 |
          
  |
|
|
|
Daniel
Herbster reporting
As
AdvanceUSA
blog reported, the Arizona Supreme Court recently overturned that state’s school
voucher program, ruling the program, which had benefited low-income and
disabled children, unconstitutional. The
Institute for Justice is a libertarian legal
organization which defended the Arizona voucher program in court. Tim Keller, the executive director of the
Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter, has been kind enough to share with us
about the Arizona case and his work for IJ.
DH: Tim, how was the Arizona school voucher
program set up, and what kinds of results was it achieving before the court
made its ruling?
TK: Enacted and implemented in 2006, Arizona’s two
innovative voucher programs, for children with disabilities and children in
foster care, offered a genuine lifeline to many families trapped in schools
that failed to meet their children’s unique educational needs. Teachers’
unions immediately challenged both programs in court. The Institute for
Justice filed intervention papers on behalf of parents and children relying on
the programs to defend against the lawsuits. During the more than two
years of litigation, the programs grew numerically and the children receiving
the vouchers grew both socially and academically. To say that parental
satisfaction soared is an understatement. During the litigation, we
actually filed a number of testimonials
with the Arizona Supreme Court typical of the truly life-changing impact the
programs have had on families.
DH: On what grounds did the Arizona Supreme Court
overturn the voucher program? Why do you
feel they wrongly decided this case?
TK: The Arizona Supreme Court declared that the
voucher programs violate a provision of the Arizona Constitution that prohibits
state funds being appropriated “in aid of” private and religious schools. The Court wrongly decided the case because
the programs were not passed “in aid of” schools. The programs were passed “in aid of”
individuals. Just like food stamps do
not aid grocery stores, school vouchers do not aid schools. For decades, the legal test applied by the
Arizona Supreme Court to similar programs challenged under the so-called “aid
clause” has been the “true beneficiary” test.
In this case, as in prior Arizona school choice cases, parents and
children are the true beneficiaries, not private schools.
Moreover, the decision threatens numerous other educational
aid programs that allow students to use public funds to attend private
schools. For example, at the
post-secondary level, Arizona has no less than three separate programs that
award state-funded vouchers or scholarships to students who can choose to use
those public funds at private, even religious, colleges and universities. The decision also jeopardizes a program that
allows public school districts to place children with disabilities in private
schools and use state funds to pay the tuition to those schools.
DH: Your
press release mentioned a young girl named Lexie. How had she benefited from the voucher
program and what will she have to do once it is discontinued?
Daniel Herbster reporting
We again have the privilege to hear from Dr. David Prentice about important bioethical issues. Dr. Prentice has years of teaching and research experience, and he now works for the illustrious Family Research Council in Washington, DC. With President Obama’s recent actions on taxpayer funding of embryo-destroying research, I thought it would be good to hear from our friend and my former teacher.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what exactly did President Obama do in his recent executive order? How will it affect the sanctity of life in this country?
DP: President Obama has removed any restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The previous Bush policy restricted federal funds for those lines (dishes) of human embryonic stem cells that were already in existence on Aug 9, 2001; this allowed funding for the research to proceed, but did not provide any incentive for more embryo destruction. Now, any lines can receive federal funding, no matter when the embryo was destroyed, and no matter how the embryo was produced. This would mean even for cases in the future, and for embryos created by cloning, or for human-animal hybrid embryos.
DH: It seems ironic that the President would chose to announce his new policy on embryonic stem cell research a matter of weeks after a major breakthrough in ethically produced induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Could you tell us what exactly these researchers accomplished and how does it relate to the push for more embryonic stem cell research?
DP: Recently scientists at MIT showed that they could produce these induced stem cells (iPS cells) directly from a Parkinson’s patient, and make the type of neurons in the lab that are missing in the patient. They are still years or decades away from ever using these cells in a patient, but it illustrates the ease with which these iPS cells can be produced, producing cells for study in the laboratory, and all without the use of embryos, eggs, or cloning.
DH: In his remarks President Obama claimed to oppose “human cloning.” What do you think he meant by this statement and do you believe he is being completely accurate?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Few
organizations are as supportive of the radical pro-abortion agenda as Planned
Parenthood. Millions of dollars pass
through this institution every year (much of it from taxpayers) which means it
has a huge financial incentive to promote abortion and promiscuity. There have been many reports of Planned
Parenthood violating reporting laws in order to circumvent state parental
consent laws and statutory rape laws.
Lila Rose, president of Live Action Films,
decided to help expose the corruption of Planned Parenthood through a series of
undercover videos. Lila posed as an
under-age girl (who had been impregnated by a much older man) seeking an abortion
at two PP clinics in Indiana. The
videos show three PP staffers attempting to cover-up what would have
constituted statutory rape and encouraging Lila to get an abortion in Illinois
so she could avoid Indiana’s parental consent laws and keep the abortion and
rape hidden from her parents. Lila was
kind enough to allow us to interview her about her recent project.
DH: I know it’s not quite as prestigious at being
interviewed on Fox News, but we’re very grateful that you were willing to be
interviewed for AdvanceUSA Blog. First
of all, what made you decide to do undercover videos of Planned
Parenthood? Where did you get the idea?
LR: Well
first of all, our team at Live Action rely on blogs like yours to get the truth
out, so thank you for the interview!
The public deserves to know if Planned Parenthood, a
recipient of huge government grants, complies with all state and federal
regulations.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider,
and an aggressive political force for abortion on demand. In their active
killing of defenseless children, they routinely break state laws and manipulate
and misinform women. Abortion works in secret; once people learn how it is
done, who it is killing, and all the abuses that accompany it, I believe the
majority of Americans can no longer stand by and allow the great injustice and
violence to continue in our great nation.
DH: Did you ever feel nervous or fearful about
going “undercover?”
LR: Nervous,
yes. But that feeling was largely part of my character, as I tried to
accurately portray a very young girl, confused, frightened, pregnant by a
sexual predator, and in great need of help.
DH: What kind of preparation and planning went
into these videos?
LR: Our
Mona Lisa Team, both on the road and with the support team back home, spent a
lot of time preparing for the multi-state investigation. We have a very talented
and dedicated team of young people: we did extensive research and preparation,
used the best equipment, and took our role as investigative journalists
seriously.
Once the national tour was over, the work had just
begun! It was now our task at Live Action to plan, produce and release the
videos.
DH: What do you feel you accomplished with this
project? Are you experiencing any
negative push-back?
LR: The
first two videos (Bloomington and Indianapolis) alone well exceeded our
expectations by garnering national, mainstream media coverage, and for weeks on
end. Local groups in Indiana, already hard at work, were able to use the
evidence to make the case against Planned Parenthood. We at Live Action sent
the District Attorneys and the Attorney General full copies of the footage, to
work with them so they could conduct a thorough investigation of Planned
Parenthood Indiana. And the shock waves of the videos, which proved the blatant
disregard of Planned Parenthood for Indiana state statute, parent's
right-to-involvement, and the safety of young girls, is still ongoing.
DH: What actions or policies would you like to
see come about as a result of your efforts?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Wesley
J. Smith is an influential writer and commentator who has dedicated his career
to preserving human dignity and educating his fellow man on the principles of
bioethics and justice. He is a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
special consultant to the Center for Bioethics
and Culture. He has also written a
number of books, and he blogs at Secondhand
Smoke. Smith was kind enough to
share with AdvanceUSA’s readers about important bioethics issues facing our society
today and about his work.
DH: Why are bioethics issues so important?
WJS: Bioethics is a contraction for “biomedical
ethics.” It is a field that has profound influence over core areas of human
endeavor that help establish and define the morality of society, and indeed,
the meaning of human life itself. Should elderly people have their health care
rationed? Is assisted suicide a proper
medical service? Is it right to create
cloned human embryos for use in research or to bring to birth? Is it wrong to abort fetuses because they
test positive for Down syndrome? Should parents be able to genetically enhance
their children? Are there morally relevant differences between humans and
animals? What should happen if a nurse
refuses to participate in an abortion or a physician wants to cut off wanted
life-sustaining medical treatment because the patient has a poor “quality of
life?” These and other equally important
bioethical issues are much larger than the sum of their parts because they
establish philosophical norms that exert tremendous influence upon society
beyond the policies themselves. Indeed,
I can think of few fields more important than bioethics in determining the kind
of society we shall become in the 21st century.
DH: What is “human exceptionalism” and how does
it relate to issues of life and justice?
WJS: Human exceptionalism refers to the sheer
moral importance and unique value of being human. I believe strongly that adhering to human
exceptionalism is the predicate to defending universal human rights. Indeed,
whether we accept or reject human exceptionalism may be the most important
issue we face as a culture. For if we say that simply being human is not what gives value to life, we have to
ask a second question: What does? That
second question leads directly to a system wherein those with power decide
which of us has greater--and which lesser—value, and who decides those who
don’t make muster. Thus, many in bioethics support “personhood theory,” which
denies the objective moral value of being human and claims that what matters morally
is being a “person,” a status earned
by possessing minimal cognitive capacities. In this view, there is such a thing
as a human “non person,” such as fetuses, newborns, and people who have lost
these capacities, such as Terri Schiavo.
Worse, because the human non person is defined as having lesser value,
they lose the right to life and, can be used instrumentally such as in medical
experimentation or as sources of organs.
Indeed, there is much agitation in bioethics and within the organ
transplant community to redefine death to include a diagnosis of persistent
vegetative state—meaning that if this view prevails, severely compromised
people could essentially be killed for their organs. This isn’t happening—yet—but the only way to
make sure that such policies are never instituted is to adhere to human
exceptionalism.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Citizens for Community Values of
Indiana is one of the many great organizations in our nation fighting to
protect family values and to oppose pornography and sexually oriented
businesses. I had the opportunity to
interview Patrick Mangan, the Executive Director of CCV of IN, about his work
enabling people to take back their communities.
DH: Patrick, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you and your
organization better over the last few months, so it’s a pleasure to introduce
you to our readers here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
I’ve seen first-hand how your work affects the state of Indiana and
especially my home town of South Bend.
Tell our readers what kinds of issues Citizens for Community Values
works on?
PM: Well our mission is to protect men, women, and
children from the misinformation of sexual activists, and the harms of sexual
addictions, sexual predators, sexually oriented businesses, materials harmful
to minors, broadcast indecency, and the porn/sex industry in all of its forms,
by promoting the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic which is the
foundation of our nation.
Our vision is to empower concerned citizens and
community leaders to significantly reduce sexual exploitation, promiscuity, and
abuse in Indiana and beyond by:
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Faith-based
organizations across the country are doing great work providing social services
far more effectively and often more efficiently than the government. In order for faith-based groups to continue
this crucial work, their religious liberties must be protected. Requiring Catholic adoption agencies to place
children in the homes of homosexual couples or prohibiting religious
organizations from hiring people of like-minded faith in order to receive
funding are a few of the threats to religious liberty that faith based groups
face. One organization seeking to
advocate for religious liberty and the effectiveness of faith-based
organizations is the Center for Public
Justice. AdvanceUSA was able to
interview Stanley Carlson-Thies about his work at CFPJ and the effort to
protect crucial religious liberties.
DH: Stanley, I have great memories of attending
Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom meetings with you when I was in DC, and
I really appreciate the intellectual firepower you brought to the fight for
religious freedom and the work CFPJ does to stand up for faith-based
organizations. Tell our readers briefly
what the Center for Public Justice does?
What is its mission?
SC:
The Center for Public Justice (CPJ) is a Christian “think tank” that works to
educate Christians and others about public policy and citizenship, helps to
develop Christian leaders in public affairs, and acts in coalition with others
who are serious about religious freedom to influence public debates in favor of
a robust public role for faith and faith-based organizations. We speak and write about a wide range of
issues—national security and the Iraq war, different ways that various American
Christian groups articulate a Christian perspective in politics (see the
important book by James Skillen, Scattered Voice), a defense of historic
marriage, and so on. We have been
particularly active in the areas of school choice as a fundamental school
reform, welfare reform, and the faith-based initiative. A major interest is understanding and showing
how government and private organizations can best be related to each other. We offer a one-week intensive summer course
in the Christian faith and public affairs, called the Civitas program.
DH: Could you explain to our readers the concept
of “religious hiring rights” and why it is so important for faith-based
organizations especially?
SC:
Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and similar state and local laws), it has been
illegal for employers, except for very small ones, to discriminate in hiring on
the bases of race, color, national, origin, sex, or religion. People shouldn’t be excluded from jobs for
irrelevant reasons—that’s just bias. But
convictions and a certain standard of behavior are very important to most
faith-based organizations—to churches and other houses of worship, and also to
religious social-service and educational institutions. Imagine trying to maintain an evangelical
drug treatment ministry if you couldn’t insist that new employees be
Christians! Most people accept the need
for this kind of religious hiring freedom.
But many think this freedom ought to be given up if the organization
agrees to help the government serve the needy by accepting a government grant
to provide some service. How can it be
right that the government would support religious job discrimination, they
say. But, of course, it is not illegal
discrimination for religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion
(but they can’t exclude people for reasons of race, etc.). And it is just as
important to a faith-based organization to be able to have a staff committed to
its beliefs and standards when it is working with government as when it is
using only private money.
DH: What are some of the chief threats to
religious hiring rights in our nation today?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Have
you ever wondered how the pro-life cause specifically affects African
Americans? Have you ever wondered if
someone was speaking out on the impact of abortion on blacks? Organizations like the National Black Pro-Life Union
are talking those issues head on. I had
the privilege to interview Day Gardner about her work with this organization.
DH: It’s good to get in touch with you again. How are things in DC?
DG: Thank you! Things are busy, very busy! There’s a lot
happening here.
DH: Why did you start the National Black Pro-Life
Union? What is its mission and what are
some of the accomplishments you’d like to share with our readers?
DG: Like
they say, where there is a need...I realized that most blacks don't know the
statistics--the truth about abortion in our community. Many of us still don't know what an abortion
really is or what it looks like. We also
realize that once African Americans are given the facts and see the racism of
abortion and Planned Parenthood, they will stand with us to stop the killing.
The National Black Pro-Life Union is an organization
founded to serve as a clearing house to coordinate the flow of communications
among all African American pro-life organizations and individuals in order to
better network and combine resources.
We realize that if we are to be successful, it is
necessary to share information and/or resources as well as “who gets the credit.” We acknowledge that the real credit for any
good thing always goes to GOD–not man.
DH: What is the greatest killer of African
Americans?
DG: ABORTION
is the NUMBER ONE KILLER of African American people, killing more blacks than
accidents, HIV-AIDS, crime, heart disease, stroke and all other deaths
COMBINED!
DH: Many today are unfamiliar with the racist,
eugenicist roots of Planned Parenthood.
Do you consider the nation’s largest abortion provider to be a promoter
of or predator to the black community?
Daniel Herbster reporting
Did you know that legislation could be
passed in your state or on the national level that would allow cross dressers
or even sexual offenders to use women’s restrooms? The state of Colorado recently passed such a
law in the misguided desire to prevent “discrimination” against
“transgendered” individuals. AdvanceUSA interviewed
Jim Pfaff (who now works for Americans for
Prosperity) back in April about his work at the Colorado Family
Institute. We’ve decided to touch base with him again about Colorado’s
Senate Bill 200 and how it could be a grim harbinger of things to come
nation-wide.
DH: Senate Bill 200, recently signed by Colorado Gov. Bill
Ritter, claims to protect against “discrimination.” Do you think that is
true?
JP: It really doesn't protect
anyone from discrimination. The legislation was intended to protect
homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals from so-called
discrimination. But really no such discrimination existed. The proponents of
the bill claimed that there were a multitude of homosexuals being
systematically discriminated against, but we looked at the numbers and found
out that at best approximately 175 cases of such discrimination were ever brought
forward. And of those, less than 3 to 4% had any validity to them. On the other
hand, we maintain that this bill actually will have the effect of imposing by
government Fiat a new form of discrimination against those of sincere religious
belief. And as I said in our previous interview, one example we have is a
Christian couple in Albuquerque New Mexico who owned a photography company and
was hauled into a civil rights court because they refused to take pictures of a
lesbian same-sex commitment ceremony based on their sincerely held religious
belief. We believe many more cases like this will begin to emerge here in
Colorado, and in our opinion this bill therefore does nothing to protect anyone
from discrimination and, to the contrary, will likely cause new forms of
discrimination.
DH: What are some of the scary implications of this
bill? What could happen as a result of its passage?
JP: Well, the first and the
most scary application of this bill is the fact that based on the wording of
this law, any man, for example, can of legal right to enter a woman's restroom
by merely stating that he perceives himself to be a woman. That's the first and
most concerning aspect of this new law. But secondly, as I stated before, this
bill could be used to discriminate against people of sincere religious belief
became merely refuse to appropriately accommodate homosexuals, bisexuals and
transgendered individuals based on a sincerely held religious belief.
DH: Is there a push to enact this kind of legislation on the
national level or in other states?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
An
Indiana county is considering an ordinance which would, as the Journal
Gazette reports, “require all surgeons and doctors that provide outpatient
invasive procedures to have ties to a local hospital and have on-call,
after-hours staff to handle emergencies.”
Proponents of the measure say the ordinance would protect patient health,
especially women’s health. I interviewed
Cathie Humbarger of Allen County Right to
Life about the ordinance, particularly concerning its pro-life
implications.
DH: Cathie, thanks for taking to time to inform
our readers about the proposed ordinance in Allen County, Indiana. First of all, what does your work at Allen
County Right to Life involve and what kinds of things does ACRL work on?
CH: It’s
my pleasure, Dan. Thanks for inviting me.
Just to review: On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court
legalized abortion in the United
States from conception through the ninth
month of pregnancy. Since that date, over 45 million abortions have been
performed at the rate of approximately one every 20 seconds. Right here in Fort Wayne approximately
fifteen abortions are completed each Thursday at the local abortion clinic.
In response to this situation, the Allen County Right
to Life Committee, Inc. was incorporated in March of 1976 and Three Rivers
Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, Inc. was founded in December of 1982 to
promote respect for innocent life from the moment of fertilization to natural
death. We agree with the self-evident truth that every human person is endowed
by their Creator with an unalienable right to life that must be defended. This
principle leads us to promote a culture of life in our community, which we
accomplish through education in the social, religious, legal, medical,
scientific and legislative fields. We also believe that abortion, infanticide,
and euthanasia are negative, violent and primitive responses to complex social
problems that demand genuine compassion and rational, responsible thinking.
Further, we denounce fetal stem-cell research and human cloning because they
involve the willful destruction of human life. We reject the notion that
society may destroy innocent life to solve any problem. Our approach has always
been non-violent and legal. One of our goals is to look for every opportunity
to influence the legislative and political process with policies that support
and protect pre-born babies and their mothers where otherwise they would have
no voice.
DH: What would this ordinance do?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
The
Freedom of Choice Act may sound like an innovative education bill but it’s
anything but. This legislation if passed
would not only enshrine the infamous Roe vs. Wade opinion into federal law, but
it would also destroy every sensible limitation on abortion which federal,
state, and local governments have ever instituted. Many pro-choice politicians, including one of
the major presidential candidates, support this bill. My friend and colleague Tom McClusky, who is
Vice President at the Family Research Council,
recently prepared
a paper detailing just what the Freedom of Choice Act would mean for our
nation and the pro-life cause. I
recently had the chance to interview Tom about the Freedom of Choice Act and
his work at FRC.
DH: What is the Freedom of Choice Act?
TM: Some
of the supporters of the "Freedom of Choice Act" state that it merely
codifies Roe v. Wade. This
could not be further from the truth. As
the American Civil Liberties Union said in its Reproductive Rights Update from
December 20, 1991, "This [FOCA] bill prohibits such restrictions as
parental notification and consent, as well as the requirement that all
abortions be performed in a hospital, spousal consent, waiting periods ..."
DH: What kinds of effects would it have on
abortion restrictions in our nation?
TM: If
FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion
President, it would single-handedly overturn countless laws that have passed in
the states in relation to abortion.
DH: If you had to come up with a different name
for this bill (one that more accurately describes its effects and intention),
what would it be?
TM: Federal
Usurpation of Rights and Abortion on Demand Act (FURADA?)
DH: What are some of the most surprising or
important things you learned about the proposed Freedom of Choice Act as you
prepared your research paper?
Daniel Herbster reporting
Abstinence education is often ridiculed as puritanical or ineffective.
However, objective data shows just the opposite. Furthermore, parents
are often the most ardent supporters of abstinence education because they know
that casual sexual activity leads to emotional and physical scars and they want
what’s best for their children. One organization seeking to advocate on
behalf of abstinence education is the National Abstinence
Education Association. I had the opportunity to interview Valerie
Huber, who is the Executive Director of NAEA, about abstinence education and
the NAEA’s Parents for Truth campaign.
The following is my interview with Valerie.
DH: Why is it so
important to support abstinence education?
VH: On a number of levels, abstinence
education makes a lot of sense. First, from a health perspective, our
public health messaging usually puts emphasis on achieving the best health
outcome. Whether we are talking about underage drinking, smoking or
childhood obesity, the message focuses on avoiding those behaviors that put
young people’s health at risk. In the area of sexual activity, our message for
youth should mirror this same model, but unfortunately, the cultural message
relegates the sexual health of youth to something much less than this ideal.
We should not be content with merely reducing the risk to youth, but
should insist on a strategy focused on eliminating all risk. Abstinence
education fits within this risk avoidance paradigm.
On a practical level, the level of sexual activity among youth is trending
downward and most teens who have experimented sexually, wish they had waited.
This tells us that abstinence is a message that resonates with youth. They
understand the benefits of waiting to engage in sex. Abstinence education
provides the skills they need to succeed in that resolve.
Further, social science research abounds to show that abstinence until marriage
is better for society, the involved couple and the child conceived from a
sexual union.
DH: What are some
common misconceptions people have regarding abstinence education?
VH: Anti-abstinence special interest
groups have defined abstinence education by using gross misrepresentations.
They imply that abstinence education doesn’t work, that it is unrealistic, and
that it is a “just say no” approach, none of which are true. Growing research
demonstrates that the approach is very effective in helping youth delay sexual
debut or discontinue sexual activity. More and more teens are choosing to
abstain, which shows that it isn’t teens who think the approach is unrealistic!
Finally, abstinence education is a holistic strategy that is replete with
skills building techniques in good decision-making, identifying healthy
relationships, goal setting, refusal competencies, and self efficacy.
Additionally, abstinence education may provide information about contraception,
but the information is complete and accurate – demonstrating that abstinence is
the only way to avoid all risks associated with sexual experimentation.
DH:
Is it true that parents are often strong supporters of abstinence
education? Why do you think this would this be the case?
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Probably the greatest long-term issue facing our nation is the nomination and confirmation of well-qualified, originalist judges and justices to federal benches. One organization seeking to ensure that happens is the Judicial Confirmation Network. It is my privilege to interview my friend and colleague Gary Marx who is the Executive Director of JCN.
DH: Gary, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. Let’s start with a general question. Why is the issue of judges so important?
GM: I think that judicial selection is still the most powerful all encompassing issue for conservatives. There will be times where an issue like immigration will become red-hot but a judge can come along and single handedly ignore the constitution and the law at will and impose their own view of immigration laws upon a state or the nation. Conservatives now understand that no matter whether you are a social, economic, or national security conservative we all unite around the need to have judges who will be faithful to the text of the constitution. Conservatives understand just how the Supreme Court and constitutionalist judges impact our children and grand children. Supreme Court nominations are perhaps the longest lasting legacy of every U.S. president.
DH: How is the Judicial Confirmation Network involved in this issue?
GM: During the Roberts and Alito confirmation battles, the Judicial Confirmation Network built a network or grassroots leaders in key states to pressure Senators to support a fair up-or-down vote and confirm these constitutionalist judicial nominees.
DH: How would you describe a good justice or judge? What kinds of characteristics or qualities define a solid judicial nominee?
Daniel Herbster reporting
 In the stem cell debate, you will often here proponents of unethical embryonic stem cell research say that we have hundreds of thousands of “leftover embryos” from IVF clinics and that the “only” thing to be done with them is to kill them for use in research. Besides the fact that the numbers of available embryos is greatly exaggerated (when you consider that most parents of frozen embryos want to keep them), the fact that human embryos can be and have been adopted by couples unable to have children on their own shows that death in the lab is not the only option for IVF embryos.
One organization seeking to publicize this exciting adoption option is Nightlight Christian Adoptions. I recently came across their website (http://www.embryoadoption.org/) and I am happy to share with you my interview with Ron Stoddart, the Executive Director of NCA.
Note: The above photo is President Bush, soon after vetoing an unethical embryonic stem cell research funding bill, holding a child who was adopted as an embryo.
DH: Ron, why should we care about what happens to “leftover” IVF embryos?
RS: It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. The argument is over when life is deserving of protection. There are certainly those who would rather argue that embryos are not life – or are not persons – rather than admit that they just don’t want to afford them the same protection as life that is further developed. They have a fear that if we accord too much respect to embryos then it will be an opening to have Roe v. Wade overturned. I believe that all human life is sacred and deserving of protection. The fact that the embryos have been frozen does not change their nature and they deserve a chance at continued life.
DH: About how many unused embryos are there in this country, and how many of those are even available for research purposes?
RS: The best estimates are that there are about 500,000 embryos currently frozen in fertility clinics around the United States. The decision about the fate of the embryos rests with the family who created them (except in Louisiana where they are protected from destruction). Different surveys have attempted to estimate how many families would donate their embryos for research, so the estimate varies from 15,000 embryos and up. The reality is that the vast majority of families with stored embryos do not know what to do and are struggling with their decision. We are trying to encourage them to have the embryos implanted, if not in the family who created them then in an adoptive family.
DH: Should we respect the rights of human embryos the same way we do for adult human beings? What is the state of the law regarding the treatment of embryos?
RS: A person’s a person regardless how small. There is a lot of wisdom in these words from the WHO. My answer to the question is “yes.” The state of the law, except for Louisiana, is that embryos are treated with slightly more respect than property. Most of the conflicts have arisen when a couple is divorcing. In those cases, the courts have consistently sided with the spouse who wants to destroy the embryos rather then allowing the other spouse to implant them or donating them to another couple. Not much respect there.
DH: What is the mission of Nightlight Christian Adoptions? How long have you been in operation, and how did it get started?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Have
you ever been frustrated by the way the news media often fails to make the
distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells when talking about research
funding or medical results? The Repair Stem Cell Institute is trying
to do something about it, and I had the opportunity to interview the Chairman
and Founder of this organization, Don Margolis.
DH: Don, what are the differences
between adult and embryonic stem cells?
DM: The
difference is easily described when you don't use the common names but instead
use their reason for existing, which is easier to understand. Adult stem cells are more aptly REPAIR stem
cells (RSC); they know how to do just one function: REPAIR a sick part of the
body. Embryonic stems cells are
PROLIFERATING stem cells (PSC). They
know how to proliferate through some stages and become a zygote, then
proliferate through more stages and become a fetus, then proliferate again
until it is a baby. REPAIR stem cells repair. They repair so much and so well
that 100-plus diseases are being effectively treated with RSC around the
world. Meantime, PSC constantly
frustrate embryonic researchers by refusing to behave as repair cells because,
well, they are NOT. Even when well-trained to repair a disease, PSC may do it
but then off they go, wherever they wish, fighting the attempt to stop them
from proliferating and sometimes they can completely rebel and become tumors.
Now you can see why the treated disease score, after 10 years, is RSC, over
100; PSC, zero.
DH: Why is it so hard for the
media to mention the fact that there is more than one type of stem cell (not
all of which have ethical concerns)? Do
you think there is often an intentional effort to blur the distinction?
DM: The
American news media is more inclined to cover embryonic stem cell news and
trends. I'm hoping that the reason for this slanted news coverage is because
most writers, reporters and editors are uninformed about repair stem cell
science and how relevant this science is right now in treating those 100-plus
diseases, about half of them considered incurable by modern medicine. This is,
of course, is one of the main reasons why The Repair Stem Cell Institute LLC
(RSCI) was created a few months ago. My goal and the goal of my world-class
Science Advisory Board is to educate and inform the American public and news
media community about repair stem cell science and its treatment centers
located around the world. No company or
institution in the world can match the RSCI Science Advisory Board in stem cell
skills and knowledge – no one comes close! Then again, not many in the world
(outside of bloggers) are fighting the science battle for RSC.
DH: What is the The Repair Stem Cell Institute
and what is its mission?
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Pregnancy resource centers are on the front lines of the abortion conflict, giving real options for pregnant women contemplating an abortion by showing them love and giving them accurate information about the innocent life within them. Also, in order for the pro-life movement to be victorious, the younger generations (and “generations yet unborn” as Edmund Burke would have said) must be trained and recruited to carry the battle standard into the future. With these facts in mind, pro-lifers would do well to participate in the third annual Wash for Life.
It is my pleasure to interview Jonathan Tonkowich who is the Director and creator of the Wash for Life. The Wash for Life seeks to recruit and educate the younger generation by enlisting them to wash cars and donate the funds raised to local pregnancy resource centers. Find out more about the Wash for Life at washforlife.com and by reading my interview with Jonathan below.
DH: Jonathan, thanks for doing this interview. We appreciate your time. First, what is the Wash for Life and what is its purpose?
JT: The Wash for Life is hundreds of groups all over the country (and now the world thanks to individuals in Canada and Kenya) who unite on the same Saturday in early September and hold car washes to raise money for their local pregnancy resource center. All the money is donated by the individual groups to their local centers and we collect the stories and total numbers.
We have three main goals for the Wash for Life.
1 – To support the work of pregnancy resource centers. These centers are such an important part of the pro-life movement. They are at the front lines helping real people in difficult situations with their love and compassion.
2 – To recruit a new generation of pro-life leaders and advocates. The Wash for Life is a great way for young people to get involved in bringing about the end of abortion. We have so many stories from the first two washes of young people becoming passionate and excited about working for the cause.
3 – To let the world know that our generation is pro-life. Our generation has been damaged and diminished by abortion. We have seen the destruction it has caused and we need to have voice in speaking out against it.
DH: Who came up with the idea for the Wash for Life and how did it get started?
JT: I actually had the idea while sitting in math class my senior year of college at Thomas AquinasCollege in Santa Paula, CA. The idea stuck with me and I could not stop thinking about it. I knew God must be telling me something. I prayed about it and then started talking with some of my friends. That summer (2006) we all moved to Virginia and worked out of my parent’s basement making phone calls and sending emails trying to get as many groups all over the country to participate.
DH: What is the date for this year’s Wash for Life?
JT: This year the date will be September 13th.
DH: How could our readers start their own Wash for Life in their own neighborhoods?
JT: It’s quite simple and easy. You just hold a car wash at your church, your school, your local gas station, or even your driveway on September 13th. Then donate the money you raise to your local pregnancy care center (if you need help locating one we are more than happy to help you).
Please sign up on our website and we will post your carwash location on our website, so those in the area who want to support can visit your carwash. After your carwash email us your results, your pictures, and your stories, so we can share them. You are joining thousands of others all across the country to be part of a huge nationwide car wash.
DH: Why did you decide to benefit pregnancy resource centers? Why do you think the work they do is so important?
Daniel Herbster
reporting
I had the opportunity
to interview Rick Schatz, the President and CEO of the National Coalition for the Protection
of Children & Families, about his work protecting families. Here is my interview with Rick.
DH: What is the
mission of the National Coalition? Are
you primarily concerned with local or national issues?
RS: Our mission
at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families is to move the people of God to embrace, live
out, preserve and advance the truth of biblical sexuality. We address and
are concerned about pornography, the sexualized messages of the culture,
premarital sex among teens and young adults, marriage and the redefinition of
marriage, and the homosexual political agenda.
We are concerned with both national and local issues. On the national level, we work with
denominations, major corporations, the Department of Justice, Federal
Communications Commission, and CTIA – The Wireless Association. Locally, we work with churches, Christian
schools, para-church ministries and individual believers and their families
through our regional offices located in Atlanta,
Charlotte, Columbus,
Kansas City, New England, Seattle,
St. Louis and here in Cincinnati where our corporate headquarters are located.
DH: How did it get started?
RS: Jerry Kirk was senior pastor of College Hill
Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati.
Through his counseling he recognized pornography and the sexualized culture
were having a devastating impact on marriages and especially young people. He formed the National Coalition in 1983 and
then left the pastorate at College Hill in 1986 to be full time with the National
Coalition.
DH: What are some of your greatest achievements
as an organization?
RS: From a national perspective, we have
encouraged the development, passage and implementation of some of the strongest
legislation in our nation’s history focused on illegal pornography and sex tourism. We have encouraged law enforcement efforts of
the Justice Department and FCC, and have challenged corporations such as
Abercrombie & Fitch, AT&T and General Motors to leave the pornography
business and reduce the sexual content of their marketing efforts.
We have developed some powerful materials, both written and
visual, educating pastors, Christian leaders, parents and young people about
the threat of pornography and the sexualized culture in which we live. In addition, we have brought together the
broadest range of the faith community in the history of our country to address
pornography by forming the Religious Alliance Against Pornography (RAAP) in
1986. RAAP has been used to meet with
two Presidents and five Attorneys General over the years and has played a major
role in educating the faith community in the United States.
Through our regional offices, we have worked with hundreds
of churches and Christian schools across the country through the distribution
of materials, speaking engagements, conferences and retreats. Our website and media and public relations
efforts have reached millions of Americans with the message of the National
Coalition and have encouraged parents to talk to their children about sexuality
and the threats of our culture.
DH: How can people make a difference in their
communities for families and against pornography? What are some practical steps they could take
to make their communities safer and cleaner?
Daniel Herbster
reporting
 The American Association of
Christian Schools is “the oldest national voice for Christian school
education.” Their office in Washington,
DC works to ensure that the rights of parents to choose how to educate their
children are protected, and to keep Christian educators informed of important
issues facing our nation. AdvanceUSA has
worked closely with AACS on a number of occasions and it is a real pleasure to
interview my colleague and good friend Maureen Wiebe who is the Legislative
Director for AACS in Washington, DC.
DH: What is the
mission of AACS in general, and specifically in Washington, DC?
MW: Hi Dan.
Thanks for this opportunity to talk about AACS and what we do here in
our DC office.
In general, AACS is a
service organization, so our mission is to provide services to our Christian
schools to aid them in the great work they are doing. These services include educational materials
(journals, etc.), accreditation and certification for schools and teachers,
competitions for students, and legislative oversight. I think many people are most familiar with
AACS through our National Fine Arts Competition, but our scope of service is
actually much larger than that.
Specifically in Washington,
DC, we are responsible for the
legislative oversight aspect of the AACS services. Our goal here is to be a liaison between our
Christian schools and the federal government.
While we don't seek federal funds for our ministries, we want those in
the government to know we are here so our freedoms continue to be
protected. In addition, we strive to participate
in the process on other issues, particularly those social issues which we as
Christians would take a strong stand – i.e. marriage, family values, the life
issue.
DH: What is your
position at AACS and what kind of projects and responsibilities does it
involve?
MW: I serve as
the Legislative Director for AACS. My
job is to track legislation and keep our schools and ministries informed of what
is happening on Capitol Hill that might affect our schools. I also work to keep those in the government
aware of the issues that are important to the AACS ministries. This requires me to attend meetings, network
with other conservatives and staffers on the Hill, meet with Congressmen,
communicate with our schools through email letters and alerts, and do some
speaking at teacher conventions. In
addition, our office here sends out a weekly email newsletter called "The
Washington Flyer" which keeps people informed of current events that
affect our ministries.
DH: Why is it so
important that Christian education have an advocate in our nation’s capital?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
I had the
opportunity to interview Mark Tooley about his work with UMAction
at the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The following is my interview
with Mark.
DH: What is UMAction
and how would you sum up its mission? Do you see it as more of a
theological or political movement or both?
MT: UMAction
is the Methodist program of the IRD. Its goal is to foster accountability
and reform within United Methodism. We’re not political in the sense that
we endorse candidates or specific legislation in civil society. We are
political in that we are concerned about the church’s public policy witness. We
are theological in that we vigorously affirm the official, orthodox teachings
of our church. DH: I understand
that you were very active in the recent United
Methodist Church’s
global conference in Forth Worth, Texas.
Are you encouraged by what took place there?
MT: Yes,
I’m encouraged by the growing numbers and influence of the non-U.S. church,
especially in Africa. They are the hope of the church’s future.
But the church still faces many battles ahead.
DH: What kinds of
decisions were reached on pro-life issues?
MT: There
were some small, incremental steps supporting parental consent and affirming
the sacredness of unborn human life. We narrowly failed to remove church
agencies from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Had the
vote been NOT on the last day, when many of the Africans had left, we probably
would have won.
DH: What progress
was made in affirming the traditional definition of marriage and Biblical
teaching on sexual morality?
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Dr. David Prentice is one of the foremost experts on bioethics in the country. He has valuable science experience from his days as researcher and teacher, and he now works for groups like the Family Research Council and Do No Harm speaking out on some of the most important (though sometimes confusing) ethical issues facing our society today. I’ve had the opportunity to meet Dr. Prentice a number of times and have heard him speak often so it is a distinct pleasure to interview him today and share with you his scientific expertise.
DH: First off, tell our readers a little about yourself. What did you do before you came to FRC? What are your responsibilities at FRC and Do No Harm?
DP: Before FRC, I spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, at the same time as Adjunct Professor of Medical & Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine.
During those years I taught and did lab research, and also spent a few years in administration.
My job description now is somewhat similar: I lecture, give briefings, and testify about science, especially the scientific facts regarding stem cells, cloning, and other biotechnologies.
DH: You often hear people say that we should “leave science to the scientists,” that we who have ethical concerns with particular research techniques have no right to an opinion if we are not scientists ourselves. Is this true? Do we as a society have a stake in deciding what research should or should not be allowed? Why is this notion so dangerous?
 DP: Some scientists might like that, but the fact is that society sets the agenda, both in terms of what's allowed as well as what resources are provided to science. Everyone has a stake in this discussion, because everyone is affected. Leaving these decisions just to one group means we abdicate our responsibility to help form a strong society.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what are stem cells?
DP: A stem cell has 2 main characteristics: (1) It continues to grow and divide, making copies of itself, and (2) given the correct signal, a stem cell can form many different specialized cells of the body.
DH: What are the two general types of stem cells, and are there any ethical differences between them?
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Exodus International is the largest network of former homosexuals in the world and assists local ministries around the world in helping people overcome same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ. They also use their unique expertise to speak out on important cultural and societal issues. I’ve had the opportunity to work with members of Exodus on a number of occasions so it’s great to be able to interview my friend Randy Thomas who is Vice President of Exodus. The following is my interview with Randy.
DH: Randy, how long has Exodus been in existence and how did it get started?
RT: In 1976, sixty-two ministry leaders met in California to talk about their efforts to help those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction and how they, as independent ministries, could network to help one another in this effort. The vision and name for Exodus was born out of obvious parallels that could be drawn from the Children of Israel leaving Egypt and entering the Promise Land. These visionaries had the accurate view that being “gay” should not be the only option for those with same sex attractions. They knew that our “Promise Land” was the knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ. They knew that there was so much more to life than what a gay ideology was offering and so they developed the network we now know as Exodus. Thirty-three years later our network has over 200 member agencies across North America who reach thousands of people seeking help. We are also affiliated with other ministries around the world who offer this perspective on homosexuality to a world hungering for positive alternatives.
Sixty-two people cast a vision that has now helped millions of people and educated millions more about biblical sexuality.
DH: One of the tenants of our modern, politically correct culture holds that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable but “gender identity” is unfixed and can change. Do you think this is true, and how does Exodus’s unique perspective relate to this issue?
RT: Recently I wrote on my personal blog a post called “The Transgender Double Standard.” In it I shared, ‘It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It¹s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as, but for people like me - we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.’
This is a terrible conundrum for militant gay activism because their own moral relativism is being exposed. We were all created with free will. We all have the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves. The issue with moral relativism is that eventually it will prove out to be hypocritical because it is self based moral judgments instead of God¹s creative intent which is unchanging. Sixteen years ago I decided that maybe God’s intent for my sexuality and identity just might be beyond my own seemingly logical conclusions. I started to question everything in life and attempting to live out my identity and sexuality in accordance with my faith. My identity has completely changed in that I am not a “gay” man anymore. I am a Christian. I will hopefully be known as a man of God. My sexual orientation has shifted a great deal as a byproduct of my pursuing purity and holiness.
Notice I said shifted. I am not above temptation and if temptation happens, I know why and what to do about it. Regardless, homosexuality does not have the power to determine who I am or how I steward my sexuality.
DH: Would you mind telling us about your background and how you came to work at Exodus?
By Daniel Herbster
 I recently corresponded with Bryan Wickens, president of Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana (ROCK), and asked him about the work he does fighting sexually oriented businesses and protecting families. Visit reclaimourculture.org for more information. Below is my interview with Bryan.
DH: Bryan, thanks for taking the time to tell our readers about your work in the culture war fighting against pornography and for families in Kentuckiana. First of all, for our readers who may not be familiar with the term, what is Kentuckiana, and how much area does it contain? Is it basically the greater Louisville area?
BW: Thanks, Daniel. Kentuckiana usually means central Kentucky up to central Indiana and that is definitely where ROCK’s focus began. During the past couple of years, however, as we have expanded our reach and been invited to join in on national initiatives and projects, we are recognized now as ROCK and have interests in projects across the country. Since our staff lives in the Kentuckiana region, we will of course always have the communities that ROCK was born out of at the heart of anything we do. But it is imperative to us that we not confine our work to one geographic circle in that the issues we face today are certainly not confined to one geographic circle.
DH: How did ROCK get started, and how long has it been operating?
BW: ROCK was created in March 2004 in response to a series of articles reporting on the unrestrained growth of sex business in the Kentuckiana area and their related negative effects on the community. As a result, a group of citizens, concerned about the state of affairs of our culture came together to form ROCK. This group simply said “enough is enough” and decided to do something, to get off the sidelines – to change Kentuckiana for the better.
 I was asked to sit on the board of ROCK in 2004 which, at the time, was an all volunteer organization comprised of some incredible individuals. In 2005, ROCK was growing and decided to hire its first full time President. At the time, I was a partner in one of the largest law firms in our region and was feeling a call in my life to use my skills and abilities to stand up against the attacks on our values, our beliefs and our families. But leaving my law firm to become the first President of a non-profit was not really in my plans. But as so often happens, God had a different plan! To the surprise of many, I left my law practice to become President of ROCK in September, 2005. And every person at ROCK has a similar story. It is amazing how that faithfulness has been rewarded and the blessings ROCK has experienced in a short period of time.
DH: How bad was the situation in Kentuckiana when ROCK was first started, and what kind of progress have you seen since that time? What are some of your proudest accomplishments as an organization?
Daniel Herbster
reporting
Congressman Paul
Broun, who represents Georgia’s tenth district, is one of the newest members of
Congress—having won a special election last year after the previous Congressman
for the 10th district, Charlie Norwood, passed away. I
was privileged to interview Rep. Broun about his proposed bill the “Military
Honor and Decency Act” which would fully prohibit the sale of obscene and
pornographic material on military bases. The following is my interview
with Rep. Broun.
DH:
Congressman, thanks so much for doing this interview for us. First of
all, I’d like to ask you the question I always love to ask politicians.
Why did you decide to get into politics and specifically why did you run for
your current office?
PB: When I ran for
office, I was not seeking a title or political position. I ran because I firmly believe that our
nation has lost sight of its core principles, and I want to make fundamental
changes to how our government operates.
In Psalm 11, God
asks a question, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous
do?” And God tells us the answer to that
question is to return to His precepts and commandments, because a righteous
Lord loves righteousness and He will uphold our efforts on His behalf.
We have lost our
righteous zeal, and lost our once cherished principles of personal freedom,
individual accountability and responsibility, and limited government. I ran for office to restore those principles,
and I believe that He calls each one of His children to uphold those
principles. That is what I am trying to
do in Congress, at home, and everywhere I go.
DH:
You’ve recently proposed the Military Honor and Decency Act (H.R.5821) which
deals with the sale of pornographic or obscene material on military
bases. What would this bill do?
PB: Essentially, it
will close the loophole in current law that allows pornography to be sold on
military installations across the United States and around the world. The Defense Authorization Act of 1997
included a provision to prohibit the distribution and sale of all sexually
explicit material on property under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Defense (DoD). Sadly, DoD has failed to
strictly enforce this law, and has allowed blatant, obviously pornographic
material such as Playboy and Penthouse to continue to be sold on
military bases. My bill will end this
practice and force the DoD to submit to the law.
Let me be clear – if
military personnel want to buy pornography, that is their prerogative. However, the U.S. Military should not be
involved and facilitating the transaction.
The U.S. Military should not be using its resources to deliver it right
to the doors of these military personnel. My bill does not make pornography illegal, but
it would remove the U.S. military and the U.S. taxpayer from the transaction.
DH: How
did you become aware of the need for this legislation, and what are some of the
facts that convinced you this legislation was necessary?
In
our continuing series of interviews for our weekly online newsletter, we recently
interviewed Jim Pfaff of the Colorado Family
Institute.
DH: It’s finally beginning to
look like spring here in the Midwest.
Are you still snow-bound out there in Colorado?
JP:
Here on the Front Range just below the mountains we go back and forth from Spring
to Winter all the way until May, but up in the mountains, they’ll have winter
and skiing for some time to come due thanks to heavy snow all winter. They’re not talking Global Warming at the
resorts this year.
DH: What is the mission of the
Colorado Family Institute?
JP: Colorado
Family Institute (CFI) is a nonprofit, 501(c)3 research and educational
organization committed to strengthening the family. Our goal is to restore and defend traditional
moral principles in the culture by advocating for sound public policy. We are part of a nationwide network of family
policy councils associated with Focus on the Family® and Dr. James Dobson. We
educate and equip churches and citizens on important public policy issues that
affect marriage, life and the family—and ultimately to shape public opinion on
these issues.
DH: How did it get started? How long has it been around?
Daniel Herbster
reporting
The Lighted Candle Society is on the
cutting edge of the fight against pornography.
They marshal the latest scientific research on the dangerous effects of
pornography (on the individual and on society) to fight the porn industry in
the courts. I was able to interview my
fellow blogger and facebook friend Justin Hart, who is the Vice President of
Communications for the Lighted Candle Society, and the following is the text of
that interview.
DH: I’ve been
familiar with Justin’s work online for several months, and after communicating
with him online from time to time it was a real treat to meet him in person at
a bloggers meeting in Washington, DC recently.
He’s also one of my “facebook friends.”
I’m so grateful Justin was willing to answer my questions and let our
readers know about the great work the Lighted Candle Society is doing.
Justin, what is the Lighted Candle Society and
how did it get started?
JH: The Lighted
Candle Society was founded in 2001 by Ed Meese (former Attorney General under
Ronald Reagan) and John Harmer (former Lt. Governor of California under Reagan
in the 60s). Both John and Ed are
veterans of the culture wars, having fought for decency issues over the last
four decades.
John Harmer is the driving force behind the Lighted Candle
Society. He started the non-profit
organization to fight pornography is a very unique and unprecedented way.
DH: How long have
you been with LCS and what kind of things do you do for them?
JH: I've been
with the Lighted Candle Society for almost a year now. They really felt the need to ramp things into
high gear. I came on as Vice President
of Communications to make that happen. I
help develop the multiple websites which we maintain, organize our online
fundraising efforts, and create our action alerts to our members.
DH: How can our
readers take a stand against pornography and sexually oriented businesses in
their communities?
We
are privileged to have John Stemberger, the State Chairman of Florida4Marriage.org,
answer some of our questions about the crucial campaign going on in Florida. Here is Daniel Herbster’s interview with John. For more information check Florida4Marriage.org.
DH: Thanks for taking the time
to share about your work with our readers.
Let me start off with a softball.
Why is protecting the traditional definition of marriage so important?
JS: Goodness,
this something I could discuss for hours.
I guess the most compelling reason and yet simple reason is that kids
need a mom and a dad. Same sex marriages deprive children of the best
arrangement for human socialization.
Same sex marriages also provide the legal rationale for the creation of
polygamous marriages and group marriage arrangements. Our opponents really are trying to redefine
the human experience and radically change basic human institutions that have
served us since the beginning of time.
DH: What are you and the
Florida4Marriage.org committee hoping to accomplish in Florida and why do you
think it would be effective?
Tomorrow’s Advance Report newsletter will have a spotlight on the Home School Legal Defense Association. Here is Daniel Herbster’s interview with Will Estrada. For more information check HSLDA.org.
DH: We are grateful to be able to interview Will Estrada who is the Director of Federal Relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). I’ve had the privilege to meet Will many times in our nation’s capital, and am excited about interviewing him for our readers.
Will, what is HSLDA?
WE: HSLDA was founded in 1983 by Michael Smith and Michael Farris. When HSLDA began, homeschooling was effectively illegal in 45 states. Today, we have over 80,000 member families and homeschooling is formally recognized in all 50 states. We have spent the past 25 years defending the right of parents to homeschool and advocating for homeschool freedom in the courts and legislatures.
DH: How long have you been with HSLDA and what kind of things do you do for them?
WE: I came to HSLDA in January, 2004 and worked as a legal assistant for HSLDA staff attorney Scott Woodruff. After graduating from law school in 2006, I became the Director of HSLDA’s Federal Relations Department, and serve as HSLDA’s federal lobbyist in D.C. My main task is to monitor federal legislation to make sure nothing is proposed that would negatively affect the freedom to homeschool. HSLDA’s message to the federal government is that homeschoolers want to be left alone and that homeschoolers should not be discriminated against in any scholarship or enlistment opportunity in the military. I have also recently been serving as the Director of Generation Joshua, a division of HSLDA that works to elect godly leaders. We also train and inspire the next generation to make a difference in our nation.
DH: I know a lot of people are concerned (and rightfully so) about the recent state appellate court ruling in California. Can you tell us a little about the ruling and what HSLDA is doing about it?
WE: Some have contended that the decision of the Court of Appeal in In Re Rachel L. only affects that particular family. While a court order can only direct one family to stop homeschooling, the case clearly sets a legal precedent that will be binding against all other families if this case is not reversed. (Technically, the decision is binding only in the Second District which consists of Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. However, other appellate districts will normally treat it as persuasive precedent. If ratified by the Supreme Court of California, it formally binds all California counties.)
There are two basic issues in the case:
- Does state law allow parents to homeschool without a state teaching credential?
- If not, is this law unconstitutional?
Below are three short quotations from the case which give the clear answer:
“It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught.”
“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”
“We agree with the Shinn court’s statement that ‘the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.’ ”
In the first quote the court makes it clear that it believes that parents may not operate their own private schools. In the second they deny that a parent has a constitutional right to homeschool, and in the third they concur that California law does not accommodate parents pursuing their own education program for their children.
As you can see, the decision is categorical and was not written to be limited to just the facts of this case.
HSLDA plans to support the family’s petition for review to the California Supreme Court and file an amicus brief on behalf of all our members, and others we represent, if the California Supreme Court accepts the case for review.
DH: How can our readers help you in addressing the problem in California, and how can we prevent this kind of thing from spreading to other states?
WE: Concerned citizens can keep informed with the latest developments in California by going to www.hslda.org. At the moment the legal process is unfolding and we need to wait and see what the court decides before suggesting any new courses of action. In the long-term, amending the U.S. Constitution is necessary to uphold parental rights. Please visit www.ParentalRights.org for more information.
DH: What are some other issues HSLDA works on?
In preparation for
our “Advance Spotlight” in tomorrow’s “Advance Report” weekly e-newsletter,
Daniel Herbster was able to conduct an interview with Micah Clark who is the
Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana. Below is the text of the interview.
For more
information on AFAIN and the great work they do for Hoosier families, check out
their website (www.afain.net). To subscribe to AdvanceUSA’s email services
and to receive your own issue of the Advance Report, check the “Get Involved”
box in the left margin.
DH: Thanks
for taking the time to share this information with our readers. What is the mission of the American Family
Association of Indiana?
MC: AFAIN
is Indiana’s only statewide decency organization. We exist to educate Hoosiers on the moral,
cultural, and political issues of the day and how those issues impact Hoosier
families. We are a voice for family
values at the local, state, and federal levels.
DH: How
did it get started? How long has it been around?
MC: AFA of
Indiana was founded in Northeast Indiana near Auburn in 1993 as a state
affiliate of the National American Family Association (based in Tupelo, MS). However, AFA IN is a locally funded and
locally governed non-partisan, non-profit 501c 3 organization. AFA of Indiana is a donation-run
organization, which has become one of the leading and most influential
pro-family organizations in the state.
AFA of Indiana was originally...
|
|
|
| |