Tuesday, March 31, 2009

UFI: Family Issues Guides

I want to put in a plug for some good background reading.

United Families International has several detailed, documented guides on family issues like abortion, divorce, and the advantages of marriage. They are a good read to get some facts and understand (and refute) the arguments used by the other side.

I would recommend starting with the Sexual Orientation guide that confronts 22 myths about homosexuality and provides 145 "Fast Facts" about the issue.

Happy reading!

Monday, March 30, 2009

The Realities of Abortion

Life Site News reported that a 15-year-old girl died after receiving an abortion. She did not take the antibiotic prescription home with her and died from a bacterial infection 5 days later. Her death was preventable in so many ways.

The article also gave some statistics that refute an argument that many pro-abortionists use: if abortion were illegal, a huge number of women would die from "back-alley" abortions. These statistics indicate that this argument is false.

by Hilary White,

"Despite the claims of the abortion lobby that legal abortion has answered the problem of the "thousands" or "tens of thousands" of women dying from "illegal back-alley abortions," researchers have found that legal abortions rank as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States. In 1972, the year before abortion was legalised in the US, the Centers for Disease Control reported 39 abortion related deaths.

A recent study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth. The statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health found that women who obtained abortions were 76 percent more likely to die in the following year than non-pregnant women. The research found that of 281 women who had died within a year of their last pregnancy between 1987 and 1994, 27 died after giving birth, 48 after having had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 after having had abortions.

The leading causes of abortion related deaths are haemorrhage, infection, embolism, anaesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies."

Read the full story here.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Marriage...It's That Simple

Take a few minutes to watch this great video on the importance of preserving families.

One Man. One Woman. It really is that simple.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Hawaii Civil Unions Bill Stalls

The bill that would legalize civil unions in Hawaii is stuck in a Senate Committee after committee members voted against sending it to the Senate floor for a vote. They did not believe there is enough support to pass it before they adjourn in May.

Read the story here.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Vermont Governor Will Veto Gay Marriage Bill

Just announced this afternoon. Thank goodness!

Good Sense Politics has more info on contacting your Vermont legislators to let them know how you feel about legalizing gay marriage. Take the time to do it so they know where the people stand.

**Update: Opine Editorials has a great list of links on the gay marriage battle in Vermont.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Update: Vermont Gay Marriage

Beetle Blogger reports that the Vermont Senate has passed a bill legalizing gay marriage. The House will vote later this week.

If you live in Vermont, contact your representative now!

Monday, March 23, 2009

Obama Wants to Repeal the Conscience Clause

by Kathleen Gilbert,

President Obama is facing heavy criticism from pro-life politicians and activists for setting to work dismantling the Bush era federal regulations that uphold doctors' conscience rights.

The Health and Human Services (HHS) Department Friday confirmed that the president has begun the process of repealing the regulations that had been passed by the Bush administration and that went into effect Jan. 20. The regulations enforce pre-existing federal law that protects healthcare workers' right to conscientiously refuse implementation of or involvement in abortions, including dispensation of the abortifacient morning-after pill.

Read the full article here.

The Obama Administration is giving the public until April 9 to respond to the proposal. You can email your opinion to or sign a petition here. You can also submit comments on the proposal at (by entering 0991-AB49 in the search box).

If you want to use snail mail, send one original and two copies of written comments to:

Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201.

Check out the end of this article for ideas on how to focus your comments on the issue.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Pro-Abortion Judge Named Obama's First Fed. Court Pick

Kathleen Gilbert,

Obama's first judicial appointment, billed by White House officials as a moderate pick designed to ease partisan confirmation scuffles, has sparked concern among conservatives who are pointing out the nominee's liberal record on life and other issues and say the pick sets a trend for future left-leaning appointees touted as "moderates."

Obama on Tuesday picked U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, saying Hamilton "has a long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions." The GOP senator from Hamilton's home state of Indiana, Richard Lugar, paved the way for Senate confirmation with a statement that he would "enthusiastically support" the pick.

But conservative and pro-life leaders say they are wary of Hamilton, a former ACLU board member, whom they claim has a history of handing down activist decisions. Prominent among the concerns was Hamilton's handling of an Indiana abortion consent law, which would have required abortionists to give patients information on abortion alternatives at least eighteen hours before the scheduled procedure.

Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote ironically: "It's far from clear what justifies the ... characterization of Hamilton as a 'moderate'…. maybe Hamilton's extraordinary seven-year-long series of rulings obstructing Indiana's implementation of its law providing for informed consent on abortion?"

Read the rest of the article here.

Is anyone even surprised at this point?

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Does the Dictionary Definition Matter?

Apparently some time ago, Merriam-Webster Dictionary added a second definition to the word marriage:

"the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Read the article here.

Do you think it was changed as a result of prevailing attitudes about marriage, or to influence people's attitudes about homosexuality? And does it even matter that the dictionary definition of marriage has changed?

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Obama Administration to Sign UN Declaration to "Decriminalize Homosexuality"

Hilary White,

WASHINGTON, March 18, 2009 ( - The Obama Administration has confirmed that it will endorse a United Nations declaration that will call for the global "decriminalization of homosexuality." The State Department today endorsed the U.N. statement, saying that it did so out of concern over for "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and "the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."

The declaration in question, which former president George W. Bush refused to sign, has been heavily criticised by pro-family groups as a significant step towards the worldwide outlawing of religious opposition to the homosexualist political agenda.

State department officials said Tuesday that they had notified the declaration's sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The declaration is being sponsored by France and the Netherlands at the request of homosexualist activist Louis-Georges Tin. It has been signed by all 27 European Union members of the UN's General Assembly, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, making a total of 66 of the UN's 192 member states. 70 UN member states outlaw homosexual activity and more than 50 nations opposed the declaration. The US was the only western country that had refused to sign.

Read the full article here.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage Battle in Vermont

From Secular Heretic:

Vermont lawmakers are starting a week of hearings on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to adopt civil unions. Supporters claim "gay marriage" would give same sex couples additional rights related to insurance, health care and Social Security benefits.

Rep. Tom Little says that same-sex marriage legislation is "a better course" for Vermont because the terminology (civil union v. marriage) is unfair.

The situation in Vermont is an excellent example of how civil unions work. They are a stepping stone to marriage access—which people openly hope will grant the homosexual lifestyle more social acceptance. However, in the mean time, it literally strips marriage of its core meaning: the unification of opposite genders for the benefit of society.

As a society, we do not give benefits to citizens because of their love, sexual orientation, or for social acceptance.

Hundreds of marriage supporters are lobbying at the Vermont Statehouse. They say the bill would undermine the institution of marriage and harm children.

Preserving Marriage
The Opine Editorials
Beetle Blogger

Monday, March 16, 2009

Planned Parenthood Exposed

Undercover Student Videos Help De-Fund Planned Parenthood

United Families International

LOS ANGELES, CA - Undercover videos produced by Live Action Films were used to help strip Planned Parenthood of the $292,000 in taxpayer funds it received from Orange County, CA. The videos, part of the ongoing Mona Lisa Project, clearly show Planned Parenthood employees ignoring the sexual abuse of minors, which mandatory reporting laws require clinicians to report.

Mark Bucher, a local resident and board member of the Family Action PAC, saw the videos and decided to find out if Orange County gave taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood. Bucher proceeded to uncover an intricate money trail unknown even to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and found that Planned Parenthood received funds through the Orange County Health Care Agency but was never identified as the recipient.

“The distribution of public funds to Planned Parenthood through the Orange County Health Care Agency appeared to be a deliberate cover-up since it was nearly impossible to detect where the money was going from the County to several different health clinics,” said Bucher. “After watching the undercover videos from Live Action, it became clear to me that Planned Parenthood has a lot to hide.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Two more videos exposing illegal actions by Planned Parenthood are scheduled to be released tomorrow.

You can view the first three videos here.

Porn Lawyer David Ogden confirmed as Deputy Attorney General

The vote was 65-28. Ten Republicans voted for him, one Democrat voted against.

Read more about it here.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Redefining Gender

Vote pending on 'gender identity' in Gainesville

Charlie Butts,

The citizens of Gainesville, Florida, are set to do battle over a gender-identity ordinance passed by the city council.

The ordinance passed by the civic leaders defines gender as follows: "An inner sense of being a specific gender, or the expression of a gender identity by verbal statement, appearance, or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."

Passage of the ordinance caused an uproar because, in essence, it permits people to use public facilities -- restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms -- based on their inner feeling about their gender. As Jim Gilbert with Citizens for Good Public Policy explains, that means men could use women's restrooms and women could use men's rooms. And outside of the obvious, that poses a real problem, he says.

Read the full story here.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

California Initiative Proposes Abolishing All Marriage from Law

By Kathleen Gilbert,

California same-sex "marriage" supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

The "Domestic Partnership Initiative" proposes to categorize all unions simply as "domestic partnerships," while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples. According to the initiative's summary, "Legally speaking, 'Marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions."

Read the rest of the article here.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Updates From the Frontlines

Five states are currently considering bills that would affect marriage. The state legislatures in Vermont and Washington are considering bills that would legalize same-sex marriage (the bill in Washington would not actually call it marriage). West Virginia's bill would create a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Colorado and North Dakota are also considering bills about special rights for homosexuals.

Read more about the proposed bills and contact your state representative.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Parents Who Opt Children out of Homosexual Material Face Penalties

Christian and Muslim Parents Facing Possible Criminal Charges for Opting out of LGBT History Month

By Hilary White,

UK parents could face criminal charges for having removed their children from programs held at George Tomlinson Primary School promoting the homosexual lifestyle. Waltham Forest council has announced it will prosecute parents of about 30 children who did not attend a week's worth of lessons coinciding with "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month."

A spokesman for the council said, "At George Tomlinson, parents were invited to meet with teachers and governors several weeks ago to discuss what work would be taking place throughout the national LGBT History Month, and how this work would be delivered. Regrettably, some parents chose to remove their children from school.

"The council does not condone any unauthorised absence from school and action has been taken."

But parents who objected said they were told by the school there were no other options but to remove their children from classes if they objected to the content of the program.

Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant whose children, Saleh, 10, and Abdurrahin, nine, attend the school, told the Daily Mail, "I wrote a letter to the chairman of the governors explaining that I would be taking my children out of school and he wrote back saying that there was no other option."

He said that parents had not been properly informed about the content of the program. "There was just a newsletter mentioning the week and that certain themes would be taught."

Two homosexual-themed books were read in primary classes: "King and King," about a prince who falls in love with another prince, and "Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins, Roy and Silo, who fall in love and adopt a baby penguin at a New York zoo.

Mr. Latif spoke of the disruption to his family: "My wife is very concerned she might be prosecuted ... I found it difficult to explain topics such as homosexual relationships at such a young age."

"I didn't want my children to be learning about this," he said. "If I am faced with court action, then I will just explain that these are my views.

Although the Waltham Forest council has not yet informed parents how they are to be punished, the council website says that parents of truant children can be asked to sign a contract, fined on the spot or taken to court. Councils have the power to jail parents for truancy.


Read the rest of the article here.

To those who say this would never happen here in the US, it already has.

Read more facts about David Parker's story here.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Responses to Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

Survey of Marriage Neutering Arguments

By The Playful Walrus, Opine Editorials

Here's a survey of some arguments we have heard from marriage neutering advocates, especially in California. I, and others, have dealt with other arguments in more detail in other entries, but I wanted to touch on these this week.

"The Courts Corrected Past Evils."

Assuming courts have only made correct decisions in the past (demonstrably false, but let's assume for the sake of argument) and, in doing so, did not reach beyond their constitutional authority in doing so, this does not automatically mean it was right for the California Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 22. If the court ordered the ACLU to pay me ten million dollars simply because I wanted it, would that automatically mean it was right, because the court has corrected past evils? There is no reason why this should be an issue for the courts instead of the voters.

"We're Being Treated Like Second Class Citizens"

The state, on behalf the people, treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently, and has requirements for various licenses. This is the only example I know of where people are claiming they are being treated as second class citizens because they aren't interested in obtaining a license on the established terms – which neither bar applicants on the basis of sex nor sexual orientation.

We are not telling you that you have to ride in the back of the bus. You are telling all of us bus riders that the wheels must come off of the bus because you get motion sickness. You don't have to ride the bus if you don't want to, but you should not be able to force us to change the very nature of the bus. It is there to move society forward.

Read the rest of the arguments here.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Videos: Proposition 8 Oral Arguments

A brief summary of the case being brought before the California Supreme Court and some clips from the oral arguments in the courtroom yesterday.

Glenn Beck discusses why the people of California have a right to amend the State Constitution.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Update from the Courtroom

From The L.A. Times:

"Justices of the California Supreme Court seemed reluctant today to override the will of the people as expressed by the narrow majority vote to effectively ban gay marriage with Proposition 8.

Before supporters of the November ballot measure even got their chance to speak to the court in San Francisco, the justices appeared to be warning Proposition 8 opponents that their arguments that the vote should be invalidated could be viewed as an excessive use of judicial power."

Read the full article here.

You can get Twitter updates from the DNA or Protect Marriage.

Update: Find links to news articles and opinion blogs about today's oral arguments here.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Proposition 8 challenge begins

I thought Prop. 8 Passed. Why do I need to worry about it now?

From Goodsense Politics

Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!


Marriage is not a vehicle for social recognition of morally taboo behaviors. It is a protected and honored arrangement designed to promote the raising of children in an ideal environment, the way nature intended. Prop 8 is not about denying rights to homosexuals: They retain every right that heterosexuals do . . . plus the right to a same-sex “civil union” that state law ensures is equal to marriage in all ways but name. They have no right to force the rest of society to change their moral convictions to fit their fancy. Twice, the people of California voted in fair elections for marriage to remain solely between a man and a woman. The government of California should abide by the democratic voice of its people and not tyrannically impose its will on them.


Finish reading the article and learn 5 important reasons why Prop. 8 should not be overturned.


Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow, March 5, from 9:00am-12:00pm Pacific time.

Viewing Options for March 5 Oral Argument

Television Viewing

    California Channel This is an external link. Click this icon for our external linking policy.: this public affairs channel is carried by most local cable companies in California. Check local listings This is an external link. Click this icon for our external linking policy..

    San Francisco: SFGTV2 This is an external link. Click this icon for our external linking policy. (Comcast cable channel 78); Astound cable Channel 28; also available via online streaming to your PC or MAC from SFGTV This is an external link. Click this icon for our external linking policy..

    Note: many local organizations and law schools are hosting viewing events that may be found by performing an Internet search.

Watch Online

Public Seating
Public seating will be offered on a "first come, first served" basis to those in line outside the Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA, before the doors open at 7:30 a.m. on March 5. Only 20 public seats will be available in the courtroom.

Satellite Broadcasts Locations in San Francisco
The oral argument will be broadcast live at various locations in San Francisco, such as the Milton Marks Conference Center, Lower Level, Hiram Johnson State Office Building, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, and at Hastings College of the Law's Auditorium, 198 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Educate yourself about the Homosexual Agenda

Journalista Chronicle has a great post about the consequences of advancing the homosexual agenda and believing that it won't affect you. There would be negative consequences for your job, your children, your right to parent as you see fit, and for any organization that did not treat homosexuals as a special minority group.

Opine Editorials writes about the significance of the latest move by the homosexual activists:

"Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that successfully sued to bring same-sex marriage to Connecticut, is filing a lawsuit in federal district to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

OneNewsNow reports that young conservatives are being misled by the homosexual activists and "are being taught to think of homosexuality as a civil rights." The activists have also been successful in their push to make people think that that civil unions are okay when, in reality, they are just a step to homosexual marriage.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Nominee Updates: David Ogden and Kathleen Sebelius

President Obama officially nominates Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are major concerns for the pro-life movement about her record on abortion. Read more about her here.

Update: George Weigel analyzes and details her position on abortion.
Americans United for Life offers a detailed history of her abortion record.

Senate Committe confirms porn lawyer David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General despite public disapproval. His name will now be sent to the senate for a full vote. Read more information about Ogden here.