Critical Primary Campaign of Kansas Prosecutor Phill Kline

Re-Election Necessary to Keep Planned Parenthood Case Alive – Asks Pro-Life Movement For Support

Kansas district attorney Phill Kline is fighting a critical primary challenge on August 5 that threatens his efforts to prosecute the only criminal case ever filed against the abortion giant Planned Parenthood in the United States and is asking pro-life advocates to join in his re-election fight.

Phill Kline’s case against Planned Parenthood has the potential of causing the billion dollar abortion giant to lose the $350 million dollars it receives from the federal government under Title X funds.

“He is up for reelection, and if he does not get past this August 5th primary, the candidate he is running against will not carry forward this criminal case,” said Jenn Giroux, Kline’s campaign manager.

Kline faces a stiff challenge from moderate Republican Steve Howe, who with other establishment party figures attempted to dissuade Kline from running for re-election.

Giroux spoke with LifeSiteNews and explained that Planned Parenthood has managed to delay trial for nine months since Kline charged them with 107 criminal counts – 23 felonies and 84 misdemeanors – for unlawful late-term abortions and other abortion-related crimes on October 16, 2007.

Kline’s evidence comes from subpoenaed medical records that indicate that Planned Parenthood in Johnson County willfully neglected to report instances of child rape, forged viability reports, and performed illegal late-term abortions.

The abortion giant has been hoping to wait out the clock on Kline’s term as District Attorney, just as they did when he was the Attorney General. However, if Kline defeats his primary opponent, and then goes on to win the general election, Planned Parenthood will have to face trial.

“If he does not win on August 5, this only criminal case in the country will go away forever,” Giroux stated.

Giroux said Kline’s battle for reelection is entering a critical phase and the campaign is trying to recruit 6,000 individuals or families to donate $50 each to raise $300,000 by July 22 – two weeks from the August 5 primary showdown. Giroux said the money is needed so the campaign can pay for and produce advertising on television, radio, and mail, and get maximum exposure time with the voters. The advertising will help Kline overcome the bias of the Kansas City Star, which is a fierce opponent of the Johnson County DA.

The Kline campaign has set up a website for this purpose called “StandWithPhill,” featuring a video explaining why Kline’s reelection is pivotal to the success of the pro-life movement and such an incredible threat to the abortion hegemon Planned Parenthood. (see http://www.standwithphill.com/)

“More importantly than anything Planned Parenthood is not going to be rewarded for their delay tactics that they hoped would get Phil Kline to leave office and the next prosecutor to drop this case and then they would be off scot-free.”

Giroux stated that Kline’s recent straw poll victory in a conservative part of the county has the campaign feeling very good about the primary; but the fight will be close as they make the final push to get out the word.

“It’s very close, but Phill Kline has 98% name recognition,” Giroux said. “The primary we feel very good about. It’s all about turning out his base.”

Early this July, Kline garnered the endorsement of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. Dobson said he was speaking as an individual and rarely gave out endorsements, but said, “It is imperative that he win this contest.”

He continued, “Defeating Mr. Kline has become a national priority for the abortion industry, which funneled millions of dollars to Kansas for the purpose of demonizing him in the liberal media and ending his term as Attorney General.”

“If he is to successfully uphold the moral values that you and I and millions of Americans hold dear, particularly with respect to his battle against late-term abortion in Kansas, we must support his re-election campaign.”

To visit the StandWithPhill website:
http://www.standwithphill.com/

To visit Phill Kline’s website for reelection:
http://klineforda.com/

Pinellas County Florida Commissioner Pander to Gay Special Interest

Florida’s Pinellas County Commissioners approved a proposal by homosexual activists to add “sexual orientation” to their county’s human rights law on April 22nd. They also are considering adding gender identity to the new ordinance.

The whole purpose of this proposal is to establish government approval of the homosexual lifestyle, empower gay activism and advance secular progression.

The “gay community” fails miserably to prove that they meet the top two criteria for inclusion in discrimination laws. The overwhelming evidence clearly indicates they do not (1) suffer a widespread pattern of discrimination evidenced by (2) demonstrable economic hardship.

During the culmination of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, African Americans produced enough affidavits and documents proving their need for legal protection to fill up six government warehouses.

This is not the case with the gay community who boasts an average household income of over $85,000. They also boast their 26 million gays and lesbians in the US have a disposable income of $450 billion which is larger than the combined disposable incomes of Latino and African Americans. Source: Gaymarriagelawyers.com

Additionally, there is no better evidence to disprove the allegation that widespread discrimination exists against gays and lesbians than what is found in the City of Tampa’s 17 year history of enforcing their ordinance. Florida Family Association’s review of the cases filed under Tampa’s “sexual orientation” ordinance found that after 17 years there has not been one complaint filed that has resulted in a court affirming that a person was actually discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Instead of legitimate complaints,, gays and lesbians filed complaints that sought to protect irresponsible behavior on the job. Some examples include:

1. A lesbian filed a complaint against The Tampa Tribune after being fired for repeatedly stalking a female co-worker.
2. A homosexual filed a complaint against Holiday Inn after being fired for using derogatory racist comments against a black co-worker.
3. A homosexual filed a law suit against Waffle House for $2 million after being fired for violating company policy against dating co-workers which also applied to heterosexuals.
4. A transvestite filed a complaint against Blimpie’s Subs after being fired for soliciting sub shop patrons for prostitution.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a branch of the United States government, typically is charged with investigating and prosecuting discrimination complaints involving race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. City, county and state agencies typically refer discrimination complaints involving these categories to the EEOC. However, the responsibility to investigate and prosecute complaints involving discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and other categories falls on the enacting municipality. This means that Pinellas County will have to spend additional tax payer dollars to cover the additional costs of investigating and prosecuting complaints for discrimination allegations based upon categories which fall outside of the jurisdiction of the EEOC.

Defending against discrimination complaints places a financial burden on businesses. A business owner typically hires an attorney to represent their interest when a discrimination complaint is filed against them. The average cost of legal fees to defend against a discrimination complaint can exceed $100,000 per complaint.

In conclusion, the “sexual orientation” ordinance will:

1. Give a special status to an undeserving, affluent class, empower gay activism and give government approval to the homosexual lifestyle.
2. Change the public policy image of the Suncoast community.
3. Result in numerous frivolous complaints which seek to protect irresponsible behavior
4. Cost additional taxpayer dollars to investigate and prosecute frivolous complaints.
5. Cost businesses valuable resources to defend against frivolous complaints.

Pinellas County citizens could stop their government’s irresponsible and illegal actions. Yes, there is no legitimate law sanctioning feelings (sexual orientation) or unnatural behaviors (homosexuality). Sexual orientation or marriage ordinances violate not uphold equality law. Founders who promoted maximal individual freedom also opposed the harmful behavior of sodomy. Public officials hold the responsibility for promoting the general welfare of all constituency. They violate that trust by pandering to well-financed special interest, diminish the family values and social morality, and fail or refuse to vigorously pursue actually rehabilitative justice for those gays whose behaviors reciprocate childhood sexual abuse or formative influences now prevalent in society. Worse yet is the evidence that gay rights leads to the suppression of all First Amendment rights. Totalitarianism is the end result of multiculturalism and its moral relativity and tolerance. Its evident in Massachusetts, California, Canada, and in Europe.

If I lived in Pinellas County, I would demand the reversal of the new ordinance or I would be wanting those commissioners out of office now.

Source: Florida Family Association and Tampa Bay Times

Canadian Pastor Prosecuted For Criticizing Homosexuality

The following is an excerpt of from an article published by LifeSite News on Spetember 2, 2005:

Currently Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a young Albertan pastor who spearheads a youth ministry that makes hundreds of weekly contacts with at-risk youth, is in the process of learning Arabic so he can better minister to the many Muslim youth who he says come to his centers. And with two children of his own, in addition to his full-time ministry, he repeatedly remarked during an interview with LifeSiteNews.com that he just doesn’t have a lot of time on his hands.

But increasingly these days the young pastor’s thoughts are set on preparing for his Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) hearing that he says will likely be heard in October.

Without the money to pay for legal representation, Stephen has no other alternative but to prepare his own defense. “I know nothing about human rights case law,” he says. “I’m trying to learn. Understand this, I work every single day, have two kids…and right in the middle of that I’m trying to learn human rights law. So, I’ll be very happy when it’s over.” The only problem with that, he points out, is that when it’s all over he may very well be in prison.

Boissoin is being hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curriculums permeating the province’s educational system.

In that letter to the editor, Boisson lamented that “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

Boissoin, who is himself no stranger to the dangers of homosexual and bi-sexual activity, since many of the youth he works with fall into that category, repeatedly expressed his concern that behaviour that is dangerous, and sometimes fatal, is being presented as normative and even healthy to the most impressionable. “I was just writing a letter to the editor, to the heterosexual population,” he says, “saying this is something to be very, very concerned about.”

For expressing that view, however, Boissoin has been called a “bigot” and a “hate-mongerer”, and worse. Darren Lund has likened the young pastor to Terry Long of Aryan Nation, a local white supremacist, and James Keegstra, a holocaust denier.

Should Boissoin lose the hearing with the Human Rights Tribunal, he will be forced to pay $7000 in fines. $5000 will go to Darren Lund personally, and another $2000 will go to the rabidly pro-gay-rights group EGALE Canada, which has received large sums of money in the past from the federal government for its court challenges. In addition, Lund has requested that Boissoin be forced to apologize to his readers in another letter to be published in the Red Deer Advocate. Boissoin, however, says that he will not pay those fines, nor will he apologize, even should that mean prison.

It should be evident that the political agenda of gays leads to totalitarianism. The cornerstone of freedom is religion. Freedom of religion is about knowing the truth. God is about truth and freedom to live morally. Truth requires free speech and a free press. Before radio, television, telephones, and the Internet, freedom of assembly was necessary to learn and discuss events, new studies, along a little entertainment. Without the freedom of speech and press, individual and collective despots can tyrannize masses of people. That is where the secular and sexual anarchical politics is leading. Colonial Americans had to fight the Revolutionary War to regain their freedom from a corrupt political regime. The question will it be required once again.

A few months ago in Boston, gay and supporters rioted against ex-gays and a supporting church for meeting where how God restored them to a natural and godly life. The gay agenda cannot tolerate such change and its countervailing message. It is not gays who are being discriminated against. Rather, it is moral, law-abiding citizens, children, parents, and business owners who are being discriminated against. Now is the time to stand and stop it.

Ohio Library Discriminates Against Religious Group

Apparently the old adage to never discuss politics or religion in public is more than just good etiquette in a Columbus-area library. Patrons can talk about anything else. But these two are sacrosanct and part of the “thou shalt nots” if you want to use the library meeting room. Just ask a conservative public policy group who got bounced when they wanted to host a public meeting called “Politics and the Pulpit.”

In response, attorneys for Citizens for Community Values (CCV) filed a lawsuit in federal court today after the Upper Arlington Public Library (UA) refused to allow the group to use a public meeting room to discuss the commingling of the two topics. The library’s director, Ann R. Moore, rescinded the group’s reservation saying the proposed meeting CCV was sponsoring violated library policy because they contained “inherent elements of a religious service.”

David Miller, CCV’s Vice President for Public Policy, was disappointed by the cancellation but was not dissuaded from holding the policy briefings at other public libraries. “Most people would presume that the government would work to see that everyone is treated equally. But when they are the ones who actually engage in the discrimination because of your particular religious viewpoint, it’s a little surprising,” Miller said.

Miller pointed to the inconsistency in the library’s own policy. The meeting room policies state, in part:

As an institution of education for democratic living, the library welcomes the use of its meeting rooms for cultural activities and discussion of public questions and social issues. Our meeting rooms are available on equal terms to all groups in the community regardless of the beliefs and affiliations of their members…The use of the meeting rooms for commercial, religious or political campaign meetings is not permitted. (emphasis added)

CCV believes that court action is needed in order to secure the future rights and freedoms of other individuals or groups to insure that no one else will be discriminated against for their religious viewpoints. First Amendment attorney, David Langdon, and the Alliance Defense Fund, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the organization.

A copy of the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in Citizens for Community Values v. Upper Arlington Public Library Board of Trustees is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CCVcomplaint.pdf.

Undercover Investigation Reveals Planned Parenthood’s Racism & Other Crimes

The following are excerpts from a recent articles written by Thaddeus M. Baklinski about a pro-life student organization’s investigation into Planned Parenthood’s continued racists and illegal abortion practices. The results will certainly surprise if not offend:

UCLA’s pro-life student magazine, The Advocate, has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood enthusiastically accepted a financial donation targeting the abortion of an unborn black baby for racist motives.

Lila Rose, editor of The Advocate, says she has taped responses of Planned Parenthood officials from seven states that reveal the eugenic character of their ideology.

Planned Parenthood ideology originates with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a proponent of “race hygiene” through “negative eugenics,” an attempt to reduce the fertility of “dysgenic” groups, in the early 20th century. In 1921, she said eugenics is “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems, and the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” She also cautioned, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Last spring, in another sting on Planned Parenthood, Lila posed as a 15-year-old seeking an abortion at a Planned Parenthood abortuary in Santa Monica, California.

Lila was accompanied by James O’Keefe, who acted as her 23-year-old boyfriend. In a recorded conversation, the employee encouraged Rose to invent a birthday to allow Planned Parenthood to avoid reporting a case of statutory rape.

“If you’re 15, we have to report it. If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to,” the employee said. “Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different?” Rose asked. The employee responded, “You could say 16…well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”

“Planned Parenthood has been concealing statutory rape and child abuse cases for years,” Rose said. “This video reveals what really goes on behind closed doors in Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics.”

Lila Rose and The Advocate were subsequently threatened with civil action by Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles.

After The Advocate exposed the incident in the latest issue of The Advocate and uploaded the videos to the popular video sharing website You Tube, Planned Parenthood emailed Rose a letter demanding that she “immediately relinquish to PPLA [Planned Parenthood Los Angeles] the original and any copies of all communications with PPLA employees you have recorded without their consent.” The letter, signed by PPLA CEO Mary Jane Wagle, threatens a suit for “$5,000 or three times actual damages.”

“This lawsuit threat is an example of Planned Parenthood using intimidation against those willing to expose its crimes,” Rose said. “Planned Parenthood is a $900 million operation. Instead of threatening me with a lawsuit, Planned Parenthood should call a press conference condemning its staffers and promising major reform to protect young girls. Instead, they are threatening a college student.”

“Imagine a major corporation had been exposed for committing crimes in order to pad its bottom line. There would be a parade of congressmen demanding hearings and reform,” said Rose. “Young girls are at risk and Planned Parenthood is receiving federal tax money. The federal government should investigate this and Planned Parenthood, like any other corporation, should be held accountable.”

Other lawsuits have been filed against Planned Parenthood across the country for failing to report child abuse and statutory rape. In a Planned Parenthood clinic in Central Ohio, a young girl revealed to clinic employees that she was being forced to have sex with her father for three years. The clinic refused to act, and the child abuse continued for two more years. Finally the girl filed suit against the clinic for failing to report a crime as required by law.

To read the complete article, go here. To learn more about the work of The Advocate, visit their website. To support this student pro-life organization, go here.

Massachusetts Bills Would Dramatically Advance Homosexual Power in State

Reporter Hilary White of LifeSite wrote the following report.

Pro-family activists in Massachusetts warn that a series of bills pending in the state legislature are pivotal for the future of the legal institution of marriage in the state and across the US. The group Mass Resistance writes that, due to the work of homosexual activists in the courts, proposed changes to Massachusetts law regarding the definition of marriage, will necessarily bleed into the laws of other states.

Two Senate Bills, S1029, S800 and House Bill 1728 propose to repeal Sections 11, 12, 13 and 50 of the General Laws that make it illegal for out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts if that marriage would be considered illegal in the parties’ home state. The repeal would remove from Massachusetts law what is the norm in most jurisdictions in the US.

The current Section 12 requires the licensing officer to ascertain if the applicants for marriage licenses are “not prohibited from intermarrying by the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she resides.” Section 50 levies fines and possible prison terms against any licensing officer or minister who knowingly allows couples to marry whose marriage would be prohibited in their home state.

A major strategy of the homosexual activist movement to abolish legal recognition of natural, heterosexual marriage, has been to encourage activists to “marry” in one jurisdiction and then use the courts at home to force recognition in jurisdictions where the practice is not legally recognized. “Anti-discrimination” legislation, that is enacted in most jurisdictions in the western world in various forms, have been especially useful for this.

Even more important, Mass Resistance says, is House Bill 1722 that amends current legislation on “hate crimes”, that the group calls, “Probably the most radical bill ever seriously considered by the Massachusetts legislature”.

The bill would amend the law to say that crimes motivated by “bigotry and bias” on the basis of “gender identity or expression prejudice” as a new condition for a hate crime. This, Mass Resistance says, means that the “transgendered” will become a protected class of people who may not be discriminated against under the hate crimes statutes.

H1722 was drafted by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the legal advocacy group behind the Goodridge homosexual “marriage” lawsuit in Massachusetts, on behalf of a radical lobbying organization called Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC).

Governor Deval Patrick pledged at a candidate forum in September 2006, to support whatever the “transgendered” community asked for, while admitting that he knew nothing about the issue and asked the activists present to teach him.

Bill H1722, is set for a hearing before the Joint Judiciary Committee sometime in early 2008. At least 25 state representatives and senators have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. Mass Resistance warns that the bill would affect schools, government, private businesses, health clubs, and all public accommodations, including churches and religious institutions.

In addition, a pair of bills, H1710 and S918, propose to change the marriage statutes to say, “Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.”

H1709 would repeal the state’s sodomy laws and overturn several other sections of Massachusetts General Laws including Chapter 272 on “Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency, and Good Order,” and laws against “resorting to restaurants or taverns for immoral purposes” and committing “unnatural and lascivious acts”.

Homosexual activists, according to the gay newspaper, Bay Windows, are interested in repealing these laws because they “have historically been used to target gay men in cruising areas” where gay men meet to have anonymous sex in public. These commonly include public parks, rest areas, wooded areas, stores, and public men’s rooms.

The Illinois Equal Rights Amendment Will Hurt Women and Our Society

The Federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which is currently before the Illinois legislature for ratification isn’t what it appears to be. It’s touted as a simple amendment that will provide equal rights to women.

While we all agree with equal rights for women, this amendment will not increase women’s rights, but instead will strip away their current protections and benefits. Because of its vague language and broad coverage, it will also legalize same-sex marriages, mandate state funding of elective abortions, and weaken the balanced structure of our government.

In over thirty years of debate, ERA proponents have been unable to identify any additional rights women will receive through the ERA. The laws that provide women with equal rights already exist. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit gender-based discrimination. Other existing laws that provide women with equal rights cover virtually all areas of American life — education, employment, credit eligibility, housing, and public accommodations (1).

The major problem with the ERA is its wording. It simply states “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” In essence, women are not being guaranteed equal rights; rather gender is being removed as a legal characteristic on which to base distinctions. As a result, this wording in state ERAs has been interpreted by courts to remove the critical protection of wife and child support (2), mandate state funding of elective abortions (3), and legalize same-sex marriage (4). Given the legal precedents, the passage of the federal ERA will lead to a loss of such protections as alimony, child custody, social security benefits (for women who choose to stay home with their children), exemption from the military draft registration, and exemption from front-line combat duty. A loss of such protections would harm women and their children.

Anticipating the extreme interpretations that would occur in a legally mandated genderless society, lawmakers in Congress proposed moderating amendments to protect women when the ERA was drafted (5). Congress rejected each of these moderating amendments. The courts will look to this legislative history to determine the intent of the lawmakers, which refutes the naïve belief that the courts under the ERA would continue to protect women in areas that need distinction.

The ERA would also transfer enormous power from state legislatures to the Federal government since it empowers Congress to enforce it. The areas affected would include marriage, divorce, family property law, adoptions, abortions, alimony, some criminal laws, public and private schools, prison regulations, and insurance rates. Such a transfer would create an imbalance of power between the states and the federal government and place sensitive issues under the rule of a national government that is far less responsive to individuals than the state legislatures. In addition, the ERA would empower the federal courts to determine the meaning of “equality of rights” and “sex.” In essence we would be handing the state’s legislative power to Congress and the unelected judges of our federal courts.

The ERA is not about women’s rights. It’s about creating a genderless society that removes “sex” as a legal characteristic. Its ramifications will negatively impact women, families, society, and the structure of our government. Those who claim the ERA is an innocent piece of legislation that gives women equal rights aren’t giving you all the facts.

by Elise Bouc, Director of Illinois Stop-ERA

Hilary Clinton’s Gay (LGBT) Committee Caught Intimidating Petitioners of Citizens for Responsible Government

According to the group Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government, several volunteers participating in a petition drive to put a new ‘gender identity’ bill recently passed by the Montgomery County Council up for a referendum have reported several incidents of harassment and intimidation.

Dana Beyer, a senior aide to Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg, and a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee, is seen on a cell phone video falsely telling petition collectors and would-be signers they would be asked to leave a Giant food store’s sidewalk, saying “An email went out; you’re going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal.”

The video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYqz2rffZ0w

When Beyer realized she was being videotaped by a volunteer for the citizens’ group, she promptly left the scene. A call to Giant’s corporate headquarters found that no such email was sent. A spokeswoman for the company said the only email she was aware of regarding the petition drive was the one granting permission to Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government to collect signatures in front of the stores.

It has been reported that Beyer and a group of others went around the county, blocking access to petitioners, yelling invectives at them, arguing with would-be signers, and then complaining to management that the petitioners were causing a disturbance or had no right to be there.

“This conduct by Beyer and others is highly unethical and violates the public trust as well as Federal and state civil rights statutes,” according to John Garza, an attorney who is assisting the group. Garza is also acting as an attorney for several volunteers who were harassed and intimidated. He indicated he will probably file a civil rights violation lawsuit soon.

The petition drive collected 32,000 signatures. If 25,001 signatures are validated by the Elections Board, the bill’s enactment will be halted and it will be put up to a popular vote next November.

Many Massachusetts pro-family activists will remember during both marriage amendment petition drives, in 2001 and 2005, homosexual activists frequently attempted to harass and intimidate both volunteers and would-be signers. In one particular incidence, a homosexual activist physically attacked a signature collector in front of a supermarket. Despite the rampant harassment, VoteOnMarriage.org was able to collect over 170,000 signatures, the most successful signature drive in state history, far surpassing the 65,825 required by law. However, the Legislature failed to approve the Marriage Amendment in two consecutive sessions, defeating it in June 2007 after 11 legislators changed their votes.

The moral of this story is that Hilary Clinton, all other liberals, and gays are totalitarians. Equality and freedom will become the special privilege of the illiberal liberals and sadomasochist gays if they have their way. Who said the religious Right seek to force their moral values on America? The truth is it is the secularists like Clinton and LGBT that are forcing their values on America. What the Right is actually seeking to do is restore the dominate values the nation was founded on. The cultural and religious values supporting freedom of religion. Secularist lie about the Right’s plans for a theocracy so that their oligarchy of radical anti-religious socialism is hidden from criticism.

Additional information about this issue can found at Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays (PFOX).

Illinois Families Fighting Another Comprehensive Sex Ed, Sex-On-Demand, and Abortion-on-Demand Bill Supported by Liberals

Representatives Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) and Rosemary Mulligan (R-Des Plaines) recently introduced HB 5615, the so-called “Reproductive and Justice Access Act.” Lobbyists for the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, are working intensively to pass this pro-abortion legislation.

HB 5615 represents a radical and unprecedented departure from current Illinois law regarding abortion, public funding of abortion, health care right of conscience, and comprehensive sex education.

ABORTION

Section 15 of HB 5615 PROHIBITS the state from any regulation of contraceptives or abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including:

Prohibiting Partial Birth Abortion

Requiring Parental Notification

Requiring that a minor can obtain emergency contraceptives without parental knowledge

Any regulation at all!!!

Section 20 of HB 5615 MANDATES public funding of abortion through Medicaid and could require health insurance for state employees to cover abortion!

Section 25 of HB 5615 specifically repudiates any possibility of regulating abortion procedures — including a ban on partial birth abortion.

Clearly, the enactment of HB 5615 would codify all abortion procedures at any stage of pregnancy.

HEALTH CARE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE

Section 15 of HB 5615 prohibits anyone working for a governmental agency from exercising a health care right of conscience in regards to contraceptives (including the morning after pill) and/or abortion.

Section 35 of HB 5615 places three overbearing and unreasonable demands on any health care professional who morally or ethically objects to any type of contraception or abortion procedure:

(1) the health care professional must give all their patients or their employer written notice of their moral religious beliefs;

(2) the health care professional must provide an objective description of health care options he or she is opposed to; and

(3) the health care professional must refer his or her patient somewhere for the very options morally objected to.

And in addition to all this, the 4th provision of Section 35 allows an employer to fire any health care employee having moral objections to abortion under a totally undefined standard of undue hardship!

Quite simply, the enactment of HB 5615 would drive anyone having a religious or moral belief against abortion or contraceptives from the Illinois’ health care community!

COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION

Section 30 of HB 5615 would MANDATE every public school in the state to offer a comprehensive sex education program. No longer would local school districts be able to determine their curriculum in this area; every kindergarten in the state would have to take sex education. One comprehensive sex education curriculum in use includes condom training for 9 year olds!

The enactment of HB 5615 would wrest local control from school districts and, due to the absence of any real standards in so-called comprehensive sex education, quickens the demise of sexual morality in our society.

CONCLUSION

House Bill 5615 is draconian in prohibiting Illinois government from enforcing our Parental Notification Law; refusing to allow for any right of conscience for moral reasons related to abortion or contraceptives; mandating all school teach comprehensive sex education to all school ages!

Visit the Illinois Family Institute for more information.

Special report on the radical “Transgender rights and hate crimes bill” (H1722)

MassResistance reports finishing up their 75-page report on the assault by the homosexual lobby – probably the most radical legislation ever seriously taken up on Beacon Hill. As we’ve reported, the public hearing on this (and some other horrific bills) is Tuesday, March 4.

Parts 1-7 are now available. The Appendices are scheduled to come out on tomorrow. To read the report, go here.

How Important are Parental Rights and Marriage? Not very to leading Virginia Democrats

On 22 February, HB 121, legislation that would have required state health clinics to inform parents if their minor child sought mental health counseling was killed by the Senate Education and Health committee. In a year when mental health reform is one of the priority issues in the General Assembly, the Ed and Health committee believed that involving parents when their children are in a mental health crisis would be detrimental to the children! In response to the Virginia Tech tragedy, the General Assembly has proposed numerous bills and included millions of dollars in additional spending on mental health – but involving parents when a child is under 18 years of age was rejected, according to Chris Freund, VP of the Family Foundation of Virginia.

Freund also reports that on the same day a legislative priority of The Family Foundation passed unanimously out of the Senate Social Services and Rehabilitation committee. This bill, HB 871 patroned by Delegate Joe Johnson (D-4, Abingdon), would direct 1 percent of unrestricted Temporary Assistance for Need Families Funds (TANF) to initiatives that encourage and strengthen marriage. This legislation was proposed by The Family Foundation’s marriage commission. Unfortunately, the bill was changed by the House of Delegates from a requirement to a bill that simply permits the Department of Social Services to spend the money. Should the bill become law we will have to work in the future to strengthen the language.

First Amendment Rights Denied in Georgia as Pro-Life Activist is Arrested on Public Sidewalk

As things begin to heat up in a busy legislative session in Georgia, and state lawmakers fight over their own special interests some of these political tensions have clearly lead to the arrest of one demonstrator this week. Robert Roethlisberger Jr., of Clarkston, Georgia, was arrested on February 15, 2008, while holding a sign promoting House Resolution 536 known as the “Human Life Amendment.” It is an attempt to place on this year’s election ballot an amendment to the state Constitution that would protect human life at every stage of development.

“Having been arrested for criminal trespass while standing on a street corner can only give you the idea that someone wants your message to disappear,” said Roethlisberger. “A ‘right to petition’ are the last three words written in our first amendment to ‘The Bill of Rights’ but this right carries little meaning if you get arrested for expressing a need for change in government,” says Roethlisberger about his most recent arrest.

Roethlisberger continues, “Everyone living in the state of Georgia that believes in life needs to demand from Mr. Speaker Glen Richardson that H.R.536 gets to the floor of the House for a vote and also ask for their own State Assemblyman’s support for H.R.536 so that the people of Georgia can have this opportunity to vote for life on their 2008 election ballot.”

This article was first published by Christian Newswire.

Do Private Catholic Schools Legal Right to Obey the Law?

Scott Whitlock posted commentary on ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Chris Cuomo interview of Michelle Campbell, a female referee who was not allowed to officiate a recent game at St. Mary’s Academy. Whitlock wants his reader to see the liberal bias of Cuomo’s one-sided questioning.

After making this statement, “St. Mary’s Academy is a religious school that follows older Roman Catholic laws but many argue that religious belief does not give the school the right to discriminate,” Cuomo then asks Campbell, “Gender discrimination is not something new. We know about it. But were you surprised that something this obvious still confronted you today, after all of your work as a veteran police officer? Now, you’re refereeing, you deal with this. Were you surprised?”

The focus of the short interview was simply that a private religious school has no right to forbid any type of gender discrimination. Cuomo nor Campbell seemed capable of understanding how a school that allows nuns to teach boys in the classroom could disallow a female referee to make sure boys obeyed game rules.

One explanation was Catholic rules simply forbid female from refereeing or coaching males or males to coach or referee girls. No one attempted to understand why Catholic school officials would hold and enforce such a rule. It never dawned on their secular minds no nun appears before boys without their proper humble attire. No dress code of the school was considered. None on Cuomo politically correct set could possibly envision the similarities of a female and an officiating referee as trespassing the defined roles in a private religious school.

The fact is ABC and Cuomo doesn’t care. The obvious agenda addressed by Whitlock was evident in Cuomo’s closing question to Campbell: “If they changed the rule and women can referee, will you referee at that school?”

In other words, the school is now supposed to abide by the discriminating views of secularist liberals who oppose religious view and rules of Americans,their religious institutions, and their religion. I though secularists believed in tolerance of the views and behaviors of others. Cuomo proves they do not. The want to force their beliefs of right and wrong on everyone else.

Tolerance is not possible in a free society establish natural law and religious liberty. Catholics realize you cannot obey God’s law and contradictory secular laws at the same time. The law of absolute no gender discrimination of any kind espoused by ABC and Cuomo is such a law.

New Jersey lawmakers mock equality, fairness, reason, law about civil unions

New Jersey lawmakers are making a mockery of equality, fairness, and justice about civil unions.

Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst for NJ Family Policy Council wrote an excellent op-ed about a newly appointed state Commission on Civil Unions. He states that the purpose of the Commission is to study civil unions and assess how well they work to provide the benefits of marriage. The problem with this Commission is the total lack of representation of any other citizen except the gay community. What can New Jersey families expect from such a diverse and representative study group? Certainly not an unbiased assessment of how civil unions are working.

According to Meyer, “[t]he commission’s newly elected vice chairman Steven Goldstein also chairs the gay rights group Garden State Equality, three other members (including one of the two reverends) are part of Garden State Equality, another is Jr. VP of “Out” for Democracy, and the second reverend is from the Universalist Unitarian Church of Montclair which a self-described “activist congregation who fosters tolerance for all sexual orientations”. To say that the foxes are guarding the hen house here is a vast understatement. Goldstein’s own expressed agenda is to gain full marriage recognition for same-sex couples as soon as possible – even “before the mandate of this commission expires,” – he was quoted as saying in the Star Ledger.”

Is seems a little odd that 54% of New Jersey citizens say they favor a marriage as one man and one woman amendment. The statistic suggests one of two things: Either not enough of those people voted in the last election cycle for conservative legislators or they have a false sense of fairness.

What is even more disturbing is the criminality of New Jersey’s civil union law. If the future of society were threatened, a rational society and its lawmakers would create law to combat it. This is not the case in twenty-first century America. Gays and their liberal supporters claim that laws guaranteeing them full equality are in no way a threat to marriage, the family, or society. But can a society by force of law teach a generation of children in public schools, through media, literature, and government sanctioned family law and those children not eventually regard homosexuality as normal, acceptable, and desirable. Only dupes could believe otherwise. If such a generation of young people were to exist, can rational and enlightened people expect the institution of marriage, family and child rearing to be anything but necessary? It is not possible especially with the miracles of modern reproductive medicine enabling lesbians to have babies without artificial conception and inception. Gay men are often willing to donate their sperm for the cause. Amazingly, the gay community having an average annual income of about $149,000 each means they can afford to defy nature and nature’s God.

My argument that gay law is criminal is not complete without pointing out that legal scholar Benjamin F. Wright proved long ago that American law, including the Constitution, was based on natural law. Besides being rooted in biblical law ideals, natural law says anything that opposes human nature and its morality is a crime. To oppose nature–as homosexual behavior obviously does–is the same as attempting to destroy nature. Because of the human need for safety and productivity, society and government is a necessity. Therefore, people of reason who create rational law have always opposed homosexual behavior. Not all human behaviors can be equal to all others under the just law.

The source of contemporary irrationality is secularism, its (im-)moral values, and the dogma of evolution that justifies its anti-natural law morality, which morality is identified in the statement: “and Nature’s God” otherwise called Creator.

Do not misunderstand me. It is understandable why many gays think and pursue what they perceive is their rights. They do not see it as seeking special rights. The success of the gay movement has been parallel to the success of the secularizing of American institutions, laws, and culture. The real scoundrels are not the gay community but the non-gay liberal educators, liberal corporate leaders, liberal lawyers, and liberal politicians. Every public lawmaker took an oath to support the Constitution. I argue that they do not they oppose the Constitution. They oppose the natural law as specified in the Declaration of Independence to which the Constitution conforms and fulfills.

Meyer, continuing his criticism of the Civil Unions Commission, states:

The civil union law has only been in effect for four months, yet already Goldstein’s organization is talking it up in the papers about alleged problems with certain companies not recognizing civil unions, attempting to show cause for the title of marriage to be granted. However most often, Goldstein explains, the employer claims an exemption under federal law when their parent company is not based in New Jersey. If there are problems with companies not following the law, they can find legal remedy in court, just like anyone else. Secondly, the rationale of requesting that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples to resolve this problem is absurd. How would redefining marriage to include same-sex couples in NJ force a company not based in NJ to recognize that law? Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex “marriage” is legal, so if the company was based in one of the other 48 states, they could use the same argument as to why they didn’t have to pay benefits.

Another false and dangerous premise being put forth by same-sex ‘marriage’ activists [claims that] so few same-sex couples are entering into civil unions because they are waiting for the title of marriage.” What do they define as too few? As of 29 January, 2,329 gay couples have received civil union licenses. “[R]ecent data on same-sex unions in Scandinavia shows that same-sex ‘marriages’ are relatively rare. Worse, they are remarkably fragile – ending in divorce significantly more than marriages between one man and one woman. The statistics reveal that “the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50 percent higher than for normal marriages and that the divorce risks for partnerships of women is about double that rate or nearly 100 percent”. This is tragic in and of itself, but what about the children involved?

For the good of all New Jerseyans, the irrational push for same-sex “marriage” must be stopped and balance must be added to the new state commission on civil unions.

I must add same-sex marriage disguised as civil unions or domestic partners must be stopped in every state for the good of all Americans. For insurance companies, investment companies, HMOs, hospitals, AMA, and governments can choose to provide supplementary benefits to others specified by employees without legitimizing and legalizing gay behavior or same-sex marriage. Companies that do so might loose some good employees, but that too would be a company policy choice not one coerced by government.

See also Marriage is a Civil and Religious Matter by Len Deo, Director of NJ Family Policy Council.

What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.

When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children, as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.

But why?

Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention.

Dangerous Wording

Article 3 of the CRC provides that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

In other words, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.

The problem occurs when this principle appears as a guiding principle for parents in article 18(1), which states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

Who knows best?

The Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law.

In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.” In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent.

The Court’s decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation. Except in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.

The UNCRC’s Brave New World

But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.

According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”

So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on — yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.

Where do we go from here?

There is a solution to this dilemma. The strongest, most effective way of protecting children and parents from an alarming state-based agenda is to amend the Constitution to protect parental rights. This can only take place through the concerted efforts of millions of dedicated parents across the United States.

Parental Right.org is doing something about it. They are working to introduce and pass just such a Constitutional amendment. For more information about their Parental Rights Amendment campaign, go here.

Gay onslaught against natural family, normal children, and moral decency in Massachusetts

State, national and international gay activists continue their pursuit to force citizens of Massachusetts–families and their children–to accept their unnatural and immoral behaviors. Neither the Constitution nor civil rights law has ever protected specific behavior as equal to all others. Behavior has to discriminated against when it harmful or corrupting or threatens society. Gay law makes unnatural and immoral sexual behavior equal to all others effecting a corrupting influence on all members of society. By forced indoctrination of children, gay law corrupts impressionable minds to believe wrong is right. Gay law threatens the future of marriage and society by indoctrinating into accepting and believing gay sex and marriage is normal and even desirable. Gays cannot form natural families because same-sex couples cannot procreate. Because natural sexual attraction between the sexes results is conjugal marriage, procreation, and thus natural families. It must therefore be concluded that gay rights law corrupt, pervert, and threaten public morality and tranquility as well as safety and future of the society.

Recent news about gay community leaders acknowledging HIV-Aids as primarily a gay health problem evidences the fact that gay behavior is harmful. Other studies focusing on other issue have concluded the same.

Therefore, Massachusetts lawmakers and judges supporting gay politics and passing supporting gay law is in fact a crime against Massachusetts society.

Possibly the leading organization fighting for natural families and their children is MassResistance. To give readers an idea of what they face in Massachusetts, the following linked list of bills have been introduced before Massachusetts legislators by the homosexual lobby:

1. Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes (H1722)
2. Allow out-of-state gay couples to “marry” in Massachusetts (S1029,S800)
3. Repeal sodomy laws and other laws regarding morality and order (H1709,S905)
4. Officially legalize same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts (H1710,S918)
5. Force homosexuality & sexuality programs, abortion counseling, etc., into schools. (H597,S288)
6. Force “anti-bullying” programs in schools as entrée for homosexual/transgender, hate crimes agenda, etc.(H587,H540,H454,H453,S275)

MassResistance is not just opposing gay legislation. They have introduced bill to support families and their children. The following linked bills are currently before the legislators as introduced by MassResistance:

1. Remove undefined phrase “sexual orientation” from all Massachusette statutes (S928)
2. Repealing the exemption of schools from the law against “disseminating matter harmful to minors.” (S925)
3. Force the government to abide by the actual marriage statutes regarding same-sex “marriage”. (S926)
4. Make State House deliberations, hearings, and votes accessible to the public (S2147)

For more information or to learn how to support their work, visit the MassResistance website.

Rescue Your Child From Forced Gay Sex Ed

Rescue Your Child is California-based Campaign for Children and Families response to legislation passed mandating transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality indoctrination of all children from kindergarten to 12the grade. The Rescue Your Child website is a clearinghouse of information for families, parents, and kids. Information about the various laws, what they mean, how they are being implemented, and the effects expected from homosexual indoctrination will have on children and eventually society are covered. So a number of ways parents can take control of their children’s education including resources on homeschooling, private schooling, and more….

See video of homosexuals brainwashing of children in elementary school.

Parents living in other states have cause for concern about mandatory gay sex education law. One man-one woman marriage law is not sufficient to prevent this kind of coerced sex education as proven in the state of California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenagger confirmed Republican politicians cannot be depended upon either. Parents have to take control of their children’s education.

In light of states forcing gay sex education at all age levels, parents and other citizens should demand education vouchers be given to parents in order to them to provide the type of education they want for their children. The Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that vouchers given directly to parents for educational purposes does not violate the First Amendment in any way. Therefore, parents can either demand vouchers or they could demand their legislature create enforceable opt-out laws. However, Massachusetts already has opt-out laws for children whose parents not wanting their kids to take sex ed classes, but state and federal courts annulled those laws when they denied the Parker family the right to exercise it. The only other possibly is to seek impeachment of those lawbreaking activist judges, which will not happen because the same legislature that passed the offensive law may still be in office.

Illinois (Anti-)Equal Rights Amendment is Back

Illinois Liberal Rep. Lou Lang is again pushing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) — a bill that would eliminate gender distinctions and enshrine abortion as a constitutional right.

According to State Director for Illinois Stop-ERA Elise Bouc, “ERA claims to be a simple amendment that gives equal rights to women. In reality, the ERA will actually harm women, their families, and our society.”

How can a bill that simply states “equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex”?

First, the bill removes any legal distinction of gender on which women’s rights are based. Without this distinction, equal rights of women are no longer guaranteed. “Thus any laws or policies that make a distinction based on gender would be unconstitutional under the ERA.”

Second, “this same wording in 18 other state ERA’s has been interpreted by courts to remove the critical protection of wife and child support, mandate state funding of elective abortions (as only women receive abortions, refusal to provide funding for abortions is seen as a form of sex discrimination), and legalize same-sex marriage.

Third, “ERA would also transfer enormous power from state legislatures to the Federal government since it empowers Congress to enforce it. Such a transfer would create an imbalance of power between the states and the federal government and place sensitive issues under the rule of a national government that is far less responsive to individuals than the state legislatures.”

Fifth, “ERA would empower the federal courts to determine the meaning of ‘equality of rights’ and ‘sex’.” Thus handing over legislative power of the state to unresponsive and unelected federal officials.

Women will not gain any additional benefits from the ERA because laws that provide women with equal rights already exist. “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit gender-based discrimination. Other existing laws that provide women with equal rights cover virtually all areas of American life – education, employment, credit eligibility, housing, and public accommodations. Thus, the ERA will only harm women and not benefit them.”

In my opinion, ERA is the continued onslaught of the secularists agenda to create a society immorality, special rights as opposed to equal rights, secular intolerance of traditional morality, public religion and natural families, and the abuse and violence witnessed daily in daily news.

To read Bouc’s article, click here or visit excellent website of the Illinois Family Institute to learn how to support their work.