Fight FOCA

Dear concerned citizen,

As you may have heard, Congress has not yet introduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). That's because the pro-abortion forces have heard your voice. Planned Parenhood President Cecile Richards told the Wall Street Journal:

"We're going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women's health. The Freedom of Choice Act is very important . . . but we have a long list of things to get done that I think can address problems immediately that women are facing, that are really immediate concerns."

In other words, because of the more than 650,000 people like you who have stood up to Fight FOCA, pro-abortion forces are focusing on another tactic for now -- FOCA-by-Stealth.

They want to try to pass pieces of FOCA under your nose. The first target is your pocketbook.

The top priority for Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion allies is to repeal the laws that prohibit federal funding of abortion. Often called pro-life "riders," the pro-abortion forces want House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to eliminate them and start using our tax dollars to pay for abortion-on-demand . . . nationwide.

Thankfully, a bi-partisan group of Members of Congress are standing up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood (who used to work for Speaker Pelosi). A letter to Speaker Pelosi written by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Democrat Congressman Heath Schuler of North Carolina is being circulated for signatures by Members of Congress.

Please ask your member of Congress to sign the Jordan/Schuler letter.


Just click this link.

The deadline is this Friday, February 13.

Yours for Life,


Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
AUL ActionThe Legislative Arm of Americans United for Life
FightFOCA.com
FightFOCA@FightFOCA.com

P.S. -- A PDF of the letter is available at the AUL Action blog. Please ask your member of Congress to sign it before Friday!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whose math should we trust?

A recent video of a Nancy Pelosi interview is making the rounds. In response to a question from the press Nancy states, "every month [we don't] have an economic recovery package, five hundred million Americans lose their jobs."

Click here to watch this 2 minute video, then take the additional 2 seconds necessary to do the math. Then contemplate why only 37% of Americans favor the 900 billion dollar “stimulus” package legislation. According to yesterday's Rasmussen poll, this is a decline of more than 10% since the bill passed the House.

Global Warming and the Media

It seems that some of President Obama’s most passionate supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. There is one scientist who means it literally: James Hansen of NASA.

Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally sounded the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data. Recently Dr. Hansen was publicly rebuked by his former supervisor, Dr. John S. Theon, at NASA. Dr Theon wrote, “Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.” Dr. Theon has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and has declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming claims of man-made global warming. Needless to say Dr. Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Dr. Hansen recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President “has only four years to save the world.” Unless we implement drastic measures like a “moratorium on new power plants that burn coal” and a hefty “carbon tax,” we face an apocalyptic future, “global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns.”

Of course, Hansen’s warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because “doom and gloom” sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity. In their haste, the media seldom asks for data to support a researcher’s claims or check a researcher’s credentials. Some of the claims made by “researchers” are strikingly similar to declarations pronounced in what is called the “Thiaoouba Prophecy”.
Less amusing but no less telling are the stories about the “disappearing” Arctic ice. A year ago, we were told that the Arctic had reached a “tipping point” and that Arctic ice could be “completely” gone, with dire consequences for polar bears and Santa Claus, within five years.

What you probably haven’t heard is that, by October, that same Arctic ice covered 29 percent more area than it did the year before and that by the end of the year, it was approaching its greatest mass since 1979. And it’s still growing.

There are countless other examples of where real-world facts conflict with global warming theory, not the least of which is that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2003 and arguably since 1998.

As the chairman of the International Geological Congress has asked, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”

It’s possible that he and other critics are wrong, of course. What is certain is that we are not getting anything resembling a complete presentation of the facts. The media reports the dire claims, and by the time the claims have been debunked, they have already moved onto the next one.

Given the level of dissent and skepticism on the subject, we ought not to let ourselves be panicked and stampeded into taking drastic and costly measures. Nor should we allow the claims about “scientific consensus” to persuade us. First, remember, there is no such consensus; and, second, scientists are just as prone to peer pressure and groupthink as everybody else.

This is a major issue. The costs here are enormous, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of human life. I recommend we take a biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute has produced just such a booklet available online, this is a great tool to gain perspective.

PERSPECTIVE ON GAY MARRIAGE

Following is a submission by guest writer Miles Dahlby of Casper Wyoming.

Charlie Powell’s perspective on "Does gay marriage threaten yours?" (Casper Star-Tribune, 1/25/09, posted online 1/24/09 as "Turn that energy inward.") springs, I’m sure, from his kind and compassionate heart. I’m convinced that he desires a happy and comfortable life for us all, just as I do. Charlie and I live on the same block, both of us have two teenage children, have a long-term marriage and are men of faith. I congratulate him heartily on his silver wedding anniversary, a remarkable feat in this era of throw-away marriages. Positive statistics abound on the benefits of marriage, from healthier bodies to happier lives. So it appears that in order to advance our common objective of a happy and comfortable life for all, we would indeed do well to defend marriage.

In his advocacy for gay marriage, and against Senate Joint Resolution 2, the Defense of Marriage Amendment, Charlie asks a misdirected question. In his compassionate, albeit sarcastic, argument (Does gay marriage threaten yours?) he fails to distinguish between concern for personal emotional relationships and effective public policy. A more relevant question would be "What is society’s interest in marriage at all, and would extending civil marriage benefits to homosexuals further that interest?"

Society, defined as a group of people working together for common survival, has an interest in promoting behaviors that enhance their survival, like sober driving laws. The behavior of marriage between one man and one woman has been recognized since the beginning of time and civilization as a key element of societal success. For example, marriage provides the ideal incubator for producing and raising children. The team of a nurturing mother and a providing father has been a wildly successful arrangement for ensuring the survival of society through children. Furthermore, marriage is also known to harness the sexual energy of men into the socially beneficial behavior of caring for a wife and children instead of anti-social, destructive behavior. The conclusion, then, is YES, society does indeed have an interest in promoting traditional marriage.

The next question, then, is does gay marriage add or detract from those benefits to society? The nature of the universe (Natural Law, like gravity) answers that question. Gay couples are physiologically incapable of producing children. I am unaware of any civilization based on homosexual relationships that has thrived. In fact, history suggests just the opposite. Additionally, homosexual behavior is associated with anti-social, destructive behaviors, from church invasions (a suppression of free speech) to child molestation such as advocated by the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The conclusion, then, is NO, gay marriage does not further society’s interest.

Therefore it is in the best interest of our own society, as expressed by public policy, for the Wyoming State Legislature to approve SJR 2, Defense of Marriage Amendment, and for the voters of Wyoming to approve its addition to our state constitution in due course, as 30 other states have already done.

With the public policy question addressed, what about the personal side of the matter? Charlie asked a very useful question "What would Jesus do?" He left the question unanswered, so I will posit a reply.

An effective way to determine what someone would likely do in a given situation is to look at what they did in a similar circumstance. Let’s look at what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery (see John 8:1-11), another sexual sin in the same category as homosexuality (see First Corinthians 6:9, 10). He compassionately forgave her ("Neither do I condemn you…"), yet instructed her to "From now on sin no more." None of us are justified in scorning homosexuals, since all of us are sinners in one way or another (see First Corinthians 6:11). However, we are under no obligation to "practice acceptance and inclusion," as Charlie put it, of anti-social behavior, any more than we’d be obligated to accept and include drunk driving. Christians are instructed to "Don’t just pretend that you love others. Really love them. Hate what is wrong. Stand on the side of right." (Romans 12:9) I show my love (defined as looking out for the best interest of another) for a drunk driver by first of all not being a co-dependent: I don’t give him another drink. I do erect guardrails for him in the way of alcohol restrictions and drunk-driving laws. I further enable him to access recovery programs so he might escape the very real and very difficult emotional and physiological alcoholic trap he’s in. He is in deep, deep pain, and my love must be true and honest. We should treat men and women caught in the trap of homosexuality the very same way.

It is a fallacy to suggest that homosexuality is genetic and that therefore individuals have no choice in their sexual behavior. The natural law of genetics tells us that any counter-productive gene would eventually be bred out of the gene pool. As an individual, I have the power to chose my own behavior, whether to be a drunk driver, an alcoholic, a whore-monger, an adulterer, a pedophile, a celibate or a faithful mate. Like alcoholics, homosexuals have a way out of their pain. There are programs such as Love Won Out from Focus on the Family, and locally in Casper, The Healing Place at Highland Park Community Church.

So, to answer Charlie’s question "Does gay marriage threaten yours?" No, it threatens our civilization and the well-being of ourselves and homosexuals alike. Gay marriage won’t be OK – really.

MILES DAHLBY

Note: An edited version of this article was published in the Casper Star Tribune Sunday February 1st, 2009

Deja Daschle

In the movie Groundhog Day, actor Bill Murray is forced to relive the same day over and over. This weekend, Americans could sympathize, waking to the drama that yet another one of President Obama's Cabinet picks neglected to pay his taxes. This time, the offender is Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Tom Daschle, a former senator whose confirmation many Democrats took for granted. ABC News broke the story this weekend that the nominee outdid the Treasury Secretary Tim Geither by owing $128,000 in back taxes. Among other things, Daschle "forgot" to report his car and chauffeur and mishandled some charity related gifts. In a letter to the Senate Finance Committee, where Daschle was slated to appear privately today, he writes that his "mistakes were unintentional." Sound familiar? Geither used the same defense before the Senate approved his nomination. Daschle's debacle raises to three the number of Obama candidates tainted by scandal. Gov. Bill Richardson surrendered his bid for Commerce Secretary when allegations of corruption surfaced.

While President Obama can't be blamed for his nominees' shortcomings, he should be faulted for not taking more care in vetting candidates for such influential positions. Conservatives already had their questions about the former Senate Majority Leader, who sat on the board of several health-related interests (Prime Bio Solutions and the Mayo Clinic) and raked in $205,200 as a paid speaker to health and pharmaceutical companies such as America's Health Insurance Plans, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Prime Therapeutics, Ingalls Health System, and others. If the President can't enforce his "tougher ethics rules" on his own staff, his personnel problems will only multiply.

Additional Resources
Washington Post:
Daschle Owed Back Taxes That Exceeded $128,000
CNS News:
Daschle Faces New Questions Over $128,203 in Back Taxes