 |
          
  |
|
|
We have great
news for talk radio fans, conservatives, and defenders of free speech.
Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) yesterday
proposed an amendment to the House Financial Services Appropriations bill that
prevents federal funds from being used to enforce the “fairness doctrine” on
talk radio and other media outlets should the onerous regulation ever be
revived (as several U.S.
Senators have suggested). We are happy to report that the amendment
passed overwhelmingly.
To see
how your representative voted on the Pence Amendment click here. For
more information on the Pence Amendment check these articles from the Muncie
Free Press (click here and here).
Some members
of Congress are talking about resurrecting
the “fairness doctrine” for talk radio, a decades-old federal regulation
(dropped by President Reagan) which mandated that radio and TV broadcasts were
supposed to give equal time to opposing sides of any given political issue
(remember all the conservative commentators of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s?).
Under the pretense of “ensuring both sides are heard” and fixing the supposed
“structural defects” that allow conservatives to dominate talk radio, members of
Congress such as Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) are
proposing that radio stations be subjected to FCC regulation to ensure that
“progressives” (i.e. liberals) are allowed equal time. Since the
“progressive” (liberal) AirAmerica radio network didn’t catch on with the
American public, liberals have decided to mandate you be exposed to liberal
viewpoints. This could have the effect of stifling a popular and informative
medium, but more importantly it presents a dangerous threat to free speech
rights found in the First Amendment. Such obviously unconstitutional
and un-American legislation must be steadfastly opposed, and legislators
who support such foolishness should be held accountable.
For all
their supposed concern about the “unfair” imbalance of opinion on talk radio,
one would think they would be just as eager to federally mandate “fairness” in
newspapers and network TV. Hmm…Go figure.
UPDATE:
This article by Rich Galen at TownHall gives some important
historical perspective on the nefarious fairness doctrine.
More
exciting news in adult stem cell research (i.e. non-embryonic).
A new
study shows adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood can
successfully treat children with type 1 diabetes. Studies like this
are continually showing how unethical research that destroys innocent human
embryos is unnecessary.
Additionally,
two Congressmen have introduced legislation to support ethical
forms of stem cell research. “The Patients First Act” (H.R. 2807) proposed by Rep. Randy Forbes
(R-VA) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) Would prioritize support for such exciting
avenues of research as amniotic fluid cells and turning ordinary skins cells
into stem cells without creating or harming an embryo.
For more
information on exciting developments in ethical stem cell research click here.
The Supreme Court today ruled that Wisconsin Right to Life had the right to run issue advertisements which urged citizens to call Sen. Kohl and Sen. Feingold and ask them not to obstruct President Bush’s judicial nominees. The pro-life group was prosecuted under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and an appeals court ruled their communication was unlawful political speech because it referred to specific candidates and occurred too close to the 2004 elections. The Supreme Court’s decision today is not just a victory for one pro-life organization but is an encouraging development for those championing the cherished right of free speech.
To read the Court’s decision click here.
A federal court has again ruled that Brittany McComb should have her day in court. In 2006 Brittany had her microphone turned off during her valedictorian address when she began to speak of her personal faith in Christ. Brittany filed a civil rights lawsuit, and the recent federal court ruling rejected the attempt by Clark County School District officials to dismiss that lawsuit.
To see the video of Brittany’s speech click on the video below or click here.
Colleen
Carroll Campbell writes a touching article about parents
in difficult situations making the deliberate decision to protect life.
Infertile couples taking fertility drugs occasionally find themselves expecting
numerous babies (ex: septuplets). In these circumstances doctors often
encourage parents to “selectively abort” one or more “fetuses” in an attempt to
assure the health of the others, often arbitrarily choosing the healthiest or
most desirable (ex: boy or girl, etc.) to be spared. The parents in this
heartwarming article bucked this standard practice and chose to give all their
unborn children a chance for life.
Today George
Will writes about the outrageous case in Oakland, California in which
government employees were forbidden to mention such “offensive” words as
“natural family,” “marriage,” and “family values.” This is a blatant
assault on First Amendment rights of free speech. Unfortunately, many
in American political discourse have sought through legislation or the courts
to silence the views of their ideological opponents rather than engaging them
in open debate.
The
Supreme Court today ruled that a tax-paying citizen with a grudge against
religion cannot bring a faith-based organization to court without just cause.
This is a
great victory for faith-based organizations. Hopefully this will
overcome a barrier to effective faith-based ministry, allowing such groups to
flourish and benefit our nation in ways only they can.
To read the Court’s decision click here.
US researchers announced that they have successfully extracted embryonic stem cells from cloned monkeys. Proponents of human cloning hail the development as progress toward miracle cures, but defenders of life realize that human cloning is now a clear and present danger.
Last night while considering a spending bill the House of Representatives defeated the Smith/Stupak Amendment which would have preserved the Mexico City Policy preventing taxpayer support for overseas abortion providers or promoters. Though this is a setback for the pro-life cause we are encouraged that the President has promised to veto any legislation overturning pro-life riders, and the vote tally suggests his veto would be sustained.
Check the AdvanceUSA website to see how your representative voted on this important amendment and to find more news. For more information on the Mexico City Policy and other pro-life riders click here.
UPDATE: This article by Kathryn Jean Lopez from National Review provides more helpful information.
CBS News
has released video
of President Bush’s remarks today as he vetoed a bill which would have
overturned his ethical stem cell guidelines thus requiring our tax dollars to
support embryo-destroying research. The President clearly explains the
fundamental moral issues involved while calling for increased funding of the
many forms of ethical stem cell research that have already begun to yield
tangible results.
NOTE:
AdvanceUSA was present for the President’s remarks at the White House.
Liberal
activists, still excited about their recent victory in depriving the people of
Massachusetts the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment, are now going
after a 1913 law. The law specifies that Massachusetts
cannot marry people who would not be allowed to marry in their home
state. This 1913 law is all that prevents activists from spreading
gay-marriage across the country by making Massachusetts
the “Las Vegas
of gay marriage.”
“The
Court, no less than the Presidency, will be on the ballot next November, and a
wise electorate will vote accordingly.” So writes Jeffrey Toobin in the
New Yorker, and we could not agree with him more. Although Mr. Toobin
looks at the steady conservative shift on the Supreme Court with dismay, his main
point about the importance of the judges and justices presidents
appoint is correct.
This presidential prerogative should be one of the most important factors as
concerned citizens decide for whom to vote in the upcoming presidential
primaries and general election in 2008.
For more
information on the importance of federal courts check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page.
HT: Mike
President George W. Bush vetoed
the latest embryonic stem cell funding bill on Wednesday, June 20 as he
had promised in a recent Statement of Administration Policy. The
U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill (S. 5) on June 7 by a vote of 247
to 176, a 35-vote margin which is an improvement over the 39-vote margin in
January on a very similar bill. Our friends in Congress tell us that we are
making progress on this issue so pro-lifers should be encouraged but remain
vigilant. The Senate must now decide whether to override or sustain the
President’s veto. In the Senate a veto override requires a 2/3 majority
of those present to vote.
Pro-lifers are hopeful
that the Senate will sustain the veto, but even if the veto is upheld there are
concerns that members of Congress will try to add these unethical stem cell
funding provisions to other important legislation as
Sen. Harkin has suggested.
Embryonic stem cell
research is both immoral and unnecessary.
Unfortunately many in Congress want to spend your tax dollars on it anyway.
Proponents of the measure frequently exaggerate claims about the necessity and
usefulness of embryonic stem cells, but in addition to its highly questionable
usefulness the fundamental problem is that such research destroys human lives.
For important information on stem cell research and other bioethics issues
visit the stem cell page and adult stem cell page.
To see how your senators and representative voted on this bill check the Vote Watch page.
Now that President Bush has vetoed the legislation it will soon return to the
Senate and will only come back to the House if the Senate manages to override
the veto. Pray that this bill never becomes law and that liberals in Congress
will not try to sneak this type of unethical stem cell language into other
legislation.
In another troublesome development in the fight to preserve traditional marriage, a Vermont judge has awarded visitation rights to the former lesbian partner of a Virginia mother. The biological mother renounced homosexuality and took her child to Virginia, but since she had been part of a “civil union” in Vermont, the judge awarded visitation rights to the former partner. This is compelling evidence of the unacceptability of “civil unions” and other attempts to tamper with the traditional definition of marriage.
For more information on the movement to defend marriage check the AdvanceUSA marriage page.
Here is more
information on the Judge Leslie Southwick saga from Robert Bluey on
TownHall. The left continues to oppose and Senate liberals continue to obstruct
solid judicial nominees to prevent qualified, originalist judges from reaching
the federal bench. America’s
judicial system deserves better.
Despite knowing that the Congress does not have the votes to overturn a Presidential veto of increased federal funding for embryo-destroying research, Senator Tom Harking (D-IA) still is likely to add such a stem cell provision to Senate legislation. It is a shame that when recent scientific discoveries indicate that such unethical research is unnecessary; liberals in Congress are determined to force the issue out of either misguided compassion or partisan politics.
A bill proposed by Rep. Nina Lowey (D-NY) has emerged from the House Appropriations Committee still posing a threat to important pro-life measures. The Mexico City Policy, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding overseas organizations which support abortion, would be overturned by the bill as it now stands. This bill should be amended to protect this provision.
Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the world) released reports that revealed that in fiscal year 2005-2006 it performed almost 265,000 abortions yet did not report even one adoption referral. Planned Parenthood is the biggest profiteer from the abortion industry, and it is outrageous that it received $305 million in tax dollars in the latest fiscal year.
At today’s constitutional convention in Massachusetts, the legislature voted 45-151 to prevent the proposed marriage amendment, which would have protected the traditional definition of marriage, from being voted on by citizens in 2008. So judges in Massachusetts can vote on the definition of marriage, but citizens can’t?
In another encouraging sign that the culture could be shifting in a pro-life direction, an organization that supports pro-abortion women candidates is experiencing fundraising problems.
The High Impact Leadership Coalition (a coalition of black religious leaders) has just released this exceptional advertisement that seeks to awaken people to the very real dangers of hate (thought) crimes legislation. Stopping “hate crimes” sounds like a noble goal but in actuality it would pose serious threats to religious freedom. Furthermore, the whole concept of hate crimes is inherently unjust and unconstitutional because if violates our cherished principle of “equal justice under law.”
Thought crimes bills are a clear and present danger to constitutional principles and religious freedom. For more information on thought crimes click here or visit AdvanceUSA’s religious freedom page.
Note: The current hate crimes bill (S. 1105) is now in the Senate, but it is unclear when the Senate will actually consider the legislation. AdvanceUSA will be watching carefully for any further developments.
Many conservatives are growing concerned with the large number of vacancies on the federal bench and the apparent slowness of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to consider judicial nominations in a timely manner.
| | |