 |
          
  |
|
|
Watch
the Family Research Council’s hard-hitting
ad on the dangers of socialized medicine and the abortion funding contained
the proposed health care ‘reform’ bill.
As
LifeNews reports, the House
of Representatives voted down an amendment by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) which
would have prevented Planned Parenthood from receiving taxpayer dollars. Excerpt:
“It is morally wrong to destroy innocent
human life through abortion, but it is also morally wrong to take the tax
dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote or perform
abortions at home or abroad. The largest abortion provider in America should
not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X," Pence
said during the debate.
See
how your representative
voted on the Pence amendment to defund this notorious abortion provider (sexual
abuse concealing).
FRC
released a
statement. As did
Congressman Pence who said, “You can't reduce abortions by funding abortion
providers with taxpayer dollars.”
David
McIntosh explains. Excerpt:
As Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation
hearing began last week, many commentators predicted that she would portray
herself as a moderate judge committed to judicial restraint. True to these
expectations, Judge Sotomayor described her judicial philosophy as quite
simple: “fidelity to the law.” Yet the judge’s history on the Second
Circuit—not to mention her earlier speeches—suggest that she believes judges
can go beyond the law to make policy decisions. For this reason, a vote to
confirm Judge Sotomayor is almost certainly a vote in favor of restricting
Second Amendment protections and property rights, upholding racial preferences,
and providing unlimited abortion on demand.
ADF reports. News like this shows why conscience
protections for doctors and other medical personnel are so necessary.
The
Washington Times editorial board explains why the Senate Judiciary
Committee should vote down Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme
Court. Excerpt:
Senators of both parties should be offended
by the evasive and misleading answers Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
provided to written questions senators submitted following her July 13 through
17 public hearings. The Senate should not accept such evasiveness.
Of particular note is Judge Sotomayor's
dodge of a highly important question from Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions, the
ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning her dissenting
opinion that murderers and rapists have a right to vote while still behind
bars. The relevant part of the question read as follows: "Doesn't your
dissent in [the case] ignore the fact that the convict's crimes and not any
state-based racial discrimination made the felons ineligible to vote?"
Read
the full
editorial here.
The
AP reports. Excerpt:
. . . lawmakers opposed to federal funding
for abortions said Tuesday the House leadership's health care bill contains a
"hidden mandate" that would allow taxpayer dollars to be used to end
pregnancies.
Call
your representative and both your senators today and urge them to oppose the
massive health care “reform” bill! Tell
them you don’t want your tax dollars supporting abortion!
Also,
on Thursday night (July 23) at 9:00pm Eastern Time a coalition of pro-life
groups will host an urgent
nationwide webcast. Find out more
about the pro-abortion funding provisions in the health care bill and find out what you can do.
Rasmussen
reports. It seems the more the
American people know about the health care “reform” bill the less they like
it. Perhaps the abortion funding
provisions are adding to the disapproval.
On
Thursday, July 16, the Senate voted on an amendment by Sen. Leahy which added
dangerous and unnecessary hate crimes legislation to a Department of Defense funding
bill. See how
both your senators voted on adding this hate crimes amendment to defense
spending legislation.
Thank
your senators if they voted “No,” and if they voted “Yes” respectfully share
your disappointment. You should also
keep this vote in mind the next time your senators face reelection.
UPDATE: Here's the vote tally. Follow the link to see the vote details.
Senate
Vote on the Leahy Amendment (S.A. 189) to add hate (thought) crimes legislation
to the Dept. of Defense funding bill
July 16, 2009
Full Results
|
|
|
Yeas
|
|
Nays
|
|
PRES
|
|
NV
|
|
Republican
|
|
5
|
|
28
|
|
—
|
|
7
|
|
Democratic
|
|
57
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
2
|
|
Independent
|
|
1
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
TOTALS
|
|
63
|
|
28
|
|
—
|
|
9
|
Fox
News reports. Excerpt:
A government-funded, public health
insurance plan may allow taxpayer money to go to pay for abortions, the White
House budget chief said Sunday.
Office of Budget and Management Chief Peter
Orszag told "FOX News Sunday" he is not ready to say whether abortion
services would be part of a final package Congress is considering to provide
taxpayer-funded health care to about a third of the nation's 50 million
uninsured. Lawmakers are considering a package that could cost as much as $1.5
trillion over 10 years for health care.
"I think that that will wind up being
part of the debate. I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's
obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing
out in this debate," Orszag told "FOX News Sunday." "I'm
not prepared to rule it out."
Already, the Obama administration has
demonstrated its support for federal funding of abortion. The president
rescinded the Mexico City Policy on Jan. 23, the day after the 36th anniversary
of the Roe v. Wade decision. The policy had been in place to prevent U.S.
funding being used for abortion services in clinics abroad.
The
New York Times and LifeNews
also report. National Right to Life
also examines this
problem.
Pro-life
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) wrote a letter to his colleagues
warning them of the abortion funding provisions in this bill.
National
Right to Life explains. Excerpt:
Congressional Democratic leaders are aiming
to bring massive "health care reform" bills to the floor of the U.S.
Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives during the last week in July --
bills that National Right to Life says "would result in the greatest
expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade."
LifeNews also reports.
As the New
York Times reports, the Senate has passed into law dangerous hate crimes
legislation into a Defense Department funding bill. Excerpt:
The Senate has agreed to expand the
definition of hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual
orientation and gender identity as part of a Pentagon policy measure that is
becoming a magnet for tough social issues.
Ironically,
President Obama has threatened
to veto the bill because it sets aside funding for the new state-of-the-art
F-22 Raptor fighter jet.
FRC
explains why “hate crimes” laws are a threat to religious freedom.
Jonah
Goldberg examines Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent words alleging that
one of the motivations behind Roe vs. Wade was to keep undesirable populations
from procreating. Her comments are a
disturbing reminder of the racist, eugenicist roots of the pro-abortion modern movement
and they are also a sobering reminder of the importance of Supreme Court
nominations.
If
you have time during the day to watch the important confirmation hearings being
held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do. Nominations to the Supreme Court have drastic
implications for the future of our nation and our freedom. Concerned citizens should be watching their
elected officials carefully and encouraging their fellow citizens to
contemplate the proper role of judges in our constitutional form of government.
You
can watch
the hearings live on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website.
Your
local PBS station will be carrying the
hearings live, and the major cable news networks (C-SPAN, Fox News, and CNN) will likely provide much coverage
of the hearings as well.
Photo source: LA
Times
The
Caucus blog of the New York Times reports.
Excerpt:
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they
would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks
based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
To lift the chances of passage, Democrats
said the legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
would be attached as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a
must-pass measure.
Senator
Orin Hatch (R-UT) published a helpful analysis
and criticism of the hate crimes bill in The Spectrum. Excerpt:
The House passed a hate-crimes bill on
April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would
create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting
to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these
provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a
crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the
proponents of these bills.
. . .
Both bills introduced this year would also
expand the definition of a hate crime to cover offenses motivated by a victim's
"gender identity."
At best, this legislation unnecessarily
intrudes on the efforts of state governments and creates crimes that are
impractical, if not impossible, to prosecute. At worst, it would be
unconstitutional.
Also, while both bills ostensibly prohibit
prosecution for any activities that are protected by the First Amendment, the
fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social
viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question.
Read
Hatch’s full
analysis here.
FRC
has a helpful brochure that explains how judicial activism threatens our
Constitution. Order a copy or download
the brochure here.
CitizenLink reports
on the death of an important and historical provision which had prevented
taxpayer dollars from supporting overseas organizations that provide or promote
abortion.
OneNewsNow
reports. Excerpt:
"This is a clear affront and a
violation of the fundamental religious convictions of the owners of
pharmacies," he contends. "No pharmacist owner should ever have to
choose between saving a human life and keeping their shop and business."
Many consider the Ninth Circuit to be the
most liberal court in the U.S.
Brad
Dacus PJI
"This radical decision by the Ninth
Circuit gives the green light to liberal state legislators and regulators to be
able to clamp down on medical and other professionals with sincere religious
convictions against supporting abortions," Dacus adds.
If the decision is upheld, pharmacists and
owners with a conscience will have to choose between violating the law or going
out of business. Dacus hopes the case will be accepted by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Douglas
Johnson of National Right to Life explains how ObamaCare could require your
tax dollars to support abortion.
FRC’s
Tony Perkins also explains the abortion-funding problems with the proposed “health
care reform” bill in a special
video report. The video shows Sen.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) exposing the bill’s abortion-funding agenda in Senate
hearings.
Jan
LaRue explains why the Sotomayor nomination needs to be slowed down. Excerpt:
The White House and Senate Democrats want a
vote on Sotomayor's nomination before the August congressional recess. If
Senate Republicans surrender to the Democrats' race pace card, it means a fast,
uninformed vote on a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.
Americans aren't stimulated by uninformed
voting in Congress. Republicans should also know by now that Americans consider
Supreme Court appointments supremely important. It explains why Samuel Alito is
on the Supreme Court and Harriet Miers isn't.
Democrats are hustling the vote because
they don't want to give Americans time to be fully informed about Sotomayor.
What we already know calls for the Senate to proceed with caution, not
full-speed ahead. A Supreme Court nomination shouldn't be a summary,
rubber-stamp decision. Sotomayor's record including 3,600 opinions, hundreds of
speeches and other writings needs serious and thorough review.
As
the AP reports, a Senate panel voted to overturn a policy which has
prevented taxpayer dollars from supporting overseas organizations that provide
or promote abortion as a method of “family planning.” Excerpt:
The policy in effect under President George
W. Bush had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for
International Development funds, from going to international family planning
groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or
referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
The ban was first put in place by President
Ronald Reagan and has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the
city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on
Population.
Judicial
Watch sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding
their concerns over potential judicial and ethical misconduct by Judge Sonia
Sotomayor. Read
the letter here.
The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel reports on an exciting new way to obtain pluripotent stem cells
(cells that can transform into any tissue type) from an ethical and abundant
source, human blood. Excerpts:
Cellular Dynamics is the first company to
say it can make stem cells from something as readily available, and so
representative of human diversity, as blood.
. . .
The stem cells, which scientists refer to
as induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, have all the characteristics of
embryonic stem cells [except they don’t involve destroying human embryos]. They
can turn into beating heart cells, liver cells or any other tissue cells in the
body.
Michael
G. Franc explains at NRO’s Bench Memos blog.
Ed
Whelan explains one particular reason Sonia Sotomayor’s approval ratings
could be dropping. He argues that her
positions in favor of racial preferences and her opposition to the “colorblind
ideal” are vastly out of step with the majority of Americans.
The
Boston Globe reports. Repealing the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would allow judges to easily impose same-sex
marriage on states that do not recognize it.
By pushing to repeal DOMA, Massachusetts is forcing its “values” on the
rest of the nation.
As
Reuters reports, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (President Obama’s nominee for the
Supreme Court) was given the American Bar Association’s highest rating, a
unanimous vote of “well-qualified.”
It
is interesting to note that another Hispanic nominee named Migel Estrada also received
this rating when he was nominated to a high appellate court by George W. Bush,
but his nomination was shamefully stalled by Senate Democrats for political
reasons. Senate Democrats apparently
felt that allowing a conservative Hispanic to sit on a court often known as the
“stepping stool to the Supreme Court” was politically undesirable.
It
would appear that an amazing life story and ethnic minority background are only
positive qualities for liberal activist judges and not for conservatives or
originalist judges.
The
Washington Times explains. Excerpt:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the
"inherent physiological ... difference" line -- expressing a belief
that Judge Sotomayor said she does not "abhor" or
"discount" -- is an assertion one would have expected to hear more
from 1960s race-baiters like George Wallace than from somebody nominated for
the Supreme Court.
Then there's the line about "facts
that I choose to see as a judge." It's a dangerous standard to assert that
a judge is allowed to "choose to see" certain facts and not others.
The
New York Times reports on some crucial information pertaining to Sonia
Sotomayor’s ethical standards that has not been fully disclosed. Excerpt:
The judge’s choice of the name Sotomayor
& Associates is regarded by some legal ethicists as a confusing departure
for someone generally regarded as meticulous about preparation and following
the rules.
CitizenLink reports. Politicians looking to please radical
homosexual activist groups should consider the political price New Hampshire’s
Governor is paying for opposing traditional marriage.
Byron
York reports. Excerpt:
A spokesman for Republican Sen. Jeff
Sessions says documents provided by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund show that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor played a
"deeper than previously thought" role in controversial positions
taken by the PRLDEF. And Sessions'
office says the White House and PRLDEF have still not turned over all the
material requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee for Sotomayor's
confirmation hearing. PRLDEF turned over
some material last night -- just two weeks before the scheduled beginning of
the Sotomayor hearing -- and Republicans say there is still more material that
needs to be examined.
The
AP has more on Sotomayor’s ties with this controversial Puerto Rican civil
rights organization.
Tony
Perkins lays out the dangers of tax payer funding of abortion in the
so-called health care “reform” legislation now being considered in Congress.
Dan
Lips reports. Excerpt:
Yesterday, state lawmakers in Indiana
passed a scholarship tax credit program—making the Hoosier state the latest to
offer private school choice. Under the plan, people or corporations who make
donations to non-profits that award tuition scholarships will be eligible for a
50-percent tax credit off their state bill.
On
July 4 Americans celebrate the bold document that declared their
independence and explained the principles upon which their nation was
founded. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness." It proclaimed a new nation, one that would be founded
on the "consent of the governed."
As you celebrate the Fourth of
July this weekend, remember the brave men who ventured into dangerous
and uncharted waters in "a skiff made of paper." More importantly,
remember the principles they based their actions upon. Take a few
minutes to read the Declaration so that you can appreciate our founding
principles on Independence Day.
Read the Declaration of Independence here.
The
fight for liberty and independence must go on. Even now, millions of
unborn human beings are denied the sacred and inalienable "right to
life." Much work remains to be done. But let us take courage from
those men of long ago, and renew our commitment to appreciating,
promoting, and defending the rights and principles contained in our
founding document.
And
for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama opened the White
House to hundreds of gay activists Monday, promising them that by the time he
leaves office they would "have pretty good feelings" about his
administration.
During an event to celebrate the 40th
anniversary of what gay activists consider the launch of their political
movement – several nights of violent riots in and around a New York gay bar –
Obama rattled off several policies he plans to implement to please his
homosexual constituency.
"I want you to know that I expect and
hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises
my administration keeps," he said. "We've been in office six months
now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over … you guys will
have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Among those promises the president is
pursuing, he said: Overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passing a
law to mandate health-care and other benefits to homosexual domestic partners,
repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and even "rescinding the
discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status."
OneNewsNow also
reports.
Besides
the obvious reverse discrimination inherent in the Ricci case, many legal experts (including Supreme Court Justices) are
troubled by the reasoning expressed by Judge Sonya Sotomayor and her fellow
panel judges.
Here
are links and excerpts from several journals and news sources on the subject:
National
Review
The decision is a sharp rebuke for Second
Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Pres. Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice
David Souter when the Supreme Court convenes in October. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by the Court’s three other reliable
liberals (Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer), and thus administration
spinners are already whirring about how the 5-4 majority purportedly shows that
Sotomayor’s handling of the case was in the mainstream. That rhetorical sleight
of hand, however, misstates both the facts and the nature of the complaint
against Sotomayor.
The only consensus the nine justices found
was that the handling of case by Sotomayor’s three-judge appeals-court panel
was shoddy. Even the four dissenting justices agreed that the Second Circuit
applied the wrong legal standard. The majority was less charitable, rehearsing
the machinations by which the lower courts tried to bury the firefighters’
discrimination claims: While conceding evidence of intentional discrimination,
a district judge disposed of the claims in an unpublished order, which
Sotomayor’s panel then rubber-stamped in an unpublished summary order of its
own. That maneuver prompted a withering protest from Second Circuit judge Jose
Cabranes, a highly respected Clinton appointee, who was startled at his court’s
cavalier treatment of such profound legal issues.
Robert
Knight explains. Excerpt:
Among its many defects, the proposed
federal hate crimes bill virtually ensures that some defendants will face
double jeopardy, whatever the outcome of their cases. It all depends on the
whims of the folks occupying the Attorney General’s office, who may want to
score political points at a defendant’s expense.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention
Act (S. 909) now before the Senate, establishes “thought crime,” violates equal
protection by making some victims more important than others, elevates “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity” to be equivalent to civil rights categories
like race, and greatly expands the federal role in criminal law.
In short, it’s a grab bag of ways to
violate genuine constitutional rights while addressing a non-issue. There is no
compelling evidence that bias-motivated crimes are not being handled properly
and perpetrators punished.
Keep
reading the full
article here.
Senator
Jeff Sessions explains how the citing of foreign law in American judicial
rulings is a threat to American sovereignty and independence. This will be an important issue to discuss
when Judge Sonia Sotomayor is examined by the Senate Judiciary Committee in
during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
|
|
|
| |