist judges in a potential lawsuit challenge.

After you make your contacts, find more information and more ways to help by joining Pennsylvania for Marriage at the new website: www.PA4marriage.org to get informed and get involved today. Thank you!


----- 15 -----
FRC Launches JusticeSunday.com for Justice Sunday III
Family Research Council
December 8, 2005 - Thursday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 8, 2005 CONTACT: Amber Hildebrand, (202) 393-2100

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05L02&f=PG03I03

PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT THE LAND
WWW.JUSTICESUNDAY.COM

Washington, D.C. - Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will host Family Research Council's (FRC) upcoming simulcast television program, "Justice Sunday III - Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land" Sunday, January 8, 2006. FRC has launched JusticeSunday.com which includes all current details of this exciting event.

Justice Sunday III, the follow-up to "Justice Sunday II - God Save this Honorable Court" and "Justice Sunday - Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith," will broadcast live in churches across the nation in addition to being carried on hundreds of radio stations, via satellite and web-cast on www.frc.org.

Who: Partial listing:

Tony Perkins~ Family Research Council
Dr. James Dobson~ Focus on the Family
Rev. Herbert Lusk~ Greater Exodus Baptist Church

What: National television and radio simulcast
Broadcast in churches across America

When: Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 7 pm EST

Where: Greater Exodus Baptist Church
714 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19130

Misc: Media Filing Center available
TV Uplink available
Multbox available for radio

Contact: FRC Press Office - 202-393-2100

For more information regarding the "Justice Sunday III - Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land" live simulcast, visit www.justicesunday.com or call the FRC Press Office at (202) 393-2100.

Members of the media must register for FRC media credentials
prior to the event at www.justicesunday.com

-30-


----- 16 -----
ABC's Good Morning America Features Exodus President Discussing Controversial New Movie
Ex-Gay Organization Says Hollywood's One-sided Portrayal of Gay Life in Brokeback Mountain is Damaging and Harmful
Exodus International
Dated: December 8, 2005

http://www.exodus-international.org/news_2005_1208PR.shtml

Orlando, FL -Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, the largest evangelical network of former homosexuals in the world, was featured on ABC’s Good Morning America yesterday discussing Brokeback Mountain—a controversial new movie centered around the issue of homosexuality.

Hailed as a fictional love story, Brokeback Mountain, stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as two cowboys in the 1960s who embark upon a troubled lifelong secret homosexual relationship—a relationship that spans the course of each of their marriages to women and their eventual divorces. Ang Lee, the acclaimed director of the film, states that a frequent theme in his movies is “social obligation vs. free will” and this one is no exception. Brokeback Mountain’s clear intent is to show that an unaccepting society is to blame for the tragedy that unfolds in the lives of the main characters.

Chambers, himself a former homosexual, says that while some of the themes explore the unhappiness, pain and promiscuity in gay life, the movie’s overarching premise sends the wrong message to Americans about culture and sexuality. “Brokeback Mountain is a story of unbridled obsession and painful oppression—emotions that I and thousands of others who have left homosexuality are well familiar with,” said Chambers. “The hopeless desperation we experienced, however, came from accepting the culture’s ‘born-gay’ mantra and resigning ourselves to a life dominated by our unwanted same-sex attractions.

[More at URL]


----- 17 -----
Most Alabamans Surveyed Trust Bible's Creation Account Over Darwin's
By Jim Brown
December 9, 2005

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/afa/92005g.asp

(AgapePress) - A new poll shows more people in Alabama adhere to the biblical account of creation than to Darwin's theory of evolution. Of the more than 400 Alabamians surveyed between November 28 and December 1, about three out of four identified themselves as "born-again Christians."

The survey conducted by the Mobile Register and the University of South Alabama found that about 70 percent of the state's residents believe creationism and intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes. Fewer than half of those polled said the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

Dale Younce, a Christian Studies professor at the University of Mobile, says he was "delightfully surprised" by the survey's findings. The result is particularly unexpected, he asserts, considering that evolutionism "holds the floor" in secondary and higher education classrooms, even in Alabama.

"I would like to think that the conservative Baptist churches throughout the state have an effect in causing the church members to think thorough the question of creation and evolution, but I have no evidence to support that," Younce says...

[More at URL]

Comments

[corivax.livejournal.com]

Guh. I wonder what filing complaints about Walgreen's is supposed to accomplish? Walgreen's can't do anything - they're required by state law to dispense emergency contraception, and they already have offered to transfer the pharmacists to Missouri. I'm very confused what the goal of the complaints is, as suing Walgreen's will neither change the law nor exempt Walgreen's from following it.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

It seems that they want to challenge the case in order to create a legal precedent. Ultimately, they want a Supreme Court ruling saying that state laws requiring pharmacists to dispense medication are a violation of their freedom of religion, which they believe supersedes the right of patients to treatment free from discrimination.

You and I may think this is a lunatic idea, but if they have the money to keep the case going long enough and can convince 5 justices to see things their way, they could make this the law of the land. Scalia and Thomas are likely votes, Roberts is an open question but realistically could lean their way, Alito would almost certainly support this if he's not rejected by the Senate. Kennedy's probably too sensible to rule that way, but you never know. And there's your five. (Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsberg are close-to-certain no votes, I think.)

Yet another reason to reject Alito and any other judges Bush puts forward that have a proven history of putting religious belief above legal precedent.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I know everyone will disagree with this but, requiring a Pharmacist to provide someone with a drug that causes an abortion, to many of them is the same thing as forcing a Doctor to perform one, or a Nurse to assist in performing one. Right now forcing a Nurse or Doctor to perform an abortion is illegal, why? If you can force a Pharmicist to (in effect) assist in one, why not a Nurse? Why not a Doctor?

In Michigan there is a law exempting professionals from performing abortions or assisting in them. Pharmacists (who are licensed just like Doctors and Nurses, and who are more highly trained than Nurses) think this law applies to them as well.

So where do you sit? Are you going to force someone to do something that goes against their morals and values? Especially when there are so many other people out there who have no problem with it? How would you like it if I forced you, under pain of law, to execute death row prisoners for the state? I have no problems with executing such people do you? So why shuld you be exempt from this task? Or maybe put down dogs and cats at the local pound?

Logically and morally I have to side with the side that says you can't force free citizens to do things they find morally objectionable, unless you are willing to not allow things like 'consiencous objectors' in the military. If you are going to take away one person's right to decide for themselves, then you are taking away everyone's.

In short, if you have the right to force them to dispense it, then I should have the right to force you to not have an abortion. You can't be for 'some' people having freedom of choice but not all. Allowing yourselves rights you don't allow others is the height of hypocrisy.

[spazzkat.livejournal.com]

It hardly seems like a conservative attitude to want the government to force an employer to keep people on staff who refuse to do their job.

It's one thing not to work out of moral protest. It's another entirely to expect to be paid for it.

[banner.livejournal.com]

So then you believe that Doctors who refuse to perform abortions should be fired by their employers as well?

[spazzkat.livejournal.com]

If they're working at an abortion clinic, sure.

[spazzkat.livejournal.com]

Would you demand the government make a gun shop owner keep someone on their payroll who refused to sell bullets?

[banner.livejournal.com]

That's not an apt comparison. A better comparision would be: 'Would you demand the government make a bar owner keep someone on their payroll who refused to sell drinks to a drunk?

Pharmacists can be liable for their sales. Even after following a doctor's orders. They are expected to make judgement calls. Just as doctors are. Selling the pill could result in the loss of life, some don't wish to be a part of that. Selling your bullet is not likely to have the same effect.

And my point is that I don't think it is right for the government to pass a law forcing these people to sell the product. That's all I've ever been against.

[spazzkat.livejournal.com]

That's not an apt comparison.

It's illegal to sell drinks to someone who is obviously intoxicated.

If they were abolitionists working at a bar your comparison would be more fitting.

They're not being told to do something illegal. They're getting jobs at a place that's legally required to do something they find morally reprehensable then refusing to do it.

The government shouldn't have to pass a law making them sell the products. They shouldn't be there in the first place if they're not going to do it.

[banner.livejournal.com]

at a place that's legally required to do something

And that's the whole point. Why is this place legally required to do something? Something which obviously a fair number of it's employee's (who probably were working there before the law was passed) object too? How would you feel if tomorrow a law was passed requiring you to do something you felt a moral objection against doing? By your OWN logic, you should quit your job, your career, your livelyhood, and learn a whole new field. Throw all of your time and effort away.

The government shouldn't have to pass a law making them sell the products.

Wrong, the government shouldn't pass laws forcing anyone to sell anything they don't want to. If you cannot understand that point then I don't think we have anything to discuss.

[spazzkat.livejournal.com]

I abosultely understand your point.

My point is that they shouldn't be there in the first place.

[spazzkat.livejournal.com]

But you're right. We really don't have anything to discuss.

[solarbird]

Logically and morally I have to side with the side that says you can't force free citizens to do things they find morally objectionable
Companies do this constantly. So do governments. With companies, your options are "quit" or "go along." With governments, in most cases, your option is "go along" or "go to jail." I find the war on drugs morally and ethically bankrupt; I don't get to opt out of it. I find software patents to be fundamentally corrupt and in most cases ethically indefensable. But no opt-out for me! Similarly, ask any tax protester, for example, exactly how far they get trying not to support governmental programmes they oppose. Should I and others get to opt out of the things we don't support? I'd like to think so. But this special-casing as part of a fundamentalist social movement? Fuck that.

(I have occasionally played with the idea that you should, as an option, have the ability to direct your tax dollars, at the programme level. This should be a separate form, which would insure that relatively few people would do it, but it would provide the option. Congress would continue to decide for the vast majority of taxpayers who are just happy to file the shortest form available.)

Also, this is emergency contraception, not RU-486. Fundamentalists like to call it a "potential abortifacient," because there may be a fertilised egg, but the stark fact is that there is no pregnancy, because the egg hasn't implanted. These same people also call every form of birth control that isn't rhythm method or condoms a "potential abortifacients" for the same reason. (c.f. here) I have no patience for an ever-expanding definition of "abortifacient" that exists directly to challenge the very idea of birth control. None.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Yes, but companies don't force you to kill people. On all of the extreme moral dilemmas out there, many do not want to be forced to do something that a large percentage of the population (hell, lets be honest: the majority of the population) is opposed to. Emergency Contraception is pretty much 'I think I'm pregnant and I want to take care of it now while it's easy', (I'm not familar with anything else out there that is similar to RU-486, as far as I know, that's the only one on the market).

There are other drugs that pharmacists can refuse to sell to you, because of their personal beliefs (which normally are based on if they'll be sued or not), but if you really want people to have access to this stuff, don't make it require a prescription. Or write a law requiring the Doctors who perscribe it to distribute it themselves! Or better yet, force all Doctors to have it, I mean lets be logical: If you're going to force Pharmacists to sell it, you should for all Doctors to perscribe it. Right? (But yet the law says differently)

As for the war on drugs, that is a perfect example of what this kind of BS leads to. No drug should be illegal, just as no one should be banned from bearing firearms if they so wish. But those rights have been pretty much taken away, even though the second one was written in the Constitution, and noone would ratify it until it was.

If you want an abortion, or to get drunk, or to blow your own brains out, that should be your own business. But you shouldn't be able to force other people to help you do it. That's just as bad as the people who force you to not be able to do something because they feel it is wrong. I'm tired of folks trying to force others to live life by their morality, when their own morality is pretty much a joke.

[kissare.livejournal.com]

I disagree on the statement that Emergency Contraception is pretty much 'I think I'm pregnant and I want to take care of it now while it's easy.' Emergency contraception doesn't even work if you take it more than a couple days after your 'unprotected incident.' The statement should be 'I think I could potentially become pregnant from this incident, and I want to make sure that doesn't happen.'

If a person wants to choose a profession that requires them to take specific actions, that is their choice. They didn't have to become retail pharmacists. If they are opposed to performing the duties of a retail pharmacist, they could have pursued a different profession, or they could switch to research or hospital pharmacy. If I, as an admin assistant, concluded that it went against my morals to perform one of my job duties, I WOULD NOT expect the company to retain me in my position. If I went to the grocery store and the person manning the meat counter was vegan and said it went against his morals to give me meat, I would DEMAND that the store get rid of him or move him to the produce section, and get someone back there who will give me some hamburger! You can't choose a profession and then say, "But I'm only going to do the parts I like." If something goes against your moral code to the degree that you can't perform your job duties, it sounds like time to find a job that doesn't involve those duties.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Emergency Contraception is pretty much 'I think I'm pregnant and I want to take care of it now while it's easy', (I'm not familar with anything else out there that is similar to RU-486, as far as I know, that's the only one on the market).

Emergency contraception and RU-486 are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DRUGS.

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

solarbird said, "With companies, your options are 'quit' or 'go along.'"

Smart employers know to compromise with their skilled employees, and thus add a third option of accepting a more limited position. Pharmacists are a licensed profession, so they are not easy to replace. It is the black-and-white of legal vs. illegal that makes the situation so stark.

The article said a directive from Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich mandated that all pharmacists in the state fill all prescriptions for legal drugs. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to demand that all pharmacies, rather than pharmacists, fill all prescriptions?

Our local pharmacy has two people working there every shift. If one of them can fill an emergency contraceptive prescription immediately, why should the customer care that the other one refuses to do so? I recall times at other businesses that the person I was dealing with would say something like, "I can't deal with that personally. You have to talk to Albert. He's our expert on that." Walgreens can view the objectionist pharmacist as less qualified than the one who will fill all precriptions, but not as totally disqualified to do his or her job. The governor should fix his directive so that it focusses on getting the drugs to the people, rather than forcing every person to act the same.

Erin Schram

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

To respond to your tangential point, I've also often considered the idea of allowing individual taxpayers to choose how at least some of their money is spent. I've concluded it won't work because the legislative budgeting process is needed to identify all needs and then prioritize them. People simply don't realize how much things cost; for example, when people are asked how much of the budget should go to foreign aid, they generally say about 1%--far above the actual level of foreign aid in the budget. Other people might have unrealistic expectations about what it costs to defend the country, or how much social services cost, or what it costs to build a road. They won't consider funding all sorts of projects that are quite widely used. The problem is that funding is tied inherently to the laws and government programs passed by the Congress, and allowing individuals to set their own tax priorities severs that connection and makes nonsense out of the role of Congress. Effectively, every bit of legislation would become an unfunded mandate that would then have to campaign for funds from the voters. Even if only a portion of taxpayers did this, it would cause fiscal chaos.

My preferred alternative would be to simply require every bit of legislation to include funding within the legislation to at the very least pay for itself (with surpluses allowed to build up a fund for that function of government to allow for future flexibility). Deficit spending could be allowed during recession or other contingencies only by providing a mandatory repayment schedule when the economy got going/the contingency was ended. That way, people would connect the costs of legislation to the legislation itself, have a realistic idea of what it was costing them, and so be able to make better decisions on how to lobby their representatives. Every tax decrease would mandate cuts in the specific programs those taxes support. That would prevent most legislative shenanigans that are driving our increasing deficits. Bush's tax cuts would have been impossible, the shell game of using Social Security surpluses to pay for deficit spending in the rest of the budget while claiming it's Social Security that is in fiscal trouble would be impossible.

The best thing about this is that it would change the national political debate from the size of government in general and taxation in particular, and put it instead on "what programs are worth what they cost, and more valuable than other alternatives available at the same cost"? The compromise of the legislative system would be intact, but at least people would be forced to examine programs on their merits and not just throw everything into the mix and figure out how to pay for it later.

I can see some problems with not having a general fund, such as loss of flexibility. I can see that the categories of spending would have to be specific enough to allow for good choices without creating thousands of micro-categories that made budgeting a nightmare, and allowed administrators to have some leeway in how they do their jobs. I can see that there are sources of revenue that are not tied to spending (such as timber sales in national forests), though I think it's easy enough to accomodate such things. But I think it would be better than the status quo and better than the a la carte revenue allocation alternative.

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

No, you can't force free citizens to do something against their values. What you have to do is have policies that *also* protect the rights of the patient.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Aside from any other mistakes in this argument, emergency contraception doesn't cause an abortion. In order to have an abortion, you have to actually be PREGNANT first.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I don't get the bit about "Brokeback Mountain" being "Neo-Marxist." Is that just prefix they have to put in front of everything they don't like? I mean, I've read the story; there's nothing about economics or politics in it.

[solarbird]

That's a weird one, I have to admit. I think it's just some very old-school linkage. (That's where "commie pinko" came from; linking communists to queers.) The more modern thing is to link abortion and homosexuality together, and, of course, there's the classic homosexuality-is-paedophilia slander.

[mistwolf.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I've made my aunt aware of this, she is heavily involved in the Pennsylvania Federation of Democractic Women, as well as other democratic groups, so I am sure she will do what she can to oppose it.