If families are the foundation of society, family security is of utmost importance. If religion, morality, and education are necessary for good government, and government is the means to a secure and prosperous society, then it stands to reason that religion, morality, and education are crucial to strong and secure families. Any policy threatening it is a threat to the future of families as well as society.
_________________________________________________________
1. Protection for Mom and Her Not-Yet-Born
(1/28/08) A marine accused of killing a fellow service-member who was eight-months pregnant at the time of her death will not face separate charges for the murder of the woman’s unborn child, because North Carolina lacks a fetal murder law. On January 24, Corporal Cesar Laurean, a marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree murder in the death of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, whose dead body was found buried in Laurean’s backyard earlier this month. Authorities are still looking for Laurean, who has been missing from Jacksonville, N.C. since early January and is believed to be in Mexico.
Prosecutors are seeking life without parole in the case. At a press conference announcing the indictment, Onslow County District Attorney Dewey Hudson commented, “In North Carolina, the killing of a viable but unborn child does not constitute murder, therefore I did not submit any bills of indictment involving the death of the unborn child.” According to press reports, Lauterbach’s unborn baby was still in her abdomen when her remains were found.
Despite the obvious fact that two victims were involved in the case, North Carolina’s current fetal homicide statutes prevent prosecutors from treating the murder of Lauterbach and her unborn baby as a double homicide. Under current North Carolina law, it is a crime to inflict injury on a pregnant woman that results in the stillbirth or miscarriage of her child, and perpetrators can be charged with a higher level of penalty for the crime. But the unborn child is only considered a direct victim if he or she is born alive and then dies as a result of the injuries inflicted while in the womb. This “born alive” rule became precedent following the 1968 Supreme Court case of Stetson v. Easterling, when the court awarded damages to the family of a child who died from prenatal injuries only a few months after birth.
During the 2007 Legislative Session, two fetal murder bills were introduced in the North Carolina House and Senate but never saw any action. HB 263—Unborn Victims of Violence would have changed the law to recognize the death of an unborn child as a separate offense if it occurs during the commission of a crime against the mother, including murder, manslaughter, or misdemeanor domestic violence; and the penalty for the death of the unborn child would equal the penalty for the underlying crime. SB 295—Fetal Murder mirrored HB 263, but only applied to cases of murder. – For more information , visit the North Carolina Family Policy Council website.
(1/30/08) Hawaii Catholic Conference is backing bill HB 2334 that will require mandatory minimum prison time for those who kill or inflict serious bodily injury to a pregnant woman. Other types of victims included in this bill are the elderly, disabled, and children eight years or under. It is still in committee.
HCC sees this bill as a small step toward overcoming abortion-right advocates and their allies in the legislature who continue to oppose efforts to create laws protecting unborn children who are killed or injured during violent crimes like the tragic of case of the pregnant woman who was brutally assaulted last year. The assailant murdered her 14 year old son while he was attempting to protect her. Though she survived, her nearly full-term unborn child was killed. – For more information, visit the Hawaii Family Forum website.
2. Protection From Sexual Predators
(1/31/08) Behind the scenes this week, Palmetto Family Council have been working with South Carolina lawmakers to fix a current law which effectively protects pedophiles and places the age of consensual sex at 14 years old.
This complex issue puts children at tremendous sexual risk. Dr. Oran P. Smith, President and CEO of Palmetto Family Council, has been at the Statehouse presenting research and expert testimony on behalf of the children and families of South Carolina.
The Sex Offender Accountability and Protection of Minors Act of 2006 states that sexual predators and pedophiles charged with committing lewd and indecent acts, including intercourse, with children may claim “mistake of age” as a potential plea. That is to say, the accused can simply claim, “I thought she was of legal age.” Under current law, this pitiful excuse could be upheld and the accused molester could receive a lighter sentence if any sentence at all.
The “Romeo” clause, a clause of this same Sex Offender Act, implies that 18 year olds can legally have consensual sex with children as young as 14 years old. This not only promotes teen sexual activity, which destroys families and hurts future marriages, but it lowers the age of consensual sex from 16 to 14!
Our children must be protected from this kind of “sexploitation” of our society.
What can you do? Palmetto Family Council needs everyone to pray. First, prayer for Dr. Smith and the staff of Palmetto Family Council as we research and present biblical truth on Capitol Hill on behalf of your family. Second, pray for the legislature to have the wisdom to fix this awful law. Third, citizens of South Carolina can actively support the Council’s efforts. For more information, visit the Palmetto Family Council website.
3. Protection From Indecency?
(1/29/08) The pornography industry is a big business, growing larger and stronger everyday. In 2005, the pornography industry grossed $1.34 billion in profits. This figure jumped 63% in 2006 to $2.1 billion. Its growth is now so significant that DVD manufacturers, hotel chains, and television cable companies are influenced by the pornography industry as they develop their marketing plans.
On average children spend four hours a day watching TV. Even if blocked, cable porn channels often transmit inappropriate content which can be viewed or heard. A channel surfing child could unintentionally come across sexually charged content. We must prevent this industry from expanding into the minds of our children, just as we must protect the innocence of our younger generation.
Palmetto Family Council is standing against the pornography industry in South Carolina. A bill limiting unwanted video and audio exposure on cable television was stuck in committee prior to Palmetto Family Council taking up the charge. Through their efforts and networking today this legislation was voted out to the House Judiciary Committee and is just two steps away from becoming law. Let us hope South Carolina legislators passes it unanimously. – For more information, visit Palmetto Family Council’s website.
(1/29/08) Fifty-two ABC-owned and affiliated television stations could be forced to pay $27,500 each in fines for broadcasting indecent material during a 2003 episode of “NYPD Blue.” The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed the cumulative $1.43 million in fines against the ABC stations in a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) issued on January 25. The NAL charges the stations with broadcasting adult female nudity on a February 25, 2003 episode of “NYPD Blue” at 9:00 p.m. Central and Mountain Standard Time. The timing of the episode is important because under federal law, radio and television stations are banned from airing indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and from airing obscene material at any time. Indecent speech is defined by the FCC as “material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards.” No North Carolina stations were fined, because the episode aired after 10:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
According to the FCC, the agency received thousands of complaints from concerned citizens and citizen action groups about the “NYPD Blue” episode, which depicted a young boy walking into a bathroom and seeing a naked adult woman about to get into the shower. After reviewing tapes of the episode, the FCC concluded, “the material in this episode was explicit, dwelled upon, and shocking, pandering, and titillating.”
In its response to the FCC complaint, ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, argued that the scene’s purpose was to “illustrate the complexity and awkwardness involved when a single parent brings a new romantic partner into his or her life.” It also pointed out that the beginning of each “NYPD Blue” includes a warning of “adult language and partial nudity.” According The Washington Post, ABC intends to appeal the ruling to the FCC.
The FCC rejected ABC’s arguments, stating that, “the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs—specifically an adult woman’s buttocks.” As for the warning, the FCC noted that, “the Supreme Court has ruled that such warnings are not necessarily effective because the audience is constantly changing stations,” and “there is reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience.”
“Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly,” FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate said in a statement. “If a broadcaster makes the decision to show indecent programming, it must air between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. This is neither difficult to understand nor burdensome to implement.” — For more information , visit the North Carolina Family Policy Council website.
(1/31/08) Wal-Mart has informed Florida Family Association by letter that they have stopped selling the video series of the television show Playboy’s “Girls Next Door.”
Florida Family Association asked Wal-Mart to consider removing the video series after receiving reports from several supporters regarding the company’s sale of the DVDs. Wal-Mart responded with the following letter:
WAL*MART
Thank you for bringing to our attention the concerns of the Florida Family Association and its members about E! Network’s The Girls Next Door DVD available in Wal-Mart stores.
Let me assure you that Wal-Mart does not have a relationship with Playboy Enterprises, Inc. The video is distributed by Twentieth Century Fox home Entertainment.
We continuously evaluate the products we sell in order to maintain a merchandise selection that best serves the needs of the most customers in each community we operate, and appreciate our customers’ feedback as part of the process. In evaluating The Girls Next Door DVDs, we have decided to discontinue their availability in Wal-Mart stores.
Thanks again for keeping us sensitive to our customers’ feedback and I hope this response answers your questions.
Sincerely,
Lee Culpepper
Vice President, Corporate Affairs
Florida Family Association (FFA) has confirmed the removal of the DVDs from several Wal-Mart stores. FFA is currently asking Target and other retailers to follow Wal-Mart’s lead by discontinuing the sale of the Playboy’s “Girls Next Door” DVD series. – For more information, visit the Florida Family Association website.
4. How Secure Is Marriage?
(1/28/08) In a bold attempt to prevent the redefinition of marriage, Iowans are asking their state lawmakers to impeach a judge who forced same-sex “marriage” on them last summer. More than 6,000 signatures were hand-delivered late last week to jump-start the process.
The petition says Judge Robert Hanson overstepped his authority and trampled on the sovereign rights of the Iowa Legislature by striking down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act.
“The actual success in getting him off the bench would send an incredible message,” said Bill Salier, founder of Everyday America. “It’s already sent a message to the judiciary, in my opinion, because we’ve put a shot across their bow letting them know there are people out here who are becoming sick and tired of living on our knees before the black robes.”
Des Moines talk-show host Steve Deace of WHO Radio believes the effort has a chance.
“Under the Iowa code, you can impeach a judge for ‘general malfeasance,’ so that means absolutely anything,” he said, “such as the violation of the separation of powers act by using your judgeship to instill gay marriage, which is exactly what Judge Hanson did.”
David Barton, founder of Wall Builders, said the Constitution provides for an impeachment process, and he’s proud of Iowa citizens for acting.
“What these guys in Iowa are doing is exactly the right thing under original intent,” he said. “The people are in charge of government.” – For more information, visit the Family New in Focus website.
(1/28/08) It’s right under our noses.
Gay marriage advocates are throwing up so many smokescreens about domestic violence and business competitiveness and the heartstrings of people in love in their quest to have Indiana courts grant gay marriage, it’s hard to hear that simple, quiet word that begs for clarification in SJR 7, Indiana’s proposed constitutional amendment. That word is “require”.
Oh, they point to other state’s amendments when it is convenient. Last year, Ohio wasn’t sure theirs would hurt domestic violence protections and ours was “similar” so we shouldn’t pass ours. Now that the Ohio Supreme Court has said theirs won’t hurt domestic violence protections, suddenly ours is “different” than theirs and, thus, still can’t be trusted. Say what?? So why do legislators fear THOSE one words…but don’t hear the one word that is actually in Indiana’s bill? Require.
See for yourself. Ohio’s amendment:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Wow – that’s pretty severe. It even hits at local cities in towns in the state. No wonder they worried whether it might hurt domestic violence provisions.
Since we’re talking severe, take a look at Michigan’s:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
To think that the Michigan voters directed that.
Now here is Indiana’s proposed amendment, SJR 7:
Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
See it there, in the second sentence? If this passes, Indiana couldn’t REQUIRE – which means force – other types marriage. It takes nothing away, from businesses that offer benefits today, for example, but it just couldn’t require anew. That would be a protection to Hoosier businesses. And it doesn’t even mention anything about future generations of children – boy is Michigan’s economic development future in trouble!
If SJR 7 passes, it simply means that Indiana courts couldn’t REQUIRE anything….but it says nothing about what the legislature could GIVE. That might even include civil unions someday, although I suspect some in the Indiana General Assembly would prefer a court to REQUIRE such things so that they don’t have to take the political heat at the polls. Judges are much more insulated from voter retribution than are legislators.
The authors of SJR 7 directed it squarely at the courts so that we don’t have another prayer lawsuit where one judge makes the decision for everyone. Or another Massachusetts, where the court ordered the legislature to create gay marriage. Or even Alaska, where the courts ordered the Governor, who refused, and then the legislature, who also refused, and a dog fight between the three branches ensued!
In Indiana, the legislature, not the courts, should make these decisions, and SJR 7 will protect us from any future judge’s renegade desire to REQUIRE it.
Ode to that poor little quiet, misunderstood word “require”. – See more of insights at Sue Swayze at Veritas Rex.
(1/29/08) Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday with the Iowa Supreme Court on behalf of five state legislators seeking to defend marriage. ADF attorneys are questioning a trial judge’s decision to reject the state’s expert testimony in the case last August.
“The government should promote and encourage strong families. The expert testimony excluded by the court was crucial to establishing why Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act does that and why the act is completely constitutional,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Jim Campbell. “The people of Iowa, through their elected legislators, took their stand on marriage as the union of one woman and one man when they passed this act in 1998.”
In April, ADF filed a different friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of state legislators. But the court incorrectly found that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on Aug. 30. The case is now before the Iowa Supreme Court.
The state passed the act in order to block any future attempts to redefine marriage. In December 2005, Lambda Legal filed suit against Polk County Clerk Timothy Brien on behalf of six same-sex couples, demanding marriage licenses for same-sex couples as a constitutional “right” (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4068). – For more information, visit the Alliance Defense Fund website.
(1/31/08) School teachers in the United Kingdom have been warned against using the words “mom” and “dad” because it assumes all students have heterosexual parents.
The new school guidelines, which were produced by a gay-activist group for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, are intended to address bullying. Students as young as 4 are to be taught about same-sex couples to avoid “homophobic attitudes.”
“No child should be subject to demeaning or denigrating language or treatment,” said Jeff Johnston, gender issues analyst for Focus on the Family. “But it is an entirely different matter to teach children that God’s design for marriage is the equivalent of a gay relationship. In the United Kingdom, you now have the state teaching children in direct opposition to the Christian faith.”
To promote homosexual role models, homosexual staff members are encouraged to discuss their private lives with students. The guidelines also advise teachers that telling boys to act like men leads to “bullying of those who do not conform to fixed ideas about gender.” — For more information, visit the Family New in Focus website.
(2/1/08) Curtis Smith of Veritas Rex reported on a American Viewpoint poll commissioned by the House Republican Campaign Committee. The poll was conducted to access citizen opinion on a number of legislative issues. One of the questions asked was whether respondents favored or opposed an amendment to the State Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Of the 800 citizens surveyed, 72% favored the amendment and only 23% were opposed.
The poll confirms continued strong Hoosier support for traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment to remove the issue from judicial activism. For more information, visit the Veritas Rex blog.
(2/1/08) Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund are considering whether to appeal Friday’s decision by a federal judge against disenfranchised signers of a petition to put Oregon’s “domestic partnership” law before the voters. The judge lifted his preliminary injunction against the law, H.B. 2007, on which voters have never been heard.
During Friday’s hearing, the judge stated that voters in Oregon have no legal right to have their petition signatures counted.
“In America, every citizen’s voice counts. Government bureaucrats cannot decide what is best for the people of Oregon. We are considering all options for appeal of today’s decision on behalf of disenfranchised Oregonians,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.
On Dec. 28, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted ADF attorneys’ request to prevent the “domestic partnerships” bill from going into effect while the lawsuit, Lemons v. Bradbury, goes forward. ADF attorneys then asked the court to make its preliminary injunction against the law permanent (www.telladf.org). At a hearing Friday, the judge refused.
ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of several Oregonians after the Secretary of State and several different county clerks wrongfully rejected valid citizens’ petition signatures for Referendum 303, which would allow voters to decide the “domestic partnerships” issue. Many of these excluded citizens sought in person, but to no avail, to have their signatures validated.
“Their signatures were genuine and no legitimate reason existed to refuse to allow these registered voters to participate in the democratic process,” said Nimocks. “Our country is founded on the basic principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It should stay that way in Oregon.” — For more information, visit the Alliance Defense Fund website.
(2/1/08) At 9:17 PM, the State Division of Elections Director called John Stemberger, State Chairman of the Florida4Marriage.org campaign and informed him that the Marriage Protection Amendment was officially certified for the November 4, 2008 ballot with a total of 649,346 petitions certified. 611,009 are needed by law.
Stemberger said, “We are grateful to God first, and to our supporters second, for this amazing victory. What our people did was simply remarkable. They collected 92,000 petitions in about 13 days. That is about 7,000 petitions per day. No paid petition collectors could ever match the force of this effort. This is real proof for grassroots momentum for marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Florida.”
While a shock to many, the emergency push was actually a major blessing for the group. “It better organized us, galvanized our infrastructure and created more awareness by Floridians about what the amendment is really all about.” Stemberger remarked.
“Children need a mom and a dad. It is just that simple. When you create a same sex marriage, you are simultaneously creating a same sex family. Same sex marriages subject children to a vast, untested, social experiment. Homosexual marriage proponents must take the position that there is no inherent value or importance to human femininity and human masculinity when it comes to the socialization of children. They believe dads and moms are optional. This is the assumption of their position.”
Accordingly to elections officials, 15 of 25 congressional districts also met the required numbers to be certified. Only half of the 25 congressional districts are required to meet a certain number of petitions.
Stemberger said, “I just wish there was some way I could meet each of the hundreds of thousands of supporters across this state who have worked so hard and personally thank them. The people have spoken — twice now — and they will speak again on November 4, 2008. We will now proceed with our campaign plan to overcome the final and most serious hurdle — 60% popular vote passage of the amendment.” — For more information, visit the Florida4Marriage.org website.
(2/2/08) The Florida Division of Elections certified the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment on February 1, 2008 to be on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot. The amendment was certified with 649,346 petitions or 38,337 more than the 611,009 required petitions.
The amendment was in jeopardy of not making the ballot just two weeks before the deadline date of February 1, 2008 after the Division of Elections determined it was 22,000 petitions short.
However, thanks to the urgent email requests from the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Our American Values and Wall Builders, the political committee of
Florida4marriage.org received close to 92,000 more petitions in the final two weeks.
Florida Family Association collected approximately 35,000 petitions. The Christian Family Coalition collected approximately 60,000 petitions. Florida churches collected approximately 200,000 petitions. Electronic phone calls to targeted voters funded by a $300,000 contribution from the Republican Party of Florida collected over 300,000 signatures. And the last hour call to action by the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Our American Values and Wall Builders, the political committee Florida4marriage.org received close to 92,000 more petitions.
The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment reads: “In as much as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” – For more information, visit the Florida Family Association website.
(2/3/08) Chris Fruend reports that tomorrow afternoon, Monday, February 4, the House Committee on Appropriations will debate one of The Family Foundation’s highest priority bills, a recommendation of our marriage commission. The bill passed out of the House Health, Welfare and Institutions committee 22-0, but was referred to Appropriations.
HB 871 – The 1% Solution– this bill, 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. The 1% solution has already been adopted by several states, including Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, New Mexico, New York, Texas and Utah. There are many healthy marriage programs doing valuable work in Virginia, but they are significantly limited by lack of funds. These programs provide marriage preparation courses, crisis intervention programs and other programs to assist couples in creating and maintaining healthy marriages. By applying front-end solutions the goal is to reduce the number of divorces and thus the cost of social services to the taxpayer. This proposal would result in just under $2 million becoming available to healthy marriage initiatives.
Members of the committee need to understand the fact that marriage is a public institution and that government has an interest in promoting and encouraging healthy marriages. Divorce and out of wedlock births have had catastrophic effects on children and cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year in social services. Government has a compelling interest in the issue of marriage because as social science proves, the health of marriage has everything to do with the welfare of our state’s children, families, and communities.
This proposal also meets two of the stated goals of TANF: Reducing dependency through the promotion of marriage and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two parent families. – For more information, visit the Family Foundation of Virginia website.
5. How Secure Is Marriage From Divorce?
(1/30/08) The Family Foundation Vice President Chris Freund reports that SB 725 is being debated in the Senate Courts of Justice sub-committee. The bill would require that both parties in a no-fault divorce, when children are involved, consent to the divorce. The bill would also be prospective, applying only to marriages that take place after the law goes into effect. Currently, either spouse can unilaterally end a marriage without the consent of the other when there is no fault. The commitment required when children are present in a marriage deserves more protection from state law. Such protection would once again elevate the marriage commitment to a level of protection for both parties and their children.
Since the introduction of unilateral divorce in the late 1960s the divorce rate in our nation has skyrocketed. That trend continues in Virginia while the marriage rate decreases. The easy availability of divorce makes marriage more of a temporary agreement than a permanent, life-long commitment. The results have been devastating for our culture. SB 725 is a step toward once again making marriage the sacred institution it once was.
The fight, however, will be difficult. Few legislators in either political party favor this legislation. Most are content with the status quo…and some are even working on making divorce in Virginia easier! The only way this will change is if citizens tell their legislators that they support bills like SB 725. – For more information, visit the The Family Foundation of Virginia website.
(2/01/08) The Washington Post ran a column recently by author and researcher Elizabeth Marquardt entitled “The New Alone.” The article discusses the plight facing her generation as the first wave of adults “confronting the aging and dying of their divorced parents, stepparents or ex-stepparents.”
Many of these parents face the prospect of dying alone because as a recent study found, “divorce predicts a significantly lower level of involvement among adult children in caring for their aging parents.” Marquardt also notes the impact on her generation’s emotions in coping with the death of parents, stepparents, or unmarried/cohabiting parents and how to react when a “child” may be closer to a stepparent than they are to their biological parent(s).
Marquardt is the author of “Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce” and the Vice President for Family Studies at the Institute for American Values. She spoke to legislators at a special luncheon sponsored by MFF in 2007 and authored MFF’s publication “Redefining Parenthood: Adult Rights Versus Children’s Needs.” Click here to view a copy. To read Marquardt’s column, go here. Visit the Michigan Family Forum website to learn more about their information about their important work.
6. No Family Without Reproduction: Contraception
(1/28/08) Hawaii lawmakers are poised to force the Hawaii Medical Centers (HMC) to violate their operating agreement with the Catholic St. Francis Healthcare Systems by forcing HMC to provide “emergency contraceptives” to patients who present as sex assault victims.
The problem: emergency contraceptives can cause early abortions in pregnant women and, as such, are strictly prohibited under Catholic ethical and religious directives.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Friday, January 25. Despite declared verbal inclinations by Chair Tommy Waters and other committee members toward a compromise that would allow a religious exemption, the Committee nevertheless passed the bill overwhelmingly — without the exemption. – For more information, visit the Hawaii Family Forum website.
7. No Family Without Reproduction: Abortion
(1/28/08) Senate Joint Resolution 127, which will be voted on Wednesday, proposes an amendment to our state Constitution that would restore power to the people, through their elected representatives to make policy regarding abortion. In 2000, the state Supreme Court usurped that authority and “found” a fundamental right to abortion in our state Constitution. As a consequence, abortion is virtually unregulated in Tennessee.
SJR 127 must get a majority vote from both the Senate and the House this year or else the proposed amendment cannot go on the ballot until 2014. — For more information, visit the Family Action of Tennessee website.
See Population Research Institute’s new video on What America’s youth are saying about abortion.
(1/29/08) Second Look Project, which operates under the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is running radio ads with a strong pro-life message, including the sound of a pre-born baby’s heartbeat at six months.
Planned Parenthood’s Golden Gate chapter, the same chapter responsible for the offensive “Mile High Club” television ads, began an e-mail campaign to have the radio spots in San Francisco taken off the air, claiming they spread “lies” and “gross inaccuracies.” (See Citizen Link’s article on Planned Parenthood’s campaign.)
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, said this is an aggressive assault by Planned Parenthood to silence the pro-life message.
“The Second Look Project’s advertising campaign has obviously hit a nerve or it wouldn’t be the target of such an attack,” she said. “When scientifically documented fetal development is considered a ‘lie,’ then facts no longer have a place in the abortion debate. We cannot allow that to happen.” – Citizen Link
(1/31/08) While headlines touted a substantial drop in abortions annually, Dr. Al Krotoski, director of The Hippocratic Resource, LFF’s physicians’ resource council, notes that important data was overlooked. Says Krotoski, “The numbers reported from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) do not reflect the entire total of abortions annually, as California (which accounted for just under 24% of all abortions in the U.S. in 1995-1997) has refused, for the last decade, to report its abortion data to the CDC. Although the CDC report mentions this in its footnotes, it is all too easy to overlook them. Rather than “from 1.2 million annually to fewer than 900,000”), the more accurate reduction would be from 1.2 million to 1.1 million annually – by taking California’s (and New Hampshire’s plus West Virginia’s) refusal into account. The number of abortions after “quickening,” i.e. the time after the baby’s movements are felt by the mother (usually at 21 weeks) stayed constant at 1.4% (15,532 vs. 15,467).
The Louisiana Family Forum invites all to join them in praying for the end of this annual destruction of over a million of our fellow Americans. – For more information, visit the Louisiana Family Forum website.
(1/31/08) Law-enforcement officials in Los Angeles are pursuing a case of practicing medicine without a license against Southern California abortion business chain owner Bertha Bugarin. Bugarin, who allegedly managed four abortion businesses, was charged last fall – along with her sister. The sisters were ordered to stay away from the Clinica Medica Para La Mujer De Hoy abortion businesses that Bertha runs, but officials with the pro-life group Operation Rescue say, two months after her arrest, Bertha Bugarin was photographed at the abortion chain’s Chula Vista office in San Diego County wearing a stethoscope around her neck. Read the entire article on LifeNews.com. For more information on California, visit the California Family Council website.
(1/31/08) According to Chris Freund, Vice President of The Family Foundation, “[t]oday, pro-abortion advocates will descend on the state capitol for Planned Parenthood’s annual “pro-choice” lobby day. The halls will be filled with high school and college age girls carrying the pro-abortion message to legislators.
In their crosshairs this year is Virginia’s abstinence education policy. Recent studies have shown that abstinence education programs in Virginia are working, which means less profit for the nation’s largest private provider of abortion. During the fall they successfully lobbied Governor Kaine to cut off funding for abstinence ed programs – and now they want to change the public policy of Virginia from abstinence based to so-called comprehensive sex ed.
Two bills, SB 155 and HB 1403, would affectively end abstinence education in Virginia’s Family Life Education curriculum. This is despite the fact that polling shows between 60 and 80 percent of parents want abstinence education. But then again, Planned Parenthood has never cared a bit about what parents want.
“Pro-choicers” will also be decidedly against bills that give women true “choice.” They will advocated against:
HB 1315 and HB 1556 – bills that update Virginia’s Informed Consent law to include an ultrasound and information about fetal pain. Planned Parenthood is decidedly anti-Informed Choice.
HB 429 and SB 762 – bills that would make coerced abortion a crime. Planned Parenthood is decidedly anti-Uncoerced Choice.
HB 894 and SB 437 – bills that would improve the health and safety standards of Virginia’s abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood is decidedly anti-Safe Choice. — For more information, visit the The Family Foundation of Virginia website.
(2/1/08) Chris Freund, Vice President of The Family Foundation, reports that HB 1315, patroned by Delegate Kathy Byron (R-22, Lynchburg), is legislation that will require Virginia’s abortion clinics to perform an ultrasound when a woman seeks an abortion and offers an opportunity to a woman in a crisis pregnancy to review the ultrasound. The bill passed the House of Delegates 62-37.
Another bill, HB 1556, will update Informed Consent with information regarding the possibility that unborn children feel pain. The bill, partroned by Delegate Ben Cline (R-24, Amherst), requires abortion doctors to provide information to a woman seeking an abortion regarding the pain an unborn child may feel during an abortion done when the unborn child is more than 20 weeks gestation. This bill passed the House 68-31.
Another priority bill, which provides parental notification when a minor child seeks mental health treatment from a state clinic, passed the House earlier this week.
What a difference two years can make. Two years ago, when Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31, Woodbridge) introduced a bill to require parental notification when a minor child sought mental health treatment from a public agency, it failed in a House sub-committee. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, a similar bill patroned by Delegate Lingamfelter passed the House of Delegates 88-10!
The bill is narrower than it was two years ago, but is a very powerful parental notification bill. Of course, there were those who were against restoring parental rights, and some of them tilted their hand during the bill’s original floor vote last week. Delegate Lingamfelter pulled the bill for the week, amended it slightly to meet a concern regarding school nurses, and got it passed. In doing so, he blunted any argument the VEA and School Nurses Association may have when it goes to the Senate Education and Health Committee.
During the sub-committee debate, The Family Foundation provided several witnesses – a pastor who has had a prison ministry, a pastor who had been a parole officer and a professional counselor with a pastoral background. It was enough to flip one of the liberal sub-committee members who openly admitted he had pre-decided to vote against it because “it’s a Republican bill.” Read about the incredible debate at http://www.familyfoundationblog.com/?p=90. – Visit The Family Foundation of Virginia website to learn more about their vital work.
(2/01/08) Now that we’ve sung our Auld Lang Syne, and the blush of the new year has faded a bit, I will ask Janus, that pagan god, to look backward, backward to the times gone by. Take me past the deaths of the 50 million babies who have been killed since Roe v. Wade— back to a time where babies — dead babies — are remembered with respect.
A few years ago I decided to do some ancestry-searching. I went to the LDS’ Family History Center in Wilmette and ordered the birth, marriage, and death records of my parents’ village from 1800 through 1899. It was an easy endeavor, since my family came to the US in the 1930’s and both of my parents come from the same village, Bitritto, a few kilometers outside the capital of Puglia, Bari. As I searched the records, the surnames were all too familiar, but what grabbed my attention were the deaths of the little ones. The death certificates of the stillborns read “bambino Scalera”, “bambina LoConte”, and “bambino Sparacimino.”
And I thought. . . How have we memorialized the 50 million plus babies whom we have killed? There are no death certificates acknowledging their existence. We have no records! There is an emptiness in our history — a barrenness borne out of choice, a choice based on selfishness. As Mother Teresa so poignantly stated: “It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you live as you wish”. The perfect delusion: We kill to live — not to survive, as mankind has done throughout the ages; rather, we kill the innocents to live comfortably!
Yes, let’s ask Janus to join us and sing another song of Auld Lang Syne and drink another cup of kindness for days gone by, for times gone by, and for lives gone by — by the wayside, forgotten. — written by Loretta Ursini, 1/28/08. For more information, visit the Illinois Family Institute website.
8. How Secure Are Parental Rights Over Kids Sex and Sex Education?
(1/29/08) Washington House of Representative HR 1321 is a bipartisan bill that will require a physician to notify the parents of any pregnant woman under 18 years of age at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. If the pregnancy is the result of incest, only the mother must be notified. If a physician fails to meet these requirements, his or her medical license will be suspended.
Thus far the bill has been stalled in the House Health Care & Wellness Committee because of the maneuvering of special interest lobbies of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. They continue their attempts to suppress yet another family friendly, common sense bill. – For more information, visit The Family Policy Institute of Washington website.
(1/29/08) According to Kristen Luidhardt, Indiana’s General Assembly has been moving along at a fast pace, and it’s hard to keep up-to-date on the status of legislation. So here is a brief report on some of the activity that has happened so far today in the Senate.
Senate Bill 146 passed the Senate today 39-9. The bill requires that pregnant women considering an abortion be given information about the possibility of fetal pain and when life begins.
To no one’s surprise, the Senate also voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, more commonly known as SJR 7. To become part of the Indiana constitution, the proposed amendment must be passed by the House this year, and then approved by voters in the November general election.
To many people’s surprise, 6 Senators changed their vote on Senate Bill 3, a bill that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense medicines against their conscience if they believe the medicines will lead to abortion or assisted suicide. The bill stalled last week with a tie vote of 24-24 but today the vote was 30-18 in favor. Senator Drozda has been working to get this legislation passed for years, and we congratulate him for leading this effort in the Senate.
Progressive family ideas are alive and well in Indiana after all. For more information, go to the Veritas Rex blog.
(1/30/08) Family Institute of Connecticut continues its fight against anti-family influence and legislation. This week’s Hartford Business Journal reports that “The Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood is gearing up for a strong legislative push this session for the state to provide ‘real’ sex education,” in part because they fear that local boards of education are “hamstrung” by “public disapproval.” The same article quotes FIC Action’s Peter Wolfgang: “We would oppose any further involvement by Planned Parenthood because whatever they’re pushing, it’s really about abortion…They are the nation’s largest abortion provider and should be the last folks involved in sexual education.” – For more information, visit the Family Institute of Connecticut website.
(1/31/08) Once again, Planned Parenthood and their allies are pushing bills on Beacon Hill to require their brand of comprehensive sex education in every classroom in Massachusetts. We must stop this legislation in its tracks!
We know that delicate issues covered in health classes like alcohol, drugs and recreational sex should be handled locally and with the flexibility to customize curriculum to the needs of the local students. School administrators and health teachers don’t need Beacon Hill-led by Planned Parenthood-to tell them how to keep the students in their school safe. – Visit the Massachusetts Family Institute website to learn more about their leading-edge work.
(1/31/08) Concerned parents, community members, and many others from around the area attended Illinois District 207 school board meeting in Park Ridge to share their thoughts about birth control methods being taught at Maine South High School. Approximately 90 percent of the 100+ people in the room were in support of the parents who are challenging the school’s decision to continue teaching birth control to freshman biology students. The parents are asking for the unit to be removed and for the school district to begin an evaluation process of all sex education curricula.
Background
In April of 2007, a parent discovered her freshman son doing homework at their kitchen table that consisted of studying the explicit details of all methods of birth control (IUD’s, abortion, withdrawal (coitus interruptus), diaphragms, vaginal rings, etc.). This was an added unit to a biology class.
This alert parent called IFI School Issues Advisor, Lora Sue Hauser, for help. After going through the normal processes to address the issue, they found many disturbing facts:
- Lessons included co-ed small group discussions
- Students were required to give presentations to the class.
- Teachers added this birth control unit to a unit on reproduction.
- The parent had to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) just to get access to the materials being used with her child.
- When the parent asked if any other parents had expressed concern, they were told “no” by the administration, who seemed surprised by the question. It was later discovered that another parent had spent months addressing the same issue earlier in the school year.
- Parents were not informed of the unit or its graphic content.
- No Abstinence Education programs are being used at Maine South.
What are the facts about teaching birth control in the state of Illinois?
- It is not required by Illinois State Sex Education Codes!
- It is not required under Illinois Learning Standards!
- It is illegal for minors to engage in sexual intercourse: a class A misdemeanor!
- The law clearly states that parents must be given the opportunity to examine all materials used in sex education!
- The law clearly states that all information must be age appropriate.
- Only condom use may be taught under disease prevention, not as a contraceptive.
- Illinois is an abstinence state. This means they must emphasize abstinence, not teach the how-to’s for engaging in sexual activity.
Conclusion:
Maine South (not East or West) is placing students at high risk for sexual experimentation, STD’s and pregnancy. Teacher’s have overstepped their role as educators and violated parental rights for this highly sensitive subject.
MAINE SOUTH IS NOT ALONE!
Unfortunately, hundreds of Illinois schools are violating codes for sex education. Call your student’s school and ask . . . “what’s in your sex ed. curriculum?” The presentations, materials, bias, and encouragement to have sex will astound you. The schools have given up. But you should not! — For more information, visit the Illinois Family Institute website.
(2/1/08) Michael S. Heath, executive director of The Christian Civic League of Maine, wrote:
The last time I sat at this keyboard and tapped an email to you I was praying about the King Middle School bill. The Legislative Council voted on partisan lines to kill the bill last week. This vote came at the end of months of wrangling at various levels of Maine politics. I was in the Council room when the vote was taken.
I met with the House Speaker and the Senate President prior to the vote. Both are Democrats. I could tell they’d already made up their minds. They control the Legislature, or they think they do.
Now comes Senator Doug Smith and Representative Josh Tardy. While Tardy is in leadership, Smith is not. Both men are interested in seeing the King Middle School bill get a public hearing notwithstanding the Council decision. I’ve also met with Tardy and Smith. I worked with Smith yesterday morning as he was running his floor and hall strategy.
Smith and Tardy, both Republicans, are hoping to persuade Democrats to jump ship on Tuesday, February 5th. The Democrat party will need to decide to abandon their leaders on a dramatic and contentious front page social issue. This will be interesting.
I, of course, want the bill to not only go to committee and get a public hearing, but to become law. Pro family groups in Maine are working to make this happen.
One lobbyist who is hard wired into the Democratic machine told me that the effort isn’t going to accomplish anything under the dome. He said it will anger the Democrat leadership.
I’m sure he is right. The question, however, is whether it is worth it to anger them.
On one side is the notion that hyper-permissive liberal know-it-all public school sex counselors should be allowed to dispense all forms of contraceptives to innocent, confused and vulnerable little girls without telling the parents. The downside is angering Democratic leadership.
I’ll go with angering the Democratic leadership.
The hyper-liberal Maine Womens Lobby was in the halls yesterday with a video camera. This radical group mainlines contraceptives. They work everyday to protect the sanctity of the abortionist’s trash can. Their leader is an out lesbian.
Democrats don’t rise to leadership without their support.
Jesus loved children. He loves innocence. Clearly this issue transcends politics. Jesus suggests that a watery grave is the appropriate resting place for adults who violate this innocence.
Politics and religion aside, this issue brings all people of good will together. Surely it is possible for Maine’s Legislature to protect the innocence of 11 year old girls instead of pill-induced indulgence?
— For more information, visit the Chrisitan Civic League of Maine website.
(2/01/08) The Michigan House Health Policy Committee has passed two bills regarding the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine. While earlier versions of this legislation required sixth grade girls to be immunized as a condition for enrollment in school, the current version only requires schools to provide vaccine information to parents with children in school.
Schools are already required to provide other vaccine information so this will not present an additional burden to them. Identical legislation already passed the Michigan Senate. Michigan Family Forum was instrumental in removing the earlier vaccine mandate and restoring parental control in this key area of their children’s lives. The House bill must now be considered by the full House of Representatives before advancing to the Governor. To view the legislation, click here for HB 5171 and here for HB 5322. – More information about the work of the Michigan Family Forum can be found at http://www.michiganfamily.org.
(2/1/08) As reported by Ryan McCann, Indiana Senator Bill 187 passed the Senate, since our last update, by a vote of 36-11. This bill would require schools to teach students about human fetal development. It is amazing how fairly recent break-throughs in technology have allowed us to learn so much about the development of babies within their mother’s womb. It is important for students to know, for example, that a baby’s heart begins beating as early as 18 days after conception and brain waves are recorded as early as 42 days, along with other information and even photos that show that a child within the womb is not merely a blob of tissue.– For more information, visit the Veritas Rex blog.
(2/3/08) According to Chris Freund, [t]Tomorrow morning, Monday, February 4, the House Committee on Education will hear a Family Foundation priority bill. The bill passed out of sub-committees late last week after much debate.
HB 1538 would prohibit organizations like Planned Parenthood from going into our schools to teach family life education. Currently, the public policy of Virginia is for our FLE curriculum to be abstinence based. No organization in the United States is more opposed to abstinence education than Planned Parenthood. It simply defies logic that an organization that spends vast amounts of money trying to stop abstinence education should be paid by the taxpayers to teach abstinence education! This bill met with great opposition in the sub-committee and made it out only 5-3. The debate in the full Education committee is likely to be fierce. The bill is patroned by freshman Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96, Yorktown).
The full Education committee needs to hear from you today! This bill simply protects our children from being influenced by the likes of Planned Parenthood. – To learn how to help, visit the Family Foundation of Virginia website.
8. How Secure Are Parental Rights Over Kids Schooling?
(1/30/08) In his final State of the Union address Tuesday, President Bush proposed $300 million in Pell Grants for lower-income children in failing schools. The funds could be used to send kids to better schools, including private or Christian schools.
“We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential,” Bush said. “Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.”
Although opponents of school choice still rail against the idea, Andrew Campanella, director of communications for the Alliance for School Choice, said the facts speak loud and clear.
“We continue to see studies that show school choice improves student performance, parental satisfaction and overall community revitalization,” he said.
A University of Minnesota study shows graduation rates in the Milwaukee choice program are 14 percent higher than in public schools. — To learn more about school choice, visit Focus on Social Issues.
(1/30/08) Andy Matthews reports that the results of Nevada Policy Research Institutes’s statewide survey on Nevadans’ attitudes on education, conducted along with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, are in, and they paint a not-so-pretty picture for the state’s education establishment. (Click here to download the survey).
Of particular note: Given a list of several types of schools, only 11 percent of respondents said they would choose to send their own children to a regular public school. This means that the vast majority of Nevada students are being forced into a system that very, very few of them want any part of. The top choice? Private schools, which were the preference of 48 percent.
The survey has received some pretty good press coverage, particularly from the Las Vegas Review-Journal (here), the Las Vegas Sun (here) and the Reno Gazette-Journal (here). – For more information, visit the Nevada Policy Research Institute website.
9. How Secure Is Parental Authority Over Kids Constitutional Rights?
(1/30/08) One of The Family Foundation’s highest priority bills is being attacked by the ACLU and representatives of the public school monarchy.
HB 1135 is a bill that would protect the religious expression rights of students in Virginia public schools by putting into the Virginia code what the United States Supreme Court has said on that issue. Last week the bill was presented to a House Education subcommittee and met stiff resistance from several members of the sub-committee and from the public school establishment. Since that time the ACLU has joined the fight to kill this important piece of legislation.
It is ironic that in a state that prides itself on its heritage of religious liberty, public school students who want to express their faith are treated as second-class citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled in recent cases that schools cannot deny the right to religious expression within the confines of the classroom and classroom assignments.
Yet, just this school year, a first grade student in a Virginia public school was denied the right to read a story to her class simply because it contained the word “God.”
Unfortunately, the words penned by Thomas Jefferson over two centuries ago, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freeedom, now ring hollow in the hallways and classrooms of Virginia’s public schools. – For more information, visit The Family Foundation of Virginia website.
( Note: The text of the bill states that “[s]tudent expression on an otherwise permissible subject may not be excluded from the limited public forum because the subject is expressed from a religious viewpoint.”
Why is the ACLU opposing student free religious speech? It supposedly violates the wall of Separation. As I have written in previous posts, the meaning of Separation believed and defended by judges, ACLU lawyers, school administrators, and many other Americans is the creation of secularists like perpetrated by people when they created the First Amendment and again in the 1870s when secularist attempt to pass amendment to revise the First amendment to include Separation of Church and State. To allow ACLU or anyone else to repress high students right to freedom of religious express is to violate the supreme law of the land. )
(1/29/08) After a two-year legal battle, a Christian club has permission to meet at a Florida public school.
Child Evangelism Fellowship of Florida’s Good News Club was forced to pay $12.50 an hour in order to use the Williamsburg public school facilities for its meetings. However, other clubs in the district, including Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and other patriotic and community service organizations, were allowed to meet for free.
After Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of the club, the school agreed to waive the fee and refund the $2,500 the club had already paid.
“The federal Equal Access statute, which has now been around for many years, is clear that public schools may not discriminate between the types of non-curricular clubs they allow to meet on campus,” said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “That obviously includes not charging a Christian club for access when other types of clubs do not have to pay.
“What’s still surprising to me is the large number of schools that, out of ignorance or spite, continue to violate this basic law of equal treatment until they are called on it.” – Citizen Link
(1/31/08) As reported in Capitol Update two weeks ago, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit in federal court against Westmont High School for denying a pro-life club the same rights and privileges as other campus clubs. This week, ADF dismissed the lawsuit when the school agreed to grant the pro-life club the same access as other clubs. Read more on the ADF Web site. To learn more about the work of California Family Council, go to their website at www.californiafamily.org.
(1/31/08) Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Deer Valley Unified School District after school officials prevented a Christian student club from inviting students during morning announcements over the PA system to attend a non-instructional time prayer meeting. School officials prohibited the announcement, a privilege that all other clubs enjoy, because it contained the word “prayer.”
“Christians shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their religious beliefs since they have the same constitutional rights as everyone else,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “In this case, these students simply wanted to use the same official school communication channels that other clubs are allowed to use to promote their events. The Constitution specifically prohibits government officials from singling out religious groups for censorship.”
On Jan. 14, a student representing the Common Cause club at Mountain Ridge High School submitted a request to announce their weekly prayer meeting, held before school at 7:20 a.m. at the school flagpole, during morning announcement time. The next day, the assistant principal told the student that the announcement would not be permitted because it contained the word “prayer.” When the student asked for the return of her announcement, the assistant principal allegedly ripped it up and discarded it in front of her.
“Denying Christians their constitutional rights simply because they choose to exercise them in a public place is unconstitutional,” said Cortman. “These students simply wanted to pray before school and to invite others to join them. We hope that the court will affirm the right of these students to do so.” – For more information, visit the Alliance Defense Fund website.
(2/3/08) According to Chris Freund, [t]Tomorrow morning, Monday, February 4, the House Committee on Education will hear one of Family Foundation priority bill. The bill passed out of sub-committees late last week after much debate.
The first, HB 1135, is a bill that will protect the religious liberty rights of students in public schools. This bill follows language given by the U.S. Supreme Court. After a week of working with legislators on the sub-committee to ease concerns over the bill, it successfully passed out of sub-committee unanimously. However, there are groups lining up against the bill, including the ACLU. The bill is patroned by Delegate William Fralin (R-17, Roanoke).
The full Education committee needs to hear from you today! This bill simply protects our children in their right to freely express their faith in the classroom. – To learn how to help, visit The Family Foundation of Virginia website.
10. Other Issues Important to the Future of Good Families
(1/30/08) A California high school student has received full credit for the community service hours he completed at his church, thanks to a lawsuit filed by Liberty Counsel.
Christopher Rand completed more than 70 hours of community service at his church, including helping with children’s programs and supervising church activities. However, the Long Beach District School Board refused to grant credit for his hours, claiming service in the religious community did not count.
After the lawsuit, the district agreed to award Rand full credit. The district also allowed Liberty Counsel to help revise its policy to include community service at religious organizations.
“It’s important for students and parents to know that the First Amendment requires that schools not prohibit the religious viewpoint of students in however they choose to perform school assignments,” said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “While schools may not themselves endorse a religious point of view, that does not apply to the speech or actions of its students, in most school situations.” — Citizens Link
(1/31/08) According to reports, up to 20 percent of the U.S. inmate population is subjected to rape. Now a new board game created by John Sebelius, son of Kansas’ Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, is trying to turn prison rape into a laughing matter.
Don’t Drop the Soap is centered around prison life, and the goal of each player is to make parole, KCTV in Kansas reported. Game pieces include shady characters, bags of cocaine and handguns.
Pat Nolan, vice president of Prison Fellowship, isn’t amused.
“It’s troubling that anyone would think that raping in prison would be something to laugh about and make a board game about,” he said.
Linda McFarlane, a spokeswoman for Stop Prisoner Rape, said games like this minimize the problem and make her job harder.
“It’s an issue that shatters human dignity; it derails justice,” she said. “And as long as popular culture deems it amusing, there’s no public outcry to end it.” — Citizen Link
(2/1/08) The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School (CMS) Board is currently considering an anti-bullying policy that includes the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.” At a recent planning retreat, CMS board members discussed the proposed policy, which states, in part: “It is the policy of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education to maintain learning environments that are free from harassment or bullying. This freedom includes, but is not limited to, freedom from harassment or bullying based on an individual’s real or perceived race, color, sex, religion, creed, political belief, age, national origin, linguistic or language differences, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, socioeconomic status, height, weight, physical characteristics, marital status, parental status, or physical, mental or sensory disability.”
Although the CMS system already has a rule of conduct for students that prohibits bullying and includes the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression,” the proposed policy would carry more weight and is far more expansive. The rule is included as a directive in the student handbook, while the proposed board policy would require the CMS superintendent to collect data on bullying in schools, conduct annual training for teachers, staff and students on anti-bullying techniques, and publicize the policy to students. According to the Charlotte Observer, five members of the nine-member CMS board voiced support for the proposed policy at the planning retreat, while three members said they could not support the policy as written.
Concerns about the policy include whether the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” could open the door for the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism in the classroom. In addition, the proposed policy lacks a definition of bullying. Without a clear definition, bullying could be interpreted to include disagreement about beliefs, leading to the silencing of opposing viewpoints on issues such as homosexuality.
The wording in the proposed CMS policy is very similar to the House-passed version of pro-homosexual anti-bullying legislation currently pending before the North Carolina General Assembly. The House version of, HB 1366-School Violence Prevention Act, would require local school boards to amend their existing anti-bullying and harassment policies to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.” HB 1366 is not only overly broad, but unnecessary. This is so, because the State Board of Education adopted a general policy against bullying in 2004 that required all local school systems to adopt anti-bullying policies by January 2005. When the State Board policy was originally proposed, it listed special protections for 16 specific characteristics, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression,” but the Board voted to omit the 16 characteristics and approved a more general anti-bullying policy that protects all students. In 2007, after the House passed a version of the bill that included these enumerations, the Senate took them out before passing the bill and sending it back to the House.
Bill Brooks, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council commented, “It is disappointing to see local governmental bodies take it upon themselves to try and pass policies that are clearly in the domain of the General Assembly. In this case, the attempt to include sexual orientation and gender identity would not only be wrong, but would move in the opposite direction of the most recent action of the legislature and would likely be unconstitutional.”
The proposed Charlotte/Mecklenburg anti-bullying policy is scheduled to come before the CMS board for a first reading on February 12. — For more information , visit the North Carolina Family Policy Council website.
——————————
Is their power in numbers? If you think not, then consider how many liberal educators, scientists, reporters, actors, ministers, lawmakers, politicians, and writers producing curriculum, media reports, movies, sermons, laws, rhetoric, articles, and books. An ignorant, say-nothing, do-nothing, trusting sheep-like majority will always be subservient to the diligent minority. This is what the secular, anti-God, liberal elite experts and their followers know very well.
Knowing what the problems are is only half of the solution; supporting those attempting to right the wrongs is the other and possibly the most effective part.
The State of America's Family 