(A4c4) immoral laws, decisions and practices

Anti life laws promote death and destruction. Among these laws are those which promote, facilitate or condone contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, destructive human stem cell research, human cloning, sodomy, same sex "marriage" divorce fornication, adultery. ******* As of this date, 07-02-16, this web folder contains 32 articles. ******* 1) JUDGE DECIDED NOT TO ALLOW DRUG TESTING ON PREGNANT WOMEN ******* 2) JUDGE DECIDED TO DIRECT THE U.S. NAVY TO PAY FOR AN ABORTION ******* 3) COMMUNIST CHINESE GOVERNMENT IMPOSES HEAVY FINE ON A COUPLE WHO HAD A THIRD CHILD ******* 4) EUROPEAN UNION FORCES IRELAND TO PAY ABORTIONISTS ******* 5) STATE FUNDING OF DESTRUCTIVE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESERACH ******* 6) CANNIBALISM BY ANY NAME IS STILL CANNIBALISM ******* 7) AMERICA RESISTS INTERNATIONAL ANTI LIFE POLICIES ******* 8) MONTANA HOUSE REVERSES ITSELF ON FETAL PAIN BILL ******* 9) CANADIAN PRO-LIFE GROUP SAYS GRANT PROMOTES ASSISTED SUICIDE ******* 10)PRESERVING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE - RORY LEISHMAN ******* 11)ROBERT A. JASON'S LETTER ON C-250 (same sex "marriage" + Stephen Harper's reply ******* 12) BRITISH COLUMBIA (CANADA)COURT RE-DEFINES MARRIAGE ******* 13) CANADIAN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT INTRODUCES ABORTION MOTION IN PARLIAMENT ******* 14) FEDERAL COURT DECLINES TO HEAR McCORVEY'S CASE TO OVERTURN ROE ******* 15) HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THEIR WAY ******* 16) EUROPEAN LEGAL BRIEF THREATENED UNITED STATES OVER TEXAS SODOMY LAW ******* 17) GRAY DAVIS SIGNS ANTI-PARENT LAW ******* 18) PENETRATING ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ******* 19) NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE PASSES "MOST RADICAL" CLONING BILL EVER ******* 20) THE DAY THE GATES OF HELL WERE OPENED ******* 21) PAUL MARTIN (A CATHOLIC?) & MAURICE STRONG & EARTH CHARTER ******* 22) JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S DOCUMENTS SHOW ROE V. WADE ALMOST FELL IN 1992 ******* 23) DO HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHERS' SILENCE? ******* 24) BILL C-25O IS A HATE CRIME AGAINST HETEROSEXUALS ******* 25) THE FALLACY AND SHEER STUPIDITY OF ROE VERSUS WADE - CASE IN POINT, SCOTT PETERSON ******* 26 DISTRICT COURT RULES WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE WARNED OF RISKS OF SURGERY ******* 27 NEW BOOK COULD HAVE "PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS" FOR PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT ******* 28 ONTARIO CAN'T BAN FILMS, COURT RULES ******* 29 HATE CRIME LAWS - GOOD OR BAD? ******* 30 BANNED IN BOSTON - THE COMING CONFLICT BETWEEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ******* item 31 U. S. HIGH COURT FIRM ON 1973 ABORTION CASE ******* item 32 YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK - HIRING OF CROSS DRESSERS ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 1 JUDGE DECIDED NOT TO ALLOW DRUG TESTING ON PREGNANT WOMEN ******* Original Message ******* From: Pro-Life E-News (by way of John Hof )[email protected]> ******* To: ******* Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:22 PM ******* Subject: FEMINISTS HAVE NO WOMB FOR ANYONE ELSE ******* http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010329/t000026806.html ******* Thursday, March 29, 2001 ******* By NORAH VINCENT ******* Ours is a country in which you are ill-advised to be a fetus. The highest court in the land has ruled that you're a parasite, disposable at will, even when you're almost out of the chute. You're just an extension of your mother's whim. She can do whatever she likes with you. Her court-instituted right to "choose" trumps your right to live. ******* Now, taking a new leap, the courts have decided that her right to privacy trumps your right to a clean bill of health. If you're inconvenient, unaffordable or just plain unwanted, then you'll soon be a biohazard on your way to the town dump. If you're allowed to exercise your life, you may have to live it as a vegetable or a grotesque. In a stunning 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that hospitals may not test a pregnant woman for drugs for police purposes without either a search warrant or the woman's consent. Such tests were found to be a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. "The fact that positive test results were turned over to the police . . . provides an affirmative reason for enforcing the strictures of the 4th Amendment," the court said. ******* Never mind that other rulings on the reasonableness of drug testing have allowed for the testing of a wide range of people, including government employees and high-school athletes. In these cases, the courts ruled, there was a "special need." The health of a fetus, however, apparently is not considered to be a special enough need to override the privacy rights of rogue mothers. ******* Naturally, this is considered another victory for feminism. And so it is. For it means that once again, the law has mandated that women need not be responsible for what happens in their wombs. The womb, after all, is the enemy. It must be kept in its place. It cannot be allowed to control us. We must control it in every respect. The fact that we were born with wombs will never again be allowed to shackle us to them or to the progeny they grow. We, and we alone, are what matter now. ******* We can do anything. We can have as much sex as we want--as much wanton sex as some men do--and we need not be concerned with the consequences. If the unthinkable happens, if--surprise, surprise--nature actually takes its course and we become pregnant, well, we'll just do what we do after we binge on too many French fries. We'll purge. After all, if you want to stay thin after eating everything in sight, then it's the finger down the throat. If you want to stay barren but have as much protected or unprotected sex as you want, then it's the doctor in your business--but not too much in your business. ******* Only as much as you want him. ******* What's more, when we're good and ready to have a child, we'll still be totally in control of our bodies. We'll smoke, we'll booze, we'll crack it up all night long if we take a mind to, and it'll be nobody's business. Because the Constitution protects us. We have a right to our privacy and our bodies, even though, when it comes to that seventh, eighth, ninth month of pregnancy, we're pretty sure we're not alone in them anymore. ******* But who cares, those babies are ours, and we can do with them what we like. We can smoke three packs a day. We can drink motor oil. And if that baby comes out with a brain that doesn't quite work right or that doesn't work at all, if it has an imposed mortal dependency on a narcotic, if it comes out with expensive special needs, well, the government will pay for it. That's what government is for: to safeguard my right to do what I like and pick up the tab when I've done it. ******* I can do anything, consequences be damned. Let freedom ring, because, by God, I am woman, and this is America. ******* Norah Vincent Is a Freelance Journalist Who Lives in New York City ******* Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times *************************************************** ******* The material contained in this file is made available courtesy contributors and editors of Pro-Life E-News. ******* Copying of this material is free for non-commercial educational and research use. Unless explicitly stated, copyright of this material is owned by the author and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services. ******* Check out: InterLIFE: http://www.interlife.org/ ******* The Bubble Zone: http://www.interlife.org/bubble/ ******* Clinic Watch: http://www.interlife.org/clinic/ ******* The Genetic Cleansing Project: http://www.geneticcleansing.org/ ******* The Kevorkian Papers: http://www.kevork.org/ ******* The RU-486 Files: http://www.ru486.org/ ******* The Morgentaler Files: http://www.interlife.org/morgentaler/ ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 2 US NAVY MUST PAY FOR WOMAN'S ABORTION ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Seattle Times; August 13, 2002 ******* Seattle, WA -- The Navy must pay for an abortion for an Everett, Washington woman carrying a baby without most of its brain, a federal judge in Seattle has ruled. ******* Tricare, the Navy's health contractor, refused to pay for the abortion, citing regulations based on a 1985 federal law prohibiting use of Department of Defense funds for abortions unless the mother's life is endangered. ******* Although the court case is not yet concluded, U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled last week that further delay in aborting the baby would risk "great harm" to the physical and mental health of the mother, who is more than 20 weeks pregnant. ******* Rothstein based her ruling partly on a recent U.S. District Court ruling in Massachusetts, which, in considering a similar case, found the regulation was unconstitutional because it bore no rational relationship to the government's expressed interest in protecting "potential life." ******* The diagnosis in both cases, anencephaly, is a condition that is 100 percent fatal, medical experts say. Currently, no medical procedure can cure it. In place of the brain and skull, a gelatinous tissue covers the crown of the head. Most babies with the rare condition die before or during birth; the third that are born alive are permanently unconscious, and most die quickly. ******* Government officials were not available for comment on the ruling. But the regulation implementing the federal law forbids abortions for fetal abnormalities, specifically mentioning anencephaly. In the Massachusetts case, the government argued that to find an anencephalic fetus' short life not worth protecting would be to start down a "slippery slope." ******* "Jane Doe," as she is known in the Washington case, is married to a low-ranking enlisted man. She learned she was pregnant in April and was "very happy," according to her statement in the lawsuit. ******* She and her husband painted a room for the baby. Because they had little money, they began buying diapers right away, a few at a time, so they'd have enough when the baby was born. ******* On July 12, routine tests revealed a problem, and subsequent tests confirmed that the baby was anencephalic. After talking with their families, she and her husband decided to end the pregnancy, she said in a court statement. ******* "I could not imagine going through five more months of pregnancy, knowing that the baby will never survive or have any kind of life whatsoever. I am really terrified of the prospect of giving birth, then watching the baby die." ******* At this point, an abortion could cost $2,500 to $3,000, said Lisa Stone, director of the pro-abortion Northwest Women's Law Center, which represented Doe. ******* Some medical professionals argue that babies with anencephaly deserve the same protection as those with less severe mental damage. ******* Pro-life advocates also criticized the ruling. ******* Camille De Blasi, director of the Center for Life Principles in Redmond, said, "Isn't it the height of arrogance for a courtroom judge to decide that a child must be killed because her life will not be long enough to satisfy us?" ******* In 2001, only five such babies were born in Washington state, according to state figures. ******* The Massachusetts case cited by Rothstein was the first decision to rule that the military's policy was unconstitutional, reproductive-law experts said. ******* Please consider making a donation to help the work of the Pro-Life Infonet. ******* You can send a donation to: Women and Children First, P.O. Box 523143, Springfield, VA 22152. We appreciate your support. ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 3 CHINESE COUPLE GET MAXIMUM FINE FOR VIOLATING ONE-CHILD POLICY ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Agence France-Presse; August 9, 2002 ******* Beijing, China -- An eastern Chinese couple has been fined a "record" $51,000 for violating China's coercive family planning law, a move that seems to be a "warning" for parents who may have more children than the law allows. ******* The couple, identified only as the Zhangs, was fined for having a third child after the woman had already given birth to a son and a daughter. ******* China's new family planning law, which took effect on Sept. 1, reinforces the country's "one-child" policy while allowing several large subsets of the population to have a second child. Under the new law, the Chinese government will impose a "social alimony" on couples who violate the one-child policy as a form of "compensation for burdening society with more children." ******* The policy limits urban couples to one child but allows rural couples to have two children if their first-born child is a girl. Ethnic minorities are also allowed to have two or three children because of the small size of their populations and because they typically live in areas with "harsh natural conditions." ******* The Zhangs were fined at a rate of six times their annual income - the maximum amount allowed for such a violation. ******* The China News Service reports that the fine levied on the couple "appears to be a new development," as the man involved is a businessman. Most family planning policy fines have traditionally been imposed on farmers in rural areas. ******* However, the China News Service reports that most violations of the country's family planning laws take place among businesspeople because of the "traditional concept that 'the son carries on the family business." ******* The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: [email protected]. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email [email protected] ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 4 EUROPEAN UNION MAY FORCE MEMBER COUNTRIES TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute; November 14, 2002 ******* According to a member of the European Parliament, Irish taxes may soon contribute to a European Union initiative to provide abortions throughout the developing world, even though abortion is unconstitutional in Ireland. ******* Dana Rosemary Scallon, Connacht/Ulster MEP, has stated that "the Irish government can no longer remain silent on this matter. The Irish people deserve to be informed and consulted, and have the right to decide in accordance with their conscience and their constitution, if they want their tax money to fund a compulsory EU programme which will impose abortion, without debate, on the poorest countries." ******* Scallon is referring to the Sandbaek report, a European parliament document intended to be the blueprint for EU international aid over the next five years. The report directs that "the [European] community shall provide financial assistance and appropriate expertise with a view to promoting the recognition of reproductive and sexual rights…and universal access to a comprehensive range of safe and reliable reproductive and sexual health services." In population control parlance, reproductive services include abortion. ******* The report envisions a dramatic increase in EU funding for reproductive services. EU spending for reproductive services would rise by at least 72 per cent, and perhaps as much as 300 per cent, even though total EU international aid during the same period will rise by only 1 or 2 per cent. In fact, to offset increased spending on reproductive services, the EU may be forced to eliminate funding for elementary education in the developing world. Marie Stopes International, an organization that runs abortion clinics throughout the developing world, has lobbied heavily for this increase in spending for reproductive services. ******* A vote on the Sandbaek report within the European Parliament has been postponed a number of times, as pro-life parliamentarians have attempted to add amendments to the document. One amendment sought to establish that abortion was not a reproductive service, while another sought assurance that EU money would not be used for abortions. Both amendments have been vigorously contested, thereby reinforcing the opinion of European pro-life organizations that the report is intended to promote and fund abortion. ******* Scallon views the report as an assault on the sovereignty of Ireland. It will establish an EU regulation, which is, according to Scallon, "the strongest EU law." ******* "An EU regulation is directly applicable and binding in all EU Member States without the need for any national implementing legislation or, in this case, even national debate," Scallon said. Thus, Irish taxes could be used for reproductive services and "safe" abortions, regardless of Irish opinion on the matter and regardless of Ireland's own laws respecting unborn life. ******* This is not the first time that Ireland's membership within the EU has seemed to run counter to its constitution. During this year's UN Child Summit, for example, the EU, including Ireland, fought for reproductive health services for adolescents, even after a Canadian delegate admitted that reproductive services included abortion. Ireland was unwilling to break EU consensus on the issue. ******** Bedside nursing -- where the rubber meets the road in pro-life issues. Become a member of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses. Our mission statement: "Dedicated to promoting respect for every human life, from conception to natural death; and to affirming that the destruction of that life, for whatever reason and by whatever means, does not meet the standards of good nursing practice." See http://www.nursesforlife.org or e-mail [email protected]. ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 5 MASSACHUSETTS BILL WOULD GIVE STEM CELL RESEARCHERS STATE FUNDS ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Boston Globe; December 4, 2002 ******* Boston, MA -- Massachusetts lawmakers Wednesday introduced a bill to prop up the state's mebryonic stem cell research industry with taxpayer funds. If enacted, the bill would explicitly authorize the controversial research opposed by pro-life groups because it involves the destruction of human life. ******* The bill would set up a government-administered fund to support stem cell research, to be headed by the state commissioner of public health. ******* But some scientists said the most important thing to them is to know the state supports their research, despite the larger controversy over using stem cells harvested from embryos. ******* ''The scientists working in Massachusetts need to know they'll have freedom to pursue their work without the risk of it being buried in shifting political sands,'' said Dr. George Q. Daley, a fellow at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge who is researching how to develop mouse cells into mature blood cells. ''We want to make sure that Massachusetts is viewed favorably as a home for stem cell research.'' ******* California in September became the first state to enact a law advocating and supporting embryonic stem cell research. A bill is pending in New Jersey, and one is expected to be introduced in the Pennsylvania Legislature next year. ******* Daley was one of several researchers and industry officials who briefed legislators at the State House Monday. ******* State Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Democrat of Newton, said she sponsored the bill to keep research firms in the state. ''We want to encourage them to stay here and not move to California or England,'' she said. ******* If the bill passes in the next legislative session, it seems likely the new governor would sign it. ******* ''Mitt Romney supports stem cell research,'' said Eric Fehrnstrom, the governor-elect's spokesman. ''He believes the growth of our biotech industry at least partially depends on this type of research, and he also has a personal interest because this research might one day produce a therapy to treat his wife's multiple sclerosis.'' ******* The Massachusetts bill would establish a review board that would ensure the scientific merits of stem cell research. It would also create a committee to ''advance'' stem cell research and monitor ethical issues. The committee would advise the commissioner of public health on the distribution of money from the research trust fund. Finally, the bill would ban any cloning intended to reproduce a human being. ******* -- We help more than 25,000 people each week find pregnancy help and information. Every month, women choose life because of Pregnancy Centers Online. Please consider a link to us on your web site at http://www.pregnancycenters.org ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 6 NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE PASSES BILL TO PROMOTE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: New Jersey Right to Life; December 16, 2002 ******* Today, 25 NJ Senators shamefully embraced gruesome and destructive research in which human beings will be experimented on for their desired cells and/or organs. In addition to allowing embryonic human beings left over from infertility clinics to be dissected and killed, S1909 allows the artificial manufacture of cloned human beings to be implanted into a uterus at the embryonic stage and harvested for research and killed at any time from the embryonic period through the ninth month of gestation. Commenting on the legislation, Marie Tasy, Director of Public & Legislative Affairs for New Jersey Right to Life, said, "this is truly mad science." ******* "The sponsors, with the help of biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, have politicized this issue and attempted to persuade public opinion with distortions and false promises of curing 'Superman' and other maladies through this misguided legislation," said Tasy. ******* "The truth of the matter," said Tasy, "is that embryonic stem cells have not helped a single human being, and in fact, have actually led to mutation, tumor formation and tissue rejection in humans." ******* "In their quest for national fame and notoriety, NJ lawmakers have acted irresponsibly to create a foul climate where ghoulish human experimentation and organ harvesting will be performed and human embryo and fetal farms will flourish throughout our state," said Tasy. ******* "Because the prohibited conduct of cloning a human being draws the line only at the newborn stage, abortions including partial birth abortions up to the day of delivery would be authorized under this legislation," noted Tasy. "Under this bill, human lives will be treated as a commodity, creating classes of lesser humans to be sacrificed for the good of humanity," said Tasy. ******* "How ironic that this same body of government which legislated protection for animals and living invertebrate animal organisms is now seeking to make it the public policy of NJ to allow lethal experimentation on living human beings," said Tasy. ******* Tasy said NJRTL would score each Senator's vote and make this information available to NJ registered voters in each of the 40 legislative districts at election time. 25 Senators voted in favor. 15 Abstained 5 Republican Senators voted in favor of S1909. They are: Robert Singer (R-30), Richard Bagger (R-21), Joseph Palaia (R-11), Senator Joseph Kyrillos, who is also State Republican Chairman (R-13), Bill Gormley (R-2), All 20 Democracts voted in favor of S1909. ******* 15 of 20 Republicans abstained on S1909. They are: Senator Diane Allen (R-7), Martha Bark (R-8), John Bennett (R-12), Anthony Bucco (R-25), James Cafiero (R-1), Gerald Cardinale (R-39), Andy Ciesla (R-10), Len Connors (R-9), Peter Inverso (R-14), Walter Kavanaugh (R-16), Leonard Lance (R-23), Robert Littell (R-24), Robert Martin (R-26), John Matheussen (R-4), Henry McNamara (D-40). ******* -- You can help the Pro-Life Infonet by becoming a monthly donor during 2003. Your monthly gift of $10, $50 or more will help us continue to reach tens of thousands of pro-life advocates with timely news and information. ******* Contact [email protected] if you would like to help us out next year. ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 7 U.S. LOSES ABORTION VOTE AT ASIAN POPULATION CONFERENCE ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Associated Press; December 17, 2002 ******* Bangkok, Thailand -- The United States lost an abortion vote at an international conference Tuesday as Asia-Pacific countries rejected the Bush administration's stand against abortion. ******* The vote was held at the end of the U.N.-sponsored Asian and Pacific Population Conference, which adopted a plan of action on population policies in a bid to reduce poverty in the region. ******* U.S. delegates had said some of the wording, including ``reproductive health services'' and ``reproductive rights,'' could be read as advocating abortion and underage sex. However, U.S. demands for changes or deletions were overwhelmingly rejected in a vote that allowed the plan to be adopted as the conference ended Tuesday. ******* ``We wanted a development oriented conference, but the issue we had a heated debate on was abortion and underage sex,'' said Kim Hak-Su, executive secretary of the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. ******* The fifth Asian and Pacific Population conference was attended by UNESCAP's member nations, including the United States, India, Pakistan and China, as well as several activist organizations. ******* Faced with a deadlock, the conference took a vote -- highly unusual at United Nations conferences -- on two key chapters of the plan. The United States lost the first vote 31-1 with two abstentions, and the second 32-1 with two abstentions. ******* The United States ended up agreeing on the plan being adopted without change, said Thoraya Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund. Its concerns about promoting abortion were attached in a separate document that will not affect the plan. ******* The 22-page plan includes a series of recommended steps to implement an international family planning agreement reached in Cairo in 1994. It suggested fighting poverty by concentrating on 12 areas including family planning, commonly used in international documents ot refer to abortion. ******* Population policies ``must encompass the principle of voluntary and informed decision making and choices, the preservation and protection of human rights, including the matters related to reproductive rights and reproductive health services,'' the plan says. ******* The U.S. delegation was not available for comment, but the Americans had said Monday that their government cannot support any program that seems to promote abortion. The Bush administration also prefers that adolescents practice abstinence instead of using condoms to avoid pregnancy. ******* U.S. support for population programs is important for the region. Earlier this month, the Bush administration blocked $34 million in funds appropriated by Congress for the U.N. Population Fund, which supports China's policies of coercive abortion and forced sterilization. ************************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 8 MONTANA HOUSE REVERSES ITSELF ON FETAL PAIN BILL ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Helena Independent Record, Pro-Life Infonet; February 27, 2003 ******* Helena, MT -- In a rare move, a narrow majority of the state House of Representatives reversed itself and voted against a pro-life bill mandating that abortion practitioners offer painkillers for the unborn children of women seeking abortions past the 16th week of pregnancy. ******* House Bill 460, sponsored by pro-life Rep. Penny Morgan, R-Billings, passed the House on a preliminary vote of 52-47 Wednesday. Representatives Dan Hurwitz, Joey Jayne and Paul Clark switched their votes and the House defeated the bill Thursday 46-51. ******* Gregg Trude, executive director of Montana Right to Life, told the Pro-Life Infonet Rep. Jayne indicated she felt unborn children would be harmed by receiving the anesthesia. ******* The legislation would have made it a felony for an abortion practitioner not to offer the pain relief for the baby. ******* "There is scientific evidence to show unborn fetal pain at 12 weeks," Morgan told her colleagues on the House floor. ******* "Compelling evidence in the House Judiciary committee proved that babies feel pain in their mother's wombs," added Julie Millam, director of the Montana Family Coalition. ******* Opponents of the bill said the Legislature has no right to tell doctors how to do their job. They also said the state would be requiring doctors to perform an experimental procedure, since unborn children are not usually given painkillers before they're aborted in Montana. ******* The measure "is absolutely inappropriate for this body," said pro-abortion Rep. Eve Franklin, D-Great Falls. ******* Proponents said the legislation would affect a very small number of abortions, about 135 of the 2,300 abortions performed yearly in Montana. Most women seek abortions before they are 16 weeks pregnant, proponents said. ******* "You should have some compassion for the child inside you that you're about to get rid of," said pro-life Rep. Jeff Pattison, R-Glasgow. ******* Morgan said certain medical journals demonstrate an unborn child's ability to feel pain early in its development. The abortion procedure, which involves dismembering the baby in the womb, is painful and she said painkillers administered to the woman don't reach the baby before the abortion is performed. ******* The final vote on the bill can be viewed at http://data.opi.state.mt.us/legbills/2003/Votes/h044006.txt ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 9 CANADIAN PRO-LIFE GROUP SAYS GRANT PROMOTES ASSISTED SUICIDE ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Pro-Life Infonet; April 23, 2003 ******* Toronto, Canada -- In a letter to the Ontario Minister of Culture, David Tsubouchi, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) President Dr. Barrie deVeber insisted that the Ministry launch a real, impartial investigation into the grant by the Ontario Trillium Foundation to Dying with Dignity (DWD). ******* DWD is the largest organization promoting the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada. ******* DWD newsletters clearly indicate that one of the purposes of the pilot counseling program for which the Ontario Trillium Foundation allocated $177,800 over three years, is to counsel clients in the issues of "Self Deliverance", a euphemism for suicide, created by American euthanasia activist Derek Humphrey. ******* It is clear from DWD newsletters that the program will counsel methods of suicide, something which is prohibited by section 241 of the Canadian Criminal Code. ******* To impart information on methods of suicide, both endangers the law and endangers the lives of vulnerable people, particularly people with disabilities. ******* Despite clear information provided by EPC, both the Trillium Foundation and the Ministry of Culture continue to deny that DWD's intended program contravenes Trillium policies. The issues at stake are serious. Government money should not go towards the programs that include illegal activity. ******* -- Find pro-life books, materials and merchandise at Life Cycle Books. Go to http://www.lifecyclebooks.com ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 10 PRESERVING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ******* By Rory Leishman, The London Free Press - ******* Sunday, May 18, 2003 ******* On June 8, 1999, the Commons voted by the emphatic margin of 216 to 55, in favour of a resolution declaring: "It is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada." ******* The then justice minister, Anne McLellan, led off debate for the government on the resolution. "Let me state again for the record," she said, "that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages." ******* In response to gay rights activists who contend that homosexuals have an equality right to marry on the same basis as heterosexuals, McLellan affirmed: "I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians." She added. "Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." ******* For a Liberal, that's clear, right? The government of Canada, backed by the great majority of the elected representatives of the people of Canada in Parliament, emphatically rejected any change to the traditional definition of a legal marriage. ******* In a genuine democracy, that would settle the matter. But this is Canada. Real democracy no longer exists in this country. We have been subjected, instead, to a nomiocracy -- rule by judges. Under the pretence of upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our unelected and unaccountable rulers on the Supreme Court of Canada have usurped the legislative authority of Parliament to decide key issues of public policy. ******* Now, the courts are set to amend even the legal definition of marriage. In brazen defiance of Parliament, the British Columbia Court of Appeal decreed on May 1 that our elected legislators must recognize same-sex unions as legal marriages. Courts in Ontario and Quebec have made similar rulings. Sometime next year, the Supreme Court of Canada is all but certain to do the same -- order Parliament to amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. ******* Gwen Landolt is thoroughly fed up with the arrogance of our judicial rulers. She is a distinguished constitutional lawyer and National Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada. In a paper entitled, Project Justice: Changing Canada�s Flawed Political and Judicial Systems, she warns that our judge-politicians are out of control: "There are absolutely no checks and balances on our courts, which rightly reason that they can do whatever they please, no matter how spurious their reasoning." ******* Changing the legal definition of marriage is the latest in a long succession of judicial excesses. To curb this attack on democracy, Landolt insists: "We must launch immediately a two-pronged attack on the deeply flawed judicial and legal systems in Canada." ******* First, she calls upon democratically minded Canadians to bombard both the courts and the press with denunciations of judges who usurp the authority of Parliament to determine public policy. ******* Second, she maintains: "Citizens must insist that Parliamentary democracy be restored to Canada by requiring Parliament to act pre-emptively on the marriage issue." To this end, she asks Canadians to summon their MPs to follow up the 1999 resolution on marriage with a legislative enactment reaffirming that marriage is exclusively a union between a man and a woman. ******* Landolt is proposing, and rightly so, "a revolutionary approach" to combating judicial arrogance. "The matter is so grave, the ramification to society so overwhelming," she warns, "that we are obliged to undertake this new approach. The time is now to begin this unique journey to restore democracy to our country. We cannot delay. There is too much at stake." ******* Rory Leishman 836 Wellington St., London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3S7 Home/Office Phone: 519-439-2676 Home Page: www.roryleishman.com ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 11 ROBERT A. JASON'S LETTER ON C-250 + STEPHEN HARPER'S REPLY ******* From: "Robert A Jason" ******* Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 7:15 AM ******* Dear Friends: ******* Here is my latest letter sent to the MPs on C-250, also touching on "same-sex marriage" (all parts of the same 'gay' agenda). The only reply I have received so far is from Stephen Harper, which follows my humble, fervent epistle. Mr. Harper's letter is much appreciated. ******* Cheers, <><> ******* Subject: A PLEA BY A FATHER & GRANDFATHER & TEACHER & CITIZEN TO DEFEAT BILL C-250 ******* From: Robert A. Jason, P.O.Box 549, Fonthill ON L0S 1E0. ******* To: The Honourable Andy Scott and honourable members of the Justice Committee. ******* Dear Sirs: ******* As a father and grandfather and teacher and proud citizen of this wonderful country based on our shared Judeo-Christian heritage, I am most concerned about the private Bill C-250 promoted by Mr. Svend Robinson. I would kindly urge you, indeed implore you, to defeat this dangerous Bill that will help destroy our freedom of speech and our most cherished values we hold so dear. ******* The very preamble of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms states clearly that this nation honours the "Supremacy of God", and the Charter confers clear freedoms of religion. Yet our ultra-liberal courts continue to ignore these parts of the Charter, and instead only promote vague "equality" rights. When the Charter was being debated in 1981, our Prime Minister Jean Chretien (who was Justice Minister at the time) assured the nation seven times that the vague and undefined term "sexual orientation" will not be included in the Charter because it was against the best interests of society. Indeed, the proposal to include "sexual orientation" into the Charter was defeated within the Parliamentary Committee by a 23-2 vote. Thus, "sexual orientation" was kept out of the Charter from the very outset by the Parliament, the representatives of the people of Canada. It was only sneaked in through the back door, later on, by the unelected unaccountable liberal justices of the Supreme Court when they deviously "read in" sexual orientation into the Charter. These surreptitious tactics should not be tolerated and condoned by the people of Canada and the Parliament, the representative of the people. ******* The liberal Justices "read in" the undefined "sexual orientation" on the unproven premise that homosexuals were "born that way", that homosexuality is somehow innate, genetic and immutable. There is no proof for this claim. The Justices did not furnish any proof for this assumption, nor people like Mr Svend Robinson and other gay activists have furnished any documented evidence to the mere assumption that homosexuals were born that way. ******* So, on what basis do you equate the behaviour of homosexuality with the immutable and innate characteristics of race and gender? On what basis would you provide special protections envisioned in C-250 to the behaviour of homosexuality? If you provide special protection to homosexuals who practise the changeable behaviour of homosexuality (after all, even Mr. Robinson was married to a woman at one time, and there are thousands of ex-gays walking around, a living testimony that you can change your so-called "sexual orientation"), then how can you deny an equal protection to those who wish to "marry" more than one person (Polygamy or Polyandry). How can you then rightly deny a father/mother wishing to "marry" their child they love so much (Incest). How can you rightly deny a stranger wishing to "marry" a child he loves so much and where there is mutual consent based on "love" (Pedophilia). And on and on it goes. If you grant a powerful and influential special interest groups like the homosexuals the "right" to marry based on "equality" etc, how can you deny the same right of equality to other groups mentioned above. Aren't you denying their "right" to equality? Aren't you discriminating against them? Don't you have any "feelings" for their "feelings"? Aren't you disrespectful of "diversity" in this country? Aren't you...? I could go on and on. You are opening a Pandora's Box and unleashing upon our nation the wild furies that will be impossible to leash. It will unravel the moral fabric of our society. A veritable moral chaos. The end of our beloved Judeo-Christian civilization which built this great country. ******* I beseech you, in God's name, please defeat this mischievous and dangerous Bill C-250. ******* Thank you and God bless you. ******* Yours sincerely, ******* <><> ---------------------- May 21, 2003 ******* Thank you for your e-mail message concerning Bill C-250, Svend Robinson's Private Member's Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the Canadian Alliance's position on this matter. ******* On October 24th, Bill C-250 was introduced to amend the hate propaganda sections of the Canadian Criminal Code. This was to expand the current definition of protected groups that now include "colour, race, religion or ethnic origin," to also include sexual orientation. ******* While this bill seeks to protect certain members of society, it will have negative consequences on the rights of Canadians to freedom of _expression and religion. We believe this bill should be defeated, because it substantially interferes with the right of religious and educational leaders to communicate essential matters of faith. ******* The Canadian Alliance has always maintained that it is irrelevant what motivates an offender to commit a crime. What is relevant are the facts of the crime and how to appropriately deal with the offender. The Canadian Alliance is in favour of equal treatment of all Canadians under the law. We are working to extend equality and freedom from discrimination to all Canadians. ******* Should you require additional information regarding this bill, you may contact our Senior Justice Critic, Vic Toews. He can be contacted by writing in care of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6, or by e-mail at [email protected]. ******* Thank you again for writing. ******* Sincerely, ******* Stephen Harper, M.P., Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Canadian Alliance ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 12 BRITISH COLUMBIA (CANADA)COURT RE-DEFINES MARRIAGE ******* Reaction of Archdiocese of Vancouver to Court of Appeal Decision The Office of Life and Family of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver has issued the following response to the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Barbeau v. British Columbia (Attorney General). The Archdiocese was a member of the Interfaith Coalition for Marriage, which was granted intervenor status in the case. ******* The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal deals another blow to marriage and the family, already under siege in our society. ******* Every society has recognized marriage as a union between man and woman. Obviously, there is a reason for this: only a man and woman can both conceive and raise their own child. ******* The court attempts to sever the legal connection between marriage and the family, but it cannot change the facts of life. No-one can know all the consequences this decision will have for society. ******* If there is a need for the law to protect a variety of human relationships from economic hardship and unfairness, this can be accomplished without calling those other relationships �marriage,� since marriage is unique. ******* We are deeply concerned for Canada�s future, which can only be as stable as its families. What weakens marriage, weakens the family. ******* We do welcome the fact that all three judges of the court recognized that their decision should not be viewed as compromising the religious and equality rights of those citizens and communities that oppose same-sex marriage, and that it expressly allows the refusal to solemnize same-sex relationships. *************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 13 CANADIAN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT INTRODUCES PRO-ABORTION MOTION IN PARLIAMENT ******* LifeSite Daily News - June 6, 2003 (Abridged) ******* OTTAWA, June 5, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson is once again drawing the ire of family supportive Canadians. Just as his hate crimes Bill C-250 is in its final stages of consideration in Parliament, he has introduced a motion seeking total abortion on demand in Canada. ******* Motion 440, introduced by Robinson Monday, calls on the government to "establish a task force on the integration of abortion into the health delivery system as a medical procedure in accordance with the five principles of the Canada Health Act and ensure Medicare-funded hospital and clinic abortion services exist in all provinces and territories." The motion further asks the government to "increase the proportion of hospitals providing abortions from the current 17% to 33% by 2005" and "ensure that Health Canada adopts a framework on sexual and reproductive health that includes abortion as a safe, legal medical procedure, available to women on demand." ******* Canada already has near abortion on demand with over 115,000 abortions committed each year in hospitals and abortuaries across the country. Robinson's bill would force even more institutions and medical staff to engage in the repugnant practice. With Bill C-250, NDP socialist Robinson is also attempting to crush free _expression and religious freedom by criminalizing criticism of homosexual activity. Robinson is also an activist for euthanasia legalization. ******* See the Order Paper listing all motions: ******* http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/orderpaper/112_2003-06-05/ordpmo112-E.htm *************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 14 FEDERAL COURT DECLINES TO HEAR McCORVEY'S CASE TO OVERTURN ROE ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Associated Press; June 20, 2003 ******* Dallas, TX -- A federal district court dismissed a request by the former ``Jane Roe'' to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago. ******* The court said late Thursday that Norma McCorvey's request wasn't made within a ``reasonable time'' after the 1973 judgment in Roe v. Wade. ******* McCorvey, who joined the pro-life side 10 years ago, filed the ``motion for relief from judgment'' Tuesday, asking the court to reopen the case and conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into scientific and anecdotal evidence that she says shows abortion hurts women. ******* ``Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation,'' Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. ``It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment.'' ******* McCorvey's attorney, Allan Parker, said his client will likely ask the court to reconsider its ruling. ``This is not a case of newly discovered evidence, which must be brought in a short amount of time. It's a case of changed factual conditions and law,'' he said. ******* The change, Parker said, is a 1999 Texas law that allows the state to assume responsibility for unwanted children. Similar laws exist in other states. ******* Parker said one of the determining factors in the court ruling was the burden on women raising unwanted children, but since that factor no longer exists in many states, Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered. ******* Sarah Weddington, the abortion activist and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, said she was delighted but not surprised that McCorvey's request was dismissed. ******* ``It never should have been filed,'' Weddington said Friday. ``Those who filed it got publicity, but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved.'' ******* Federal law allows litigants to petition the court to reopen cases in extraordinary situations, but such requests must be made weeks or months after the judgment, not decades, Godbey wrote. ******* Parker said the court's decision was not a surprise as he expected the case would eventually make it to the Supreme Court. He was surprised, however, by the spee of the court's decision. ******* The Supreme Court decision came after McCorvey had her baby. It was the third child McCorvey put up for adoption; she was a 21-year-old carnival worker at the time. She publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980. ******* Life Cycle Books is North America's premier source of pro-life and abstinence before marriage educational materials. For the lowest prices and widest selection of materials - including over 300 items exclusive to us - visit our web site http://www.lifecyclebooks.com or call us at 1-800-214-5849 for a free copy of our 48 page printed catalog. *************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 15 HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THEIR WAY ******* From: [email protected] ******* Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:49:42 EDT ******* Have you ever heard that old song, "Whatever Lola wants, Lola Gets?" In this day and age it's, "Whatever homosexuals want, homosexuals get." ******* Never, in my wildest projections did I ever think that the sickest people in the country, who account for only 2% of the population, could dictate our moral values. Yet, this is exactly what is happening. ******* And now the Supreme Court has given its blessing to perverted sexual acts that would make normal people want to throw-up. ******* The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas law barring homosexual sex, saying the ban was an "unconstitutional violation of privacy." ******* The 6-3 ruling overturns a 1983 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, that had affirmed the right of states to criminalize homosexual sex. With this decision, the Supreme Court bought into the proposition that morals should change with the times. They agree with liberal Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, who said that the Ten Commandments are outdated. ******* It is apparent that six members of the current Supreme Court DO NOT believe in a higher authority, or they are getting so old that their cerebral arteries have become sclerotic and not enough oxygen is getting to their brain, thus preventing a thoughtful and common sense decision. It has to be one of the two. ******* Even if one does not believe in God and the Holy Bible which pulls no punches in condemning homosexuality, you would think the justices would have the well being of the country in mind, which by the way, they are supposed to, when arriving at decisions. The WELFARE of the United States MUST be taken into consideration in all decisions. ******* To approve of proliferating a deadly disease AIDS and other STDs, is NOT in keeping with the welfare of the country. Just the opposite. Homosexuals are jumping with joy at this decision. Their sick lifestyle has been approved. ******* Now, when the gays' rectum is torn apart and ripped and bleeds and the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases have easy access to the blood stream and they die 20 tears before their time, they can rationalize well, I lead a normal life, even the Supreme Court said so. ******* In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the sodomy law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons" and that homosexuals "are entitled to respect for their private lives." "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy said. ******* This majority opinion makes no sense at all. Of course the state constantly interferes with people's privacy. Has Justice Kennedy ever heard of incest, pedophilia and bestiality? Or, how about calling a prostitute to come to your house? Are we now to assume that these can be done in private? ******* And how does it demean their lives? Who would have ever thought that trying to save lives would be considered a demeaning act? The only thing demeaning is the act, itself. ******* The Center for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4835a1.htm ******* The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association confirmed these statistics in an article published by the homosexual advocacy website 'gaywired' in July 2002. http://www.gaywired.com/storydetail.cfm?Section=76&ID=10732 ******* Medical studies and other evidence indicate that individuals who engage in homosexual behavior experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, multiple sex partners and premature death by up to 20 years. ******* College-aged men who engage in homosexual behavior are at risk of dying up to 20 years younger than other men, according to Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, which reported: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men -- nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." ******* http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxtoshow=&HITS =10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX =&volume=26&firstpage=657&journalcode=intjepid ******* "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is athematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. ******* The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders" - including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse. http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v58n1/abs/yoa9456.html ******* The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." (Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999, http://www.medinstitute.org ) ******* The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." ******* A Detroit homosexual newsmagazine columnist wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships... ******* A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers." http://www.pridesource.com/cgi-bin/article?article=3839978 ******* It is apparent that the six justices who voted to overturn the Texas law on sodomy were absolutely clueless, regarding the health risks. How is it possible that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would willfully be a party to the proliferation of deadly bacteria and viruses? ******* Our founding fathers must be turning over in their graves. Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a suggestion that sodomy, or other perverse sex acts, or freedom to engage in them in private should be allowed. ******* On the contrary, these six justices made a mockery of the Constitution: You have to look no further than the Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ******* Not only does this Court not promote the general welfare of our country. But they are party to its destruction. I guarantee that because of this decision, homosexuals will have a freer hand in public schools in their indoctrination efforts. After all, the Supreme Court gave its blessing, so it must be normal. ******* END RESULT: MORE SUFFERING AND DEATHS. THIS IS IRREFUTABLE. ******* Frank Joseph MD ******* [email protected] ************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 16 EUROPEAN LEGAL BRIEF THREATENED UNITED STATES OVER TEXAS SODOMY LAW ******* Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:17:24 -0700 ******* From: "Austin Ruse -- C-FAM" ******* Dear Colleague, ******* EUROPEAN UNION (EU) and UNITED NATIONS (UN) "law" have now crept into US law. In his decision striking down the Texas sodomy law Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to a legal brief filed by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In her brief, Robinson threatened trouble from Europe for the US if the Texas law was upheld. This is a direct threat to US sovereignty and was agreed to by a majority on the high court. Very very dangerous. ******* Spread the word. ******* Yours sincerely, Austin Ruse, President ******* Action item: Last week we said we would soon ask you to act directly in the United Nations Family Planning Association (UNFPA) debate. The vote in the House of Representatives has been delayed indefinitely, but stay tuned...you will be needed. ____________________________________________________________________________ FRIDAY FAX ******* July 4, 2003 ******* Volume 6, Number 28 ******* European Legal Brief Threatened Trouble for US Over Texas Sodomy Law ******* As debate continues on the significance of the US Supreme Court�s decision to overturn Texas� law against sodomy, it has gone largely unnoticed that the majority�s decision relied on judicial rulings made in Europe and at the United Nations. The pivotal role of international law in the Supreme Court decision seems to confirm the concerns of conservative legal scholars, who have long warned that laws developed in Europe and at the UN could be imposed on the US. The majority opinion was guided, specifically, by the pro-homosexual rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. ******* In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy also refers to a �Friends of the Court� brief submitted by Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which asserts, �This Court should not decide in a vacuum whether criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection. Other nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures have already answered these questions in the affirmative�.This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind.� ******* Robinson�s brief also says, �Legal concepts like �privacy,� �liberty,� and �equality� are not US property, but have global meaning.� Robinson argues that the United States should be �construing these terms in lightof foreign interpretations,� even warning the Supreme Court that �To ignore these precedents virtually ensures that this Court�s ruling will generate controversies with the United State�s closest global allies.� ******* The brief seeks to isolate the Texas law, noting, ��the fifteen member states of the European Union included sexual orientation as an impermissible ground of discrimination in two international instruments. Similarly, five of the six major UN human rights treaties have been interpreted by their respective supervisory organs to cover sexual orientation discrimination.� This last point also troubles conservative scholars, since none of the UN treaties now interpreted as pro-homosexual explicitly mentions sexual orientation. ******* If the Supreme Court continues to be guided by the decisions of the UN and the EU, US recognition of same-sex marriage could eventually follow suit. The Robinson brief cites a number of cases in the United Kingdom, Canada and Israel, which appear to create a foundation for same-sex marriage. In one decision, Israeli Chief Justice Barak wondered how �living together for persons of the same sex [was] different, with regard to the relationship of sharing and harmony and running the social unit, from this life of sharing for heterosexual couples?� According to members of the UK House of Lords, �the concept of �family� is now to be regarded as extending to a homosexual partnership.� ******* Writing in dissent, Justice Scalia condemned the importation of foreign laws into US judicial deliberations: �Constitutional elements do not spring into existence�as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct�. �this Court�should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.�� ******* Copyright � C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required. ******* Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute ******* 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427 New York, New York 10017 ******* Phone: (212) 754-5948 ******* Fax: (212) 754-9291 ******* E-mail: [email protected] ******* Website: www.c-fam.org ************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 17 GRAY DAVIS SIGNS ANTI-PARENT LAW ******* From: [email protected] ******* to: [email protected] ******* Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:10:11 EDT ******* Sent from the Internet (Details) ******* CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES ******* Randy Thomasson, Executive Director ******* www.savecalifornia.com ******* ANTI-FAMILY TO THE END: GRAY DAVIS AUTHORIZES SCHOOL SEX SURVEYS WITHOUT PARENTS' PERMISSION ******* Sacramento - Continuing to offend the majority and pander to liberal special interests, Governor Gray Davis has signed a radical new law that allows public schools to ask students any sex questions imaginable, without parental permission as the current law requires. ******* SB 71, signed Wednesday by Davis, also authorizes "comprehensive" sex education for elementary school students including kindergarteners. The bill, authored by lesbian state Senator Sheila James Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), is supported by Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante and opposed by state Senator Tom McClintock. ******* SB 71 destroys a key parental right in the California Education Code. Where the current law requires schools to obtain written parental permission before sex questions can be asked of schoolchildren, SB 71 allows sex surveys without written consent. "Gray Davis is anti-family to the end", said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families (CCF), a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. "His blatant trampling of parental rights is proof positive that this Governor deserves to be recalled." ******* "For five long years, Gray Davis has been harming marriage and parental rights", said Thomasson. "Now, pandering to the abortion, homosexuality and condom activists who want to indoctrinate children and take away their innocence, Davis is flattening the rights of parents as he wildly careens to the end of his political road." ******* "How is it that written parental permission is required before a child can go on a field trip but no parental permission will be required before children are led on sexual mind trips about losing their virginity, masturbation, homosexuality and cross-dressing?" Thomasson asked. "Is nothing sacred? Whose child it is anyway? SB 71 would violate the indescribable bond between a parent and child. It allows any sex question imaginable to be asked of schoolchildren behind their parents'backs. ******* The existing law, Education Code, Section 51513, protects parents' rights by requiring written permission before any sex tests, questionnaires, surveys or examinations of their children: ******* No test, questionnaire, survey, or examination containing any questions about the pupil's personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, or any questions about the pupil's parents' or guardians' beliefs and practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, shall be administered to any pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, unless the parent or guardian of the pupil is notified in writing that this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination is to be administered and the parent or guardian of the pupil gives written permission for the pupil to take this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination." ******* SB 71 violates parental rights by overriding Section 51513, thus allowing any sex questions of children without written permission from parents, replacing the parental opt-in with a much weaker opt-out. SB 71, page 15, beginning with line 14: ******* b) Notwithstanding Section 51513, anonymous, voluntary, and confidential research and evaluation tools to measure pupils' health behaviors and risks, including tests, questionnaires, and surveys containing age appropriate questions about the pupil's attitudes concerning or practices relating to sex may be administered to any pupil in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, if the parent or guardian is notified in writing that this test, questionnaire, or survey is to be administered and the pupil's parent or guardian is given the opportunity to review the test, questionnaire, or survey and to request in writing that his or her child not participate. ******* "Mere notification is no substitute for asking parental permission," said Thomasson. "Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante have conspired to push sex surveys upon schoolchildren statewide. SB 71 goes around the parents to get to the kids. This attack on the sacred institution of family stinks to high heaven." ******* Loudly opposed by Republican legislators, SB 71 passed the State Legislature with the support of 71 of 73 Democrats and only one Republican, Keith Richman of Granada Hills. Speeches from the Assembly floor debate are posted at www.savecalifornia.com/press/newsreleases/release.cfm?nrid=PR030909B. ******* # # # ******* CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES (CCF) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization serving families in this state and across America. Sign up today for CCF's free email updates at www.savecalifornia.com. Your partnership empowers CCF to work to restore family-friendly values to government and society. Please join with us by sending a gift of any size to: ******* Campaign for California Families ******* Randy Thomasson, Executive Director ******* Fighting to Restore Family-Friendly Values ******* P.O. Box 782, Sacramento, CA 95812 ******* (916) 443-1410 ******* www.savecalifornia.com ******* One hundred percent of CCF's resources can be used to boldly influence government on your family's behalf; therefore gifts are not tax deductible. ********************Subject: Penetrating analysis of judicial activism ************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 18 PENETRATING ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ******* From: Robert A Jason ******* The London Free Press ******* Tuesday, December 16, 2003 ******* By Rory Leishman ******* Robert Martin is a longstanding professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and well known among lawyers as one of the most prominent legal commentators in Canada. Everyone who still appreciates our national heritage of freedom under law should ponder his latest book, aptly entitled, The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada Has Undermined Our Law and our Democracy. ******* With this title, Martin ironically alludes to the assurance by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers on June 14, 1778, that the people had nothing to fear from the powers conferred on the judiciary by the proposed Constitution of the United States. He wrote: "The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." ******* In offering this assurance, Hamilton said he assumed that judges would respect the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the Constitution. He quoted the warning by the Baron de Montesquieu in L'Esprit des Lois: "There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." ******* Likewise, Sir William Blackstone warned in his magisterial 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England that liberty, "cannot subsist long in any state, unless the administration of common justice be in some degree separated both from the legislative and also from the executive power. Were it joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and property, of the subject would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose decisions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by any fundamental principles of law; which, though legislators may depart from, yet judges are bound to observe." ******* Martin contends there is no longer any separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in Canada. "The Supreme Court of Canada now exercises all three sorts of power," he charges, "and, on the basis of Montesquieu's analysis, must be regarded as despotic." ******* Canadian judges used to feel bound to set aside their personal opinions for the purpose of upholding the law as defined by statutes and judicial precedents. This is no longer the case. Under the pretence of upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our arbitrary judges have become a law unto themselves. They do not shrink from unilaterally amending even the most basic laws such as the venerable legal rule that defined marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman. ******* "Every police constable is expected to act within the law and so are judges of the Supreme Court of Canada," Martin observes. "In practice, however, the judges behave as if they possess unlimited power and are not subject to any legal constraints. They amend the Constitution at will, rewriting it or inventing new principles, as if the Constitution were their private possession or plaything." ******* How has the Supreme Court of Canada gotten away with usurping legislative power? Part of the explanation is that most law professors do not object. Martin is one of only a few dissenters. He states: "Canadian university law professors have largely abandoned any pretence at being scholars and have turned themselves into propagandists -- propagandists for the ruling clique and the orthodoxy." ******* Likewise, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Justice Minister Jean Cauchon, Industry Minister Allan Rock, Health Minister Anne McLellan and most other lawyers, inside and outside of politics, relish the increased power that the Supreme Court of Canada has conferred on the legal profession. Most of these same lawyers and Liberal politicians also overtly or covertly share the politically correct, post-modernist and feminist ideology that animates most of our top judges. ******* What can be done to curb the judicial subversion of democracy and the rule of law in Canada? Absolutely nothing, Martin suggests, so long as most Canadians remain complacent. "Absolute power, in Lord Acton's aphorism, corrupts absolutely and the Supreme Court is now absolutely corrupt," he concludes. "This distressing situation will exist only so long as Canadians continue to tolerate it, and Canadians are probably the most tolerant people on earth. There is no virtue in tolerating the intolerable." ******* Rory Leishman ******* 836 Wellington St., ******* London, Ontario, ******* Canada N6A 3S7 ******* Home/Office Phone: 519-439-2676 ******* Home Page: www.roryleishman.com ********************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 19 NEW JERSEY LEGALIZES HUMAN CLONING ******* Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:08:32 EST ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" and "LifeNews.com Report" ******* For news updated throughout the day, visit www.LifeNews.com ******* [Please forward the LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report to your pro-life friends and family. Or, if you know someone who would enjoy receiving our pro-life news daily, email us at [email protected]. Thank you!] ******* Trenton, NJ (LifeNews.com) -- The New Jersey state assembly on Monday by a 41-31 vote passed what pro-life advocates are calling one of the most radical human cloning legalization bills ever proposed. If the bill is signed by the governor, as is expected, it will be legal in New Jersey to implant cloned human embryos into wombs, allow the baby to grow for nine months, and then destroy the unborn child for research. The bill prohibits the use of human cloning for reproductive purposes, but allows cloning to create unborn children only to be killed. Gov. James McGreevey (D) has already said he would sign the bill, saying it provides hope to New Jersey residents suffering from difficult diseases. Pro-life groups say the use of adult stem cells provides a more ethical and effective alternative. "These lawmakers' actions will result in the creation of a foul climate where ghoulish human experimentation and organ harvesting will be performed and human embryo and fetal farms will flourish throughout our state," added Marie Tasy of New Jersey Right to Life. Pro-life advocates in New Jersey will look to Congress to pass a ban on all forms of human cloning as soon as possible to invalidate the New Jersey bill. http://www.lifenews.com/bio180.html ****************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 20 THE DAY THE GATES OF HELL WERE OPENED ******* From: [email protected] ******* Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:11:02 EST ******* Today is the anniversary of the day the Earth stood still and the Heavens trembled, as the highest court in the most powerful nation on the planet, which was founded on Godly principles, decreed on Jan. 22, 1973 that women should have the right to have their unborn child killed, if it would somehow make their lives easier. ******* No more did a mother have to protect her child with her life. If her child was in her way to acquire a job that she wanted, or if her child meant that she would have to put off going to college for awhile, or if it meant that she could not fit into a certain dress on a particular day, or if in any way her child might be thought to be an inconvenience to her, then her child can now be legally killed. ******* At this deadly pronouncement by the Supreme Court, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton who led the Suffrage movement, with tears in their eyes, looked down from the Heavens, as they had called abortions, child murder. Is this why we fought so hard for women's rights, they must have thought. ******* As God wept, satan with all his demon followers had a smile from ear to ear. This was their greatest victory. Human beings, on a scale of life were now a notch below the animal kingdom. ******* The demons prepared for mass arrivals into the flames of hell, because by a vote of seven to two, the gates of hell were opened and out slithered satan, with his entourage -- Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NAF and NOW. ******* The prince of darkness had won the big one, at least for now, as their still remains some people who still honor the sanctity of human life. These people will fight until their dying days to overturn Roe Vs Wade, a decision arrived at – not from the Constitution of the United States, but only in the Imaginations of seven people. ******* And now, thirty-one years later, the anniversary of the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of our country, over 44 million innocent children have been slaughtered in the most horrible manner, literally torn limb from limb, right up to term and even while being born. ******* One has to wonder how a civilized society could condone such brutality and why it was ever allowed in the first place. It's enough to make a grown person cry. ******* In the majority opinion, Roe Vs Wade, they even admitted that no one knows when human life begins. So, did they call in human embryologists to testify since they did not know? They did not. They feared the truth. They had made their decision before hearing the arguments and they didn't want the truth to interfere. They knew that no reputable human embryologist would dare deny that human life begins at conception. ******* Now, with the advent of DNA, did the justices grab their robes, run to their bench and admit that a horrible mistake was made in 1973? After all, that Supreme Court decision was based on a false premise. Again, the answer is no. It is better to have 4,000 children killed every day than to admit the greatest injustice in the history of jurisprudence. ******* Even with the most elaborate ultrasounds that show the child's little fingers and toes and a beating heart, when MOST of these killings are done, does not make them reach for their robes. The justices in 1973 even took into account another false premise -- that abortions were safe. Now, we have overwhelming evidence that they are NOT safe. ******* The biggest mystery to me is how could anyone with just one fiber of common decency left in their entire body could even consider to make the killing of an unborn child legal. To allow defenseless unborn children to be torn apart and killed has got to be, one the most diabolic and repugnant acts ever done, by any person who has walked the face of this earth. ******* Unborn children should not be discriminated against and targeted for death just because they're growing and developing inside their mother's womb, any more than they should be targeted for death after birth, since they are also continuing to grow and develop. The location of the development is inconsequential, and should not be held against unborn children and used as an excuse to kill them. Both unborn and born children cannot survive on their own. ******* To pick out a certain developmental stage to justify the killing is a travesty of justice. It is scientifically unsound and without any semblance of logic, since the development of a human being is a continuum -- zygote, embryo, fetus, child, adolescent and adult. To interrupt this continuum of life at any stage, violates God's will, as he told us: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." For those, who do not believe in God, it violates one's sense of common decency. ******* Abortions are not a private issue concerning a woman's decision. Women cannot take drugs, yet it is their own body. If they are prostitutes, they break the law. I guess this "own body" routine applies only if you want to kill a human being and your own child at that. ******* It's like slavery -- when human beings were not considered whole persons and had no rights and were subject to the will of their owners. It's the most important issue of public principle that America faces today. ******* Are we to be a nation under GOD with compassion, love and decency, or a barbaric nation of degeneracy, which embraces the ideology that one of our freedoms should be TO KILL, if we so choose? ******* Respect for life is a principle and when women are given the power to decide if a helpless baby in their womb is going to die, then don't be so surprised when they think that a child is subject to their will, and kill it five seconds after it's born and throw it in a dumpster, or five years after it's born. The principle of violence is the same. ******* And don't be surprised when the killing of 1.4 million unborn children yearly, becomes a major factor in the public's perception that life is cheap. That perception will be stored in the brain, where it will be retrieved to determine all future actions. ******* Now, we have to suffer the consequences of that perception. Do you like what you hear or read when you turn on the news, or read the newspapers these days? So don't be surprised if a person's disrespect for the sanctity of life rubs off on their children, and don't be surprised when children kill children, or anyone else who get in their way and in general, don't be surprised at anything humans do to humans. ******* Our populace has become so self-indulgent -- what's in it for me -- whatever makes me feel good -- that to kill a human being is secondary to their comfort zone. ******* When organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NAF, NOW and other pro-abortion organizations tell you they are just concerned about women's health -- don't you believe them. They do NOT speak the truth. They have conned the American people. There is MUCH more suffering and deaths due to abortions on demand now, then before the infamous Roe Vs Wade in 1973. ******* We were warned, "Man reaps what he sows." Will we ever learn? ******* Frank Joseph MD ******* [email protected] ******* www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html ****************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 21 PAUL MARTIN (A CATHOLIC?) & MAURICE STRONG & EARTH CHARTER ******* From: "Robert A Jason" ******* Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:00:23 -0500 ******* Dear Friends: ******* Rosemary Underwood, a dear sister in Christ and a warrior fighting the good fight for our noble cause, sent me this eye-popping document today, which I immediately forward to you for your edification. Read and weep as you reflect on what is happening to our beloved Canada based on our glorious Judeo-Christian principles. She describes it below. ******* <><> ---------------- This very revealing document was a hand-out at a seminar I attended last week. Dr. McVety is Chancellor of the Canadian Christian College in Don mills where the seminar took place. � Rosemary ******* Canada�s Commitment to Earth Worship at the Root of Change to Canadian Law Dr. Charles McVety ******* Canada is going through gut wrenching legal changes to foundational laws of the land. These changes are being made without citizen approval or consultation. Why is Canada�s government 1. Redefining marriage 2. criminalizing free speech against immoral sexual behaviour, 3. Criminalizing spanking 4. legalizing stem cell research, 5. decriminalizing marijuana? Canadian �Elitists� have committed this nation to a new spiritual vision of the �Earth Charter�, a new �Global Ethic�, and the �NEW� Ten Commandments that expects to transcend all religions and countries. ******* Our new Prime Minister is fully committed to the implementation of the precepts of the Earth Charter. This spiritual vision was drafted by Mr. Martin�s now Senior Advisor and long term Mentor, Maurice Strong. Strong hired Paul Martin in 1967 as his executive assistant when Mr. Strong was president of Power Corporation. Later Mr. Martin was promoted to President of Canadian Steamship Lines and then purchased the firm in a sweet deal offered by the Power Corporation. The steam ship line is now one of the largest in the world thanks to the $161 Million dollars from the Canadian Government and $100 Million dollars of tax-saving due to the transfer of the registration to Barbados, a country Mr. Martin allowed to remain a tax shelter. Mr. Strong was very good to Paul who was instrumental in making him very wealthy. ******* Maurice Strong is deeply committed to Earth Worship. At his earth summit in 1992 in Rio he stated �We must therefore transform our attitudes and values, and adopt a new respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.� Later he guided the Kyoto accord to implement these �superior laws�. After the Earth Summit he led the Earth Council and drafted the Earth Charter. In the year 2000 he released the Charter by placing it in a replica of the Ark of the Covenant, his �Ark of Hope�. He then pronounced �The real goal of the Earth Charter, is that it will in fact become like the ten commandments.� ******* Mr. Strong uses the University of Peace, Costa Rica, to propagate this new spiritual vision. Strong is the President and UN secretary General, Kofi Annan is the Honourary President. Former CRTC head, Keith Spicer directs their Institute of Media. The University is funded by the Canadian Government that provided $4.5 Million in 2001. ******* In addition Mr. Strong developed Baca Grand, a 100,000 acre �Spiritual Center� in Colorado. After an Earth Worship prophet visited the commune Strong invited to Baca: Lindisfarne Association, the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, the Charmelite Order (Spiritual Life Institute), 200 acres of the Tibetan Monastery, a Tibetan Order of Buddhists; the Village Group (an alternative community); and Rediscovery-Four Corner (a camp for American Indians). More religious centers have been added. *************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 22 JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S DOCUMENTS SHOW ROE V. WADE ALMOST FELL IN 1992 ******* From: [email protected] ******* Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 04:57:35 EST ******* by Steven Ertelt ******* LifeNews.com Editor ******* March 4, 2004 ******* Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The papers of former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, have been opened to the public. The New York Times, which was given first access to the materials, reports that the Roe decision almost fell until Justice Kennedy changed his mind and approached Blackmun with the idea to uphold parts of a pro-life law while keeping Roe's framework intact. ******* According to the Times, Blackmun feared the Roe decision would fall when the Court prepared to hear the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which saw the abortion business take on a pro-life Pennsylvania law limiting abortions. ******* Then, a letter came to Blackmun from Justice Anthony Kennedy saying he had "welcome news." ******* Chief Justice William Rehnquist had assembled a group of five justices, including Kennedy, who were ready to overturn Roe. Justices Byron White, who dissented in Roe along with Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas joined Rehnquist in toppling the pro-abortion case. ******* The court had decided the Casey decision and Rehnquist was hard at work on writing the majority opinion. Then Kennedy backed out. ******* After meeting with Kennedy a short time later the Times reports, Blackmun grabbed a memo pad and wrote, "Roe sound." ******* Nothing in the Blackmun files reveals why Kennedy changed his mind. ******* Kennedy later joined Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia in dissenting in the 2000 Carhart vs. Stenberg decision that overturned a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortions. ******* Some court observers, and pro-abortion groups, have interpreted his dissent as meaning he is ready now to overturn Roe and that pro-life advocates are one vote away from doing so. ******* However, in the Carhart case, "Kennedy did not retreat from his 1992 reaffirmation of Roe as guaranteeing legal access to abortion for any reason up to 'viability,'" explains Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. ******* Blackmun kept thousands of notes, memos and papers that are beginning to reveal some of the behind-the-scenes decision-making at the nation's high court. ******* Some of the boxes of memos contain numerous drafts of the Casey decision with marginal notes showing where sometimes Blackmun agreed with his colleagues and, other times, hoping to change their minds on pivotal issues. ******* As the former legal counsel to the Mayo Clinic, Blackmun appeared to have fallen victim to the fallacy that thousands of women died from botched illegal abortions prior to Roe. He viewed the illegality of abortion as a threat to good medical practice, despite the fact that women have been killed and injured by abortion since legalization. ******* The seeds for Blackmun's defense of abortion as a "privacy right" were sewn years before Roe, according to the Times. ******* Memos the justice wrote to himself prior to the case of United States v. Vuitch, a challenge to the District of Columbia's statute banning abortions, shows he was ready to frame a right to abortion under the privacy rubric. The high court ultimately decided the 1971 case without addressing the constitutional issue of abortion's legality. ******* "Here we go in the abortion field," Blackmun wrote in a self-memo acknowledging that the Supreme Court would soon render a landmark decision on the issue. ******* Blackmun discussed the privacy rights granted for birth control, in the Griswald vs. Connecticut case, and the privacy possession of pornography. ******* These cases "afford potent precedence in the privacy field," he wrote, adding: "I may have to push myself a bit, but I would not be offended by the extension of privacy concepts to the point presented in the present case." ******* Yet, Blackmun later writes that the Roe case almost didn't get a hearing, the Times reports: "I don't know why we didn't set it aside. I think probably the implication, the obvious implication, is that we didn't think it was that important at that time." ******* Regardless of the background scenes that led to the Roe decision, the pro-life community will continue to fight it and seek to overturn what is called the worst Supreme Court decision in history. ******* "[S]even justices took it upon themselves to operate as a super-legislature, effectively amending the Constitution in order to achieve the policy result they desired, which was legalized abortion on demand," NRLC's Johnson says. ******* "They negotiated over the scope of the right that they were inventing, and then argued over what language in the Constitution they could use to justify their policy," Johnson added. "The memoranda between justices that were released with the Marshall papers read like memos among the staffers on a congressional committee, drafting a statute." *************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 23 DO HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHERS' SILENCE? ******* Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 ******* From: "Mission America" ******* Concerned Women for America, July 22, 2004 ******* (Commentary) ******* by Mark Landsbaum ******* U.S. Embassy�s reaction to cruise ship protest should scare us. ******* From Associated Press, July 17, 2004: "Passengers on a gay cruise were greeted by more than 100 protesters as they stepped off their chartered ship Friday in the Bahamas." ******* When we redefine sinful behavior and make it acceptable and normative, we lose our right to complain about it. When we bestow on sinful behavior the status of a �right,� we lose our standing to protest it. But that�s not even the worst of it. ******* In the Bahamas, a crowd of Christians, led by their ministers, recently gathered to protest the arrival of a �gay cruise ship.� The crowd carried banners and chanted, �Gay ways are not God�s ways.� One protester held her nose to show her disapproval. ******* Whether you agree with the type of protest, it is frightening to see how the U.S. Embassy reacted. ******* According to the Associated Press, the embassy, an official U.S. government agency, proclaimed that the homosexual passengers deserved the �right� to visit the Bahamas in peace. ******* That sounds innocent enough at first blush. But think through what it means. ******* Every right that is granted to someone restricts someone else�s behavior. I have the right not to be punched in the nose; consequently you do not have the right to punch me in the nose. My right restricts your behavior. It is something that is unavoidable when it comes to the issue of �rights.� ******* WHAT IT MEANS FOR CHRISTIANS ******* If the homosexuals aboard that cruise ship have a �right� to visit the Bahamas �in peace,� what does that mean for the Christian residents of the Bahamas? ******* The Christians protesting the visit of the homosexual cruise ship clearly disturbed the homosexuals� �peace,� at least in the view of the U.S. Embassy. To guarantee the homosexuals� the �right� to a peaceful visit, the government unmistakably is implying that the Christians do not have the right to protest the homosexuals� lifestyle. ******* This is all the more disturbing because the U.S. Embassy is an arm of the U.S. government, and it is the government�s job to enforce �rights,� and to make sure no one infringes on anyone else�s rights. ******* This also is a frightening, but not entirely unexpected, escalation in the effort to normalize homosexual sin at the expense of religious freedom. ******* According to the U.S. Embassy, homosexuals� rights apparently include being able to go somewhere without being reminded that others find their behavior to be sinful. The unavoidable conclusion is that the previously assumed right of Christians to voice their religious beliefs in public must be infringed upon in order to protect homosexuals� newly proclaimed right to �peace.� ******* If you doubt this, consider that the U.S. Embassy did not proclaim the Bahaman Christians have a right to peacefully protest and express their religious beliefs, only that the homosexuals have a right to go to the Bahamas in �peace.� ******* If this is our government�s position on a landing dock in a foreign country, it is likely to become our government�s position in the public square in our own country. The only question is when. ******* There are consequences when society rejects long-standing standards of behavior and decides that what was sinful and socially unacceptable yesterday has become normal and acceptable today. And when government enters the discussion on the side of newly proclaimed �rights,� such as homosexual behavior, the consequences are ominous. ******* In Canada and Europe, Christians and ministers already have been fined in their private businesses and arrested in church for doing nothing more than repeating the Bible�s condemnation of homosexual sin. In other words, preaching. In our own country, the Supreme Court has granted a new homosexual constitutional �right� to engage in sodomy, an act the Bible calls an abomination before God and an act that less than 50 years ago was illegal in 50 states. Many U.S. cities already are issuing �marriage� licenses to homosexual same-sex couples, despite laws that prohibit the practice. And now the U.S. Senate has voted 50 to 48 against limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. ******* That�s today. Tomorrow, do not be surprised if you quote God from the Bible to say homosexual behavior is sinful and someone from the government knocks on your door to inform you that you have violated a homosexual�s right to �peace.� ******* If that doesn�t sadden you, it should. And if that doesn�t scare you, it will. ----------- ******* Mark Landsbaum is a Christian freelance writer, member of the Evangelical Press Association and former award-winning Los Angeles Times writer from Diamond Bar, California. He writes periodically for Concerned Women for America�s Culture & Family Institute. ---------------------------- ******* Mail service for Mission America provided by American Family Online www.afo.net ******* Mission America www.missionamerica.com *************************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 24 BILL C-25O IS A HATE CRIME AGAINST HETEROSEXUALS ******* The following article is about Bill C-250, Canada's "hate crime law". That law will be used to deny equal justice to "heterosexuals" and to give preferential treatment to homosexuals, lesbians, and others. ******* The article relates C-250 to two murders. *** One was the murder of a 22 year old homosexuals and was widely portrayed in the media as a hate crime. The message was that Mathew Shepard was killed because he was a homosexual. Since then the two men who killed him have stated that the motive was robbery, not hate for homosexuals. ******* The other murder was the sex murder of 13 year old Jesse Mathew Shepard and Jesse Dirkhising by 2 homosexuals. This murder was not widely publicised in the media and was not referred to as a hate crime. Here's the article. ******* item C1 TWO 'GAY'-RELATED MURDERS SHOW WHERE BILL C-250 WILL TAKE US ******* Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 ******* From: "D.Fernandes" ******* Original Message From: Annie Kok [mailto:[email protected]] ******* CHP Communique, Box 4958, Station E. Ottawa ON K1S 5J1 ******* Ph.(819) 669-0673 ******* Fax (819) 669-6498 ******* E-mail:[email protected] ******* Other commentaries can be found at www.chp.ca "CHP Speaks Out" ******* This communique may be copied ******* Vol 9 No 42 November 11, 2002 ******* TWO 'GAY'-RELATED MURDERS SHOW WHERE BILL C-250 WOULD TAKE US ******* by National Leader Ron Gray ******* The month of October brought two sad anniversaries: three years ago, Mathew Shepard and Jesse Dirkhising were murdered. ******* Though the two murders happened in the U.S., they're important as Canada considers Bill C-250 - a proposal to add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected categories under the "hate crimes" sections of our Criminal Code. ******* You probably remember the case of Mathew Shepard: he was a 'gay' 22-year-old college man who was beaten to death in Colorado. It was all over the news for weeks. The media made it a cause celebre, because it was widely assumed to have been a "hate crime" - although it could also have been caused by an excess of what some members of the 'gay' community mistakenly call "love". Most injuries to homosexuals, it turns out, are caused by other homosexuals. ******* But you probably didn't hear about 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising: he was bound with duct tape and sodomized for hours by two homosexual men, who drugged him, went out for sandwiches, and then resumed their sexual abuse until the child died. They used him as a sex toy, and abused him to death. ******* The reason few people know about Jesse Dirkhising is that the 'news' media gave 18 times as much coverage to Mathew Shepard's death as they did to Jesse's. The brutal rape and murder of a child by two homosexuals was regarded as "less important" by the media gatekeepers than the pro-gay propaganda that could be extracted from Shepard's death. ******* Here's the urgent connection to C-250: under this odious law as proposed by Svend Robinson, the courts would be compelled to regard a death like that of Mathew Shepard as "more serious" than the grisly crime against Jesse Dirkhising. ******* That's why C-250 is bad law. *********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 25 THE FALLACY AND SHEER STUPIDITY OF ROE VERSUS WADE - CASE IN POINT, SCOTT PETERSON ******* From: [email protected] ******* Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:29:44 EST ******* Scott Peterson has been found guilty on two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci and unborn son, Conner. ******* Because of California's fetal homicide law, Scott Peterson was convicted of a double Homicide. This is driving Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League and NOW (National Organization of Women) absolutely batty ******* How could this be possible, they lament, since it is lawful to kill unborn children right up to term? ******* I certainly can understand their plight, but I must say that I am relishing in it. They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, that killing a child in the womb would be perfectly legal right up to term. ******* So, how could Scott Peterson be charged with a double homicide, if the unborn child was not a human being? ******* Well, it seems that the only way a person could kill an unborn child and get off scott (pardon the pun) free is if the killing is done by licensed physician, as long as the woman gives her permission. ******* In trying to figure this thing out, the only conclusion that I can arrive at, is that the unborn child is not a human being if the mother wants her child dead, BUT if third party kills the child without permission from the mother, then and only then is the child a human being. ******* Now, let me see if I have this right. An unborn child is a human being and entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if killed, the perpetrator should have the book thrown at him, as in the Peterson case. ******* But if the mother has her unborn child killed because the child would be an inconvenience to her, then that child is no longer a human being. Wow! This is news, a transfiguration right before our very eyes. Now a child -- Now not a child -- just nothing. ******* As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court in 1973 opened up a can of worms because their decision was not based on the Constitution and not based on science. It was based on the warped minds of seven justices and from what I have read, a few of their wives. ******* In the majority opinion it was stated (the vote was 7 to 2) that no one knows when human life begins, thus justifying their conclusion. ******* Could it be the reason they did not know when human life begins was because no "human" embryologist was called in to testify. No reputable human embryologist would dare to deny that human life begins at conception. Hmm, could this be the reason, one was not called to testify? ******* Now that we have DNA which gives the ultimate proof that human life begins at conception, one has to wonder why these justices are not now reversing that horrendous decision in 1973, the same way the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was reversed. This decision declared that black people were not full human beings and therefore could be held as slaves. Sound familiar? ******* Let me give you another example why the 1973 decision was ridiculous and not given much thought as to all of its ramifications, besides not being based on science or anything that's in the Constitution. ******* Picture this: A woman has a husband who is a licensed physician. She told him to kill her unborn child, which is perfectly legal, as the child is not a human being because she gave permission. Her doctor husband also wants to get rid of her because he has met someone else. So instead of doing the abortion in his office or hospital, he takes her to the seashore, where he stabs her in the abdomen. The child dies within minutes. As she is bleeding profusely, to take her out of her misery, he shoots her and then dumps her body with the child still in her womb into the ocean so the sharks and other fish could have a feast. ******* Now, the difference between this hypothetical case and the Scott Peterson case is that the woman gave permission to her doctor husband to kill her child, whereas Laci Peterson did not. So, the doctor according to the law in California and other states which have a similar law, could only be charged with ONE murder. Right? ******* This is what happens when justices on the Supreme Court put their ideology before science and common sense. You wind up with a legal mess. The unborn child in all situations MUST be declared a human being, and not just a human being when killed by an irate husband, such as Scott Peterson. Especially since science with its DNA tells us that human life is created at conception and I also might add the Declaration of Independence: ******* "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ******* Notice -- it does NOT say that all men are "born equal." It says, "all men are CREATED EQUAL (quite a difference) and since it's a scientific fact the human life is created at conception, then unborn children are protected, so says the Declaration of Independence. ******* So, what's the problem -- it's right there in black and white? Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be required reading for all attorneys and judges. ******* If only our judiciary would rely on science and not make up things as they go along, the double homicide under the fetal law would not be open to interpretation. ******* AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS IF THE CHILD IS WANTED OR NOT, OR WANTED DEAD OR NOT AND REGARDLESS WHO KILLS THE CHILD, A PHYSICIAN OR AN IRATE HUSBAND. ******* Then and only then will the conjecture be taken out of the equation, but since we are a society where killing comes easy and we are a self-indulgent country without pity for children who are brutally killed, with many suffering excruciating pain, this common sense and scientific reasoning will never happen unless our country repents this great sin of the American holocaust. ******* If not, there will be standing room only in hell and satan will have a feast day. Oh, I forgot, the hereafter should not be mentioned. Keep it secular and scientific. OK, forget the last sentence. ******* Frank Joseph MD ******* [email protected] ******* www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 26 DISTRICT COURT RULES WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE WARNED OF RISKS OF SURGERY ******* From: [email protected] and http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/14/abortion.consent.ap/index.html ******* Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 ******* A three-judge panel of the 4th District Court has ruled that women should not be warned of the risks of surgery. ******* Wait -- only if the surgery is an abortion. All other surgeries, a warning is imperative, or the doctor will be sued. - Dr. Frank Joseph ******* COURT STRIKES DOWN FLORIDA ABORTION CONSENT ******* Thursday, October 14, 2004 ******* WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) -- A Florida law requiring doctors to give patients specific information about abortion risks and alternatives is unconstitutional, an appeals court ruled Wednesday. ******* Upholding a lower-court ruling, a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal found that the never-enacted law "imposes significant obstacles and burdens upon the pregnant woman which improperly intrude upon the exercise of her choice between abortion and childbirth." ******* Attorney Barry Silver, who represented one of the groups challenging the "Women's Right to Know Act," said it would have required doctors to provide biased, religious and inaccurate information to patients who were seeking an abortion. ******* Silver said doctors would have been required to give patients a state-produced pamphlet saying they could be entitled to government benefits, such as health care, transportation and housing, if they decide against an abortion. ******* "So what it's saying is, 'Have this baby, and you're going to be on the gravy train,"' Silver said. "It's totally, completely skewed to try to convince someone to have a child and it does so by lying." ******* Jackie DiPietre, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health, which defended the law along with the attorney general's office, said state officials plan to discuss whether to appeal. ******* The law was passed in 1997, but an injunction issued by a judge that year kept the state from enforcing it. ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 27 NEW BOOK COULD HAVE "PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS" FOR PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT ******* from Catholic News Agency [email protected] ******* date May 17 - 2005 ******* WASHINGTON DC, USA, May 17 (CNA) - A new book promises to address the important question posed by the pro-life movement�s support for restrictive or �incremental� abortion legislation. ******* Colin Harte�s book, entitled �Changing Unjust Laws Justly: Pro-Life Solidarity with �the Last and Least��, could have �profound implications� for the pro-life movement and the way in which it functions, stated a press release. ******* The main question the book attempts to answer is: What types of legal changes the pro-life movement support if it is not possible to overturn the abortion law altogether? ******* In the 1980s, the author was a committed campaigner within the pro-life movement for legislation to restrict abortion. Harte now argues that there is a fundamental moral problem in supporting laws that grant protection to some unborn children while denying it to others. ******* The Catholic University of America Press will release the book June 29. For information, go to: http://cuapress.cua.edu/BOOKS/viewbook.cfm?Book=HACU ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 28 ONTARIO CAN'T BAN FILMS, COURT RULES ******* From: [email protected] ******* Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 ******* TORONTO - An Ontario court has ruled that the province's Film Review Board can no longer ban films. ******* The decision came Friday in a case against a gay bookstore in Toronto, Glad Day Bookshop, which was charged after agents from the Ontario Film Review Board bought a copy of an unapproved gay pornographic video. ******* The Ontario Superior Court said that forcing distributors to seek approval for a film is a violation of freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ******* The court suspended the board's authority to ban movies for a year, although it will still classify films with ratings such as PG and Restricted. ******* (Yep, in the "Brave New World" of Canada, you cannot ban perversion but you sure can ban the Bible & other religious scriptures condemning perversion - RJ) ********************************************************************************** ******* item 29 HATE CRIME LAWS - GOOD OR BAD? by John Wallace ******* From: Robert A. Jason ******* Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 ******* Political scientist Ronald Prestritto, a professor at St. Vincent College in Pennsylvania has observed that hate crime legislation is a political fad that "seeks to criminalize all feelings, thoughts or attitudes that run contrary to the trends of the day." Typically, hate crime laws have prohibitions against "intimidating" or "coercing" an individual. This could be as simple a thing as quoting the Bible to a homosexual co-worker or leaving a tract about sexual orientation on his desk. ******* James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, writing in Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics notes that hate crime laws are actually aimed at criminalizing a person's personal opinions and beliefs. The authors note that the term "hate crime" is really not about hate at all, but about a persons beliefs about right and wrong. ******* Daniel E. Troy, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute testified how a minority group achieves political power and status, declares itself to be a victim and get laws passed to punish any who will say anything negative about them. He says "Status as a disfavored group paves the way for special protections and special handouts. Thus hate crimes legislation makes crimes into political footballs, further polarizing America (and Canada-JNW) on the basis of group and identity politics." Troy believes that special interest groups want to be proclaimed as victims so they can have special laws, special handouts and special treatment. ******* How did homosexuals get special laws passed like Bill C-250- to prohibit any negative speech about them- by convincing politicians- especially the Liberals and NDP that they are a minority being victimized by the majority. These advocates of hate crime laws see crimes motivated towards homosexuals as the most hateful of all. To illustrate this point, let us look at two recent crimes: the beating unconscious of the truck driver with a brick and dancing with glee by several Los Angeles rioters is not considered by hate crime advocates as very serious because it was motivated by rage over the Rodney King trial verdict; but the murder of Matthew Shepherd was the most heinous crime - according to hate crime advocates- because it was motivated by hate of a homosexual. They believe that extra penalties should be applied for crimes motivated by hate of a minority. ******* Michael Kelly of the Washington Post asked this pointed question: "would it have been less terrible if Shepherd had not been gay? If Herderson and McKinney beat him to death because they hated him personally--- should the law treat them more lightly?" If we agree that extra penalties should be applied because of what they thought while beating Shepherd, we must admit that what people think and feel is a crime, therefore your negative thoughts about a certain minority are illegal. Here is where the "thought police" come in- determining without asking- evil thoughts for saying what you say. Every violent crime is motivated by hate. Why is hate of a certain minority worse than any other hate? ALL HATE IS WRONG. Kelly rightly observes, that hate crime laws treat physical assault differently from other physical assault because of thoughts or feelings while committing the crime. This inequality violates the principle of equality before the law. ******* Hate crime laws are frequently expanded to include co-called hate speech. This would include quoting what the Bible says about sodomy or even what a school child writes in an essay about the negative aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. Canadians have witnessed many innocent people taken before Human Rights Commissions and accused of so-called "hate speech" by the "thought police." ******* The bottom line. What is this world coming to? You can't , out of love for their souls, quote what the Bible says about a certain action, because the "thought police" will have already read your mind- without asking you- and declare your thoughts are hateful. I'm glad everyone does not think this way. Many still recognize a divine standard of right and wrong, and will admit that only God can read our minds. ********************************************************************************************************* ******* item 30 BANNED IN BOSTON - THE COMING CONFLICT BETWEEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY - BY MAGGIE GALLAGHER ******* From: Robert A. Jason ******* Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 ******* CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples." ******* It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, "This is a tragedy for kids." ******* How did this tragedy happen? ******* It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching. ******* Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so. ******* Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith." ******* But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too. ******* Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching. ******* To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state," Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2, "and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important." ******* From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples." ******* This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage. ******* So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come? ******* I PUT THE QUESTION to Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is widely recognized as one of the best religious liberty law firms and the only one that defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, "from Anglicans to Zoroastrians," as its founder Kevin J. Hasson likes to say (referring to actual clients the Becket Fund has defended). ******* Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage? ******* "The impact will be severe and pervasive," Picarello says flatly. "This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations." Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don't even notice that "the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter." ******* For scholars, these will be interesting times: Want to know exactly where the borders of church and state are located? "Wait a few years," Picarello laughs. The flood of litigation surrounding each point of contact will map out the territory. For religious liberty lawyers, there are boom times ahead. As one Becket Fund donor told Picarello ruefully, "At least you know you're not in the buggy whip business." ******* Picarello is a Harvard-trained litigator experienced in religious liberty issues. But predicting the legal consequences of as big a change as gay marriage is a job for more than one mind. So last December, the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: "All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming." ******* These are not necessarily scholars who oppose gay marriage. Chai Feldblum, for example, is a Georgetown law professor who refers to herself as "part of an inner group of public-intellectual movement leaders committed to advancing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual] equality in this country." Marc Stern is the general counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress. Robin Wilson of the University of Maryland law school is undecided on gay marriage. Jonathan Turley of George Washington law school has supported legalizing not only gay marriage but also polygamy. ******* Reading through these and the other scholars' papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead--perhaps because they tended to find it "inconceivable," as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that "a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage." That's a key consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, similarly told me we are a "long way" from equating orientation with race in the law. ******* By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that's pretty close to the world in which they live now. ******* The (Gay) Public Intellectual ******* Of all the scholars who attended, perhaps the most surprising is Chai Feldblum. She is a Georgetown law professor who is highly sought after on civil rights issues, especially gay civil rights. She has drafted many federal bills to prohibit orientation discrimination and innumerable amicus briefs in constitutional cases seeking equality for gay people. I ask her why she decided to make time for a conference on the impact of same-sex marriage on religious liberty. ******* "Not because I was caught up in the panic," she laughs. She'd been thinking through the moral implications of nondiscrimination rules in the law, a lonely undertaking for a gay rights advocate. "Gay rights supporters often try to present these laws as purely neutral and having no moral implications. But not all discrimination is bad," Feldblum points out. In employment law, for instance, "we allow discrimination against people who sexually abuse children, and we don't say 'the only question is can they type' even if they can type really quickly." ******* To get to the point where the law prohibits discrimination, Feldblum says, "there have to be two things: one, a majority of the society believing the characteristic on which the person is being discriminated against is not morally problematic, and, two, enough of a sense of outrage to push past the normal American contract-based approach, where the government doesn't tell you what you can do. There has to be enough outrage to bypass that basic default mode in America. Unlike some of my compatriots in the gay rights movement, I think we advance the cause of gay equality if we make clear there are moral assessments that underlie antidiscrimination laws." ******* But there was a second reason Feldblum made time for this particular conference. She was raised an Orthodox Jew. She wanted to demonstrate respect for religious people and their concerns, to show that the gay community is not monolithic in this regard. ******* "It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?" she writes in her Becket paper. "I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?" ******* To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: "When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians." Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don't matter. ******* "You have to stop, think, and justify the burden each time," says Feldblum. She pauses. "Respect doesn't mean that the religious person should prevail in the right to discriminate--it just means demonstrating a respectful awareness of the religious position." ******* Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win." ******* She pauses over cases like the one at Tufts University, one of many current legal battles in which a Christian group is fighting for the right to limit its leaders to people who subscribe to its particular vision of Christianity. She's uncertain about Catholic Charities of Boston, too: "I do not know the details of that case," she told me. "I do believe a state should be permitted to withhold tax exempt status, as in the Bob Jones case, from a group that is clearly contrary to the state's policy. But to go further and say to a group that it is not permitted to engage in a particular type of work, such as adoptions, unless it also does adoptions for gay couples, that's a heavier hand from the state. And I would hope we could have a dialogue about this and not just accusations of bad faith from either side." ******* But the bottom line for Feldblum is: "Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner." ******* The Litigator ******* Marc Stern has known Chai Feldblum since she was eight years old. "Vivacious, really extraordinary," he says as he smiles, shaking his head at the memories of the little girl whose father he knew well. "Chai is among the most reasonable [gay rights advocates]," he says. "If she's having trouble coming up with cases in which religious liberty should win, we're in trouble." ******* As general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern knows religious liberty law from the inside out. Like Anthony Picarello, he sees the coming conflicts as pervasive. The problem is not that clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages or prevented from preaching their beliefs. Look past those big red herrings: "No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable," he writes in his Becket Fund paper. ******* Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern's big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, "then religious schools are out of business." Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful. ******* Stern agrees with Feldblum that public accommodation laws can and should force truly commercial enterprises to serve all comers. But, he asks, what of other places, such as religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters? Will they be considered by courts to be places of public accommodation, too? Could a religious summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships? ******* "Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like," Stern wrote last December--well before the Boston Catholic Charities story broke. ******* Think about that for a moment. Of all the experts gathered to forecast the impact of gay marriage on religious organizations, no one, not even Stern, brought up adoption licenses. "Government is so pervasive, it's hard to know where the next battle will be," he tells me. "I thought I had a comprehensive catalog, but the adoption license issue didn't occur to me." ******* Will speech against gay marriage be allowed to continue unfettered? "Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy," according to Stern. But it is not entirely certain, he writes, "because sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace principles will likely migrate to suppress any _expression of anti-same-sex-marriage views." Stern suggests how that might work. ******* In the corporate world, the _expression of opposition to gay marriage will be suppressed not by gay ideologues but by corporate lawyers, who will draw the lines least likely to entangle the company in litigation. Stern likens this to "a paroxysm of prophylaxis--banning 'Jesus saves' because someone might take offense." ******* Or consider a recent case at William Paterson University, a state school in New Jersey. A senior faculty member sent out a mass email inviting people to attend movies with a gay theme. A student employee, a 63-year-old Muslim named Jihad Daniel, replied to the professor in a private email asking not to receive messages "about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.'" He went on, "These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned." The result: Daniel received a letter of reprimand for using the "derogatory and demeaning" word "perversions" in violation of state discrimination and harassment regulations. ******* Interestingly, Stern points out, a single "derogatory or demeaning" remark not seeking sexual gratification or threatening a person's job security does not constitute harassment under ordinary federal and state sexual harassment law originally intended to protect women in the workplace. Moreover, Stern says, "our entire free speech regime depends on the principle that no adult has a right to expect the law will protect him from being exposed to disagreeable speech." ******* Except, apparently in New Jersey, where a state attorney general's opinion concluded, "[C]learly speech which violates a nondiscrimination policy is not protected." "This was so 'clear' to the writer," notes Stern, "that she cited not a single case or law review article in support." Ultimately, the school withdrew its reprimand from Daniel's employment file after receiving negative publicity and the threat of a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). ******* Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: "OSU Librarian Slapped with 'Sexual Harassment' Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen." One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel "unsafe." The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped. ******* In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance--you might call it harassment--than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. "Soft" coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people. ******* Finally, I ask Stern the big question on everyone's mind. Religious groups that take government funding will almost certainly be required to play by the nondiscrimination rules, but what about groups that, while receiving no government grants, are tax-exempt? Can a group--a church or religious charity, say--that opposes gay marriage keep its tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law? "That," says Stern, "is the 18 trillion dollar question." ******* Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable that a Christian or Jewish organization that opposed gay marriage might be treated as racist in the public square. Today? It's just not clear. ******* "In Massachusetts I'd be very worried," Stern says finally. The churches themselves might have a First Amendment defense if a state government or state courts tried to withdraw their exemption, he says, but "the parachurch institutions are very much at risk and may be put out of business because of the licensing issues, or for these other reasons--it's very unclear. None of us nonprofits can function without [state] tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs that real estate tax exemption." ******* He blames religious conservatives for adopting the wrong political strategy on gay issues. "Live and let live," he tells me, is the only thing around the world that works. But I ask him point blank what he would say to people who dismiss the threat to free exercise of religion as evangelical hysteria. "It's not hysteria, this is very real," he tells me, "Boston Catholic Charities shows that." ******* Fundamentally, Stern sees this as a "religious war" between people for whom an egalitarian secular ethic is the only rational option and people who can make room for an ethic based on faith in a God who commands. There are very few signs of a willingness to compromise on either side, he notes. ******* "You look around the world and even the right to preach is in doubt," he tells me. "In the United States we are not foreseeably in that position. Fundamentally speech is still safe in the United States. Beyond speech, nothing is safe." ******* The Health Care Law Expert ******* Robin Wilson is an expert in both family law and health care law. So when Anthony Picarello approached her about thinking through the impact gay marriage may have on religious institutions, she had a ready model at hand: the struggles over conscience exemptions in the health care field after Roe v. Wade elevated abortion to a constitutional right. ******* Wilson predicts "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others. Although Roe and Griswold established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman's abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide controversial services, and to force individual health care providers to participate in them." ******* "This litigation after Roe," she says, "provides a convincing prediction about the trajectory that litigation after Goodridge will take" (Goodridge being the Massachusetts supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage). The post-Roe litigation also provides fair warning about the limits of First Amendment protection. The lever used to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions and sterilizations was the receipt of any public money. "Given the status of most churches as state nonprofits and federally tax-exempt organizations, it is likely that public support arguments will be advanced to compel churches to participate in same-sex marriage. Thus, churches in Massachusetts (and perhaps soon other states) may have much to worry about," Wilson writes. "Churches that oppose same-sex marriage today may perceive a credible, palpable threat to their tax-exempt status, the benefits of which are substantial." ******* This threat is credible, she explains, because to be recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must have purposes and activities that do not violate fundamental "public policy," a concept that neither the Supreme Court nor the IRS has fully defined. ******* The case that worries Wilson in this regard is one that Chai Feldblum mentioned: Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the IRS revoked the federal tax exemption of Bob Jones University because the school prohibited interracial marriage and dating among its students. The Court easily dismissed Bob Jones's claim that its prohibition on interracial dating was religiously grounded and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The denial of tax benefits, the Court asserted, would not prevent the school "from observing their religious tenets." ******* Equally, the First Amendment did not prevent religious hospitals from being punished for refusing to perform abortions, once abortion became a constitutional right. It was Congress and state legislatures that stepped in to provide generous statutory religious exemptions. Once gay marriage is legal, it too will probably become fundamental public policy. To protect the tax-exempt status of religious groups that oppose gay marriage will thus likely require legislative intervention to create religious exemptions at either the state or federal level or both, says Wilson. She means the same kind of religious exemption that, to date, no politician in Massachusetts besides the outgoing governor is willing to support. ******* The Legal Eagle ******* Jonathan Turley, the George Washington professor who is a First Amendment specialist, also sees a serious risk ahead. Turley has no problem with gay marriage. But the gay marriage debate, he notes, exposes "long ignored weaknesses in doctrines relating to free speech, free exercise, and the right to association." ******* Before 1970 the law was "viewpoint neutral" with regard to the tax exempt status of all charitable, religious, and public interest organizations under section 501(c)(3), he says. The tax exemption was viewed not as a public subsidy, but as a means of encouraging private donations and charitable conduct in general. In 1971, the IRS issued a decision redefining the tax exemption as a public endorsement or subsidy. This meant that the IRS would strip an organization of its exempt status if its purposes, although legal, were "contrary to public policy." The goal at the time was to use legal pressure to end private racial discrimination. But why stop there? ******* Right now, Turley notes, there is no clear federal public policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But such a policy is imminent, he believes, most likely within the decade. Once that occurs, he agrees with Robin Wilson: "Any organization that engaged in such discrimination as a matter of faith would be in a position similar to Bob Jones University." ******* It's not that hard to imagine: Pass an antidiscrimination law at the federal level, which polls suggest the majority of Americans already support; look for a 5-or 10-point swing in public opinion on gay marriage; then add a new IRS commissioner (not directly accountable to the voters) who wants to make his or her progressive mark, and religious groups would wake up to find themselves playing in a whole new ballgame. ******* Religious bodies may be as simple as the small, independent congregations that exist all over America, but often they are large and complex institutions with extensive property and multiple missions, notably saving souls. Even a slight risk of anything so damaging as the loss of tax-exempt status will persuade many such groups to at least mute their marriage theology in the interest of preserving the rest of their activities. Such a self-imposed muting on the part of faith communities would change our culture of marriage, and our understanding of the free exercise of religion, without necessarily creating visible martyrs. ******* The Consensus Broker ******* Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's influential First Amendment Center, specializes in helping groups in conflict find common ground on First Amendment issues. For example, he recently got the Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Networks (GLSEN) to agree to what he calls "consensus guidelines" for public schools dealing with orientation issues. I went to him for an outside opinion from a First Amendment expert who had not attended the Becket Fund conference. Like every other expert I interviewed, Haynes told me he wasn't concerned that clergy will be forced to marry same sex couples. What about the other potential conflicts? Are they real? "There are already tensions," he tells me. "I think there is a kind of collision course here that is inevitable." ******* For a man in the conciliation business, Haynes doesn't sound optimistic. "I think it's a serious question that will grow more difficult. I think we will have more and more tension between efforts by the state to protect gay rights and the need to protect religious freedom. This will have an impact on religious individuals as well as perhaps religious organizations in areas such as housing, the workplace, hiring." ******* I ask him whether his concerns are shared by the wide spectrum of religious and civil rights groups he deals with. "Everyone's talking about it, thinking about it," Haynes tells me. "There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times." ******* The Marriage Line ******* How much of the coming threat to religious liberty actually stems from same-sex marriage? These experts' comments make clear that it is not only gay marriage, but also the set of ideas that leads to gay marriage--the insistence on one specific vision of gay rights--that has placed church and state on a collision course. Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected status on a par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressures regardless of what courts and Congress do about marriage itself. ******* Nevertheless, marriage is a particularly potent legal "bright line." Support for marriage is firmly established in our legal tradition and in our public policy. After it became apparent that no religious exemption would be available for Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, the church looked hard for legal avenues to continue helping kids without violating Catholic principles. If the stumbling block had been Catholic Charities' unwillingness to place children with single people--or with gay singles--marriage might have provided a legal "safe harbor": Catholic Charities might have been able to specialize in placing children with married couples and thus avoid collision with state laws banning orientation discrimination. After Goodridge, however, "marriage" includes gay marriage, so no such haven would have been available in Massachusetts. ******* Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game. And when we get gay marriage because courts have declared it a constitutional right, the signal is stronger still. ******* The method and the mechanism for achieving protected status may be different for orientation and for race. Even the Massachusetts supreme court, for example, declined to rule explicitly that orientation is a protected class, subject to strict scrutiny. But in Massachusetts, the end result may be similar. If state courts declare gay marriage a constitutional right, they are likely to see support for gay marriage as state public policy. ******* On the cultural level, the declaration by a court that only animus explains why anyone would treat two men differently from a husband and wife represents an unfolding civil rights logic that has real consequences. As Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman put it, "But if you give one church permission to discriminate against gays, what's next? Permission to discriminate against blacks or Jews who want to adopt?" ******* End Game ******* On April 15, the Boston Globe ran a story about three other Catholic adoption agencies, in Worcester, Fall River, and Springfield, that do not do gay adoptions. The story noted that, for now, these agencies will not be punished for their refusal. Constantia Papanikolaou, general counsel for the state Department of Early Education and Care, said her agency is holding off taking any action because the governor has proposed legislation that would provide a religious exemption for adoption agencies. "We're going to wait and see how the legislation plays out," Papanikolaou said. ******* The reprieve is likely to be short-lived. Observers universally say the religious exemption has no chance of passage, and in a few months, Mitt Romney will no longer be governor. What then? The Boston Globe story provides a clue: "Gary Buseck, legal director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston, said his group realizes that Massachusetts will have a new governor next year, and it expects that he or she will aggressively enforce the state's antidiscrimination laws." ******* Marc Stern is looking more and more like a reluctant prophet: "It's going to be a train wreck," he told me in the offices of the American Jewish Congress high above Manhattan. "A very dangerous train wreck. I don't see anyone trying to stem the train wreck, or slow down the trains. Both sides are really looking for Armageddon, and they frankly both want to win. I prefer to avoid Armageddon, if possible." ******* Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (marriagedebate.com) and coauthor of The Case for Marriage. ******* http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1 ******* � Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. ********************************************************************************************************* ******* item 31 U. S. HIGH COURT FIRM ON 1973 ABORTION CASE - By United Press International Staff?******* Date: 11 Oct 2006 ******* From: "GOPUSA News Update" � ******* WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a 1973 ruling and denied an appeal from a Georgia woman who was granted an abortion in a landmark ruling. ******* Sandra Cano of Atlanta was the "Mary Doe" in the Doe vs. Bolton case which was a companion suit to the Roe vs. Wade appeal the court upheld on Jan. 22, 1973, CNN said. ******* The Roe ruling threw out most state restrictions on abortion but the Doe decision permitted abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. ******* Now, Cano said she never wanted an abortion in the first place and was bullied by her lawyer into pressing on with the appeal while she was living in an abusive relationship. ******* However, without issuing any comment or noting any dissent, the high court refused to revisit the case. ******* In February, the court also refused to reopen the Roe vs. Wade appeal, in which Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" Texas resident also sought to overturn the case that gave her the right to an abortion. ********************************************************************************************************* ******* item 32 YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK - HIRING OF CROSS DRESSERS Even Boy Scouts, Bible bookstores subject of California law ��2003�WorldNetDaily.com ******* Posted: April 21, 2003 ******* SACRAMENTO, Calif. � The Democrat-controlled California Assembly passed a bill today mandating fines of up to $150,000 against business owners � including Bible bookstores and nonprofit organizations such as the Boy Scouts � for refusing to hire cross-dressing and transsexual job applicants. ******* After more than 45 minutes of debate, with a majority of speakers opposing the bill, AB 196 passed the Assembly by the narrowest of margins. The vote was 41 to 34, the bare minimum needed to advance the bill to the state Senate. All the "yes" votes on AB 196 were from Democrats. Voting "no" were 31 Republicans and three Democrats � Lou Correa of Santa Ana, Nicole Parra of Bakersfield and Sarah Reyes of Fresno. Abstaining were Republican Bonnie Garcia of El Centro and four Democrats: Ed Chavez of La Puente, Jerome Horton of Inglewood, Barbara Matthews of Stockton and George Nakano of Torrance. ******* Authored by homosexual Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, AB 196 would insert a new definition of "gender" into the powerful state Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill's subjective definition of "gender" is "identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim's sex at birth." Leno has cited reports from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the San Francisco Department of Public Health and several other studies that have documented widespread discrimination against what he calls "transgender people." ******* "In San Francisco studies indicate that the unemployment rate for transgender people is 70 percent," Leno said. "Every Californian deserves the right to a job and to a home. "We must do everything in our power to protect such fundamental human rights," he said. AB 196 would force employers to allow male employees to wear women's clothes and deny religious business owners to follow their own moral convictions opposing cross-dressing or sex changes. "We're going to use the might of government to come forward at this point of time and say you can be fined over a hundred thousand dollars if for some reason the image you want to put forward in your business does not comport to how an employee wants to dress," said Assemblyman Rick Keene of Chico. "I'm urging a 'no' vote." ******* Assemblyman John Campbell of Irvine was one of several members who spoke about how AB 196 further harms California businesses. ******* "This (bill) talks about 'gender,' but in the concept of the individual's perception of their gender, thereby making that protected class something that can change, can come in and out, can go back and forth and is not identifiable through any physical attribute," he said. "This bill will cause untold lawsuits, untold new problems in the workplace and further denies the right of businesses to earn your patronage." ******* Also speaking against AB 196 was Dennis Mountjoy of Monrovia. "If I have a Christian bookstore, how could I possibly follow this law?" he asked. "How could I possibly have an employee that's here today in a dress, tomorrow may come in a suit, and then stay in a dress? How can I possibly employ this employee and still have the Christian bookstore and live by my faith?" ******* "You are messing with people's perception of their souls and their afterlife," said Assemblyman Ray Haynes of Temecula. "You are telling people who sincerely and strongly believe in a faith that they cannot exercise that faith without being forced into bankruptcy or not owning property or not starting a business! You are imposing your belief on what you think their faith ought to say." ******* Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, has so far remained silent on AB 196. ******* "This bill would give drag queens unprecedented power to persecute the Boy Scouts and religious businesses, even the power to shut down a Bible bookstore," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. "People aren't going to sacrifice their dearly-held values. What small business or nonprofit organization could financially survive a government investigation and a $150,000 penalty? AB 196 is grossly intolerant of religious freedom and the Boy Scouts. This radical bill engages in reverse discrimination and would do real harm to persons of conscience." ********************************************************************************************************* *********************************************************************************************************

Links to other sites on the Web

(A4c4a) immoral human reproduction
(A4c4b) Dr. Frank Joseph's web site
(A4c4c) Bill C250 (protecting sodomy in Canada)
(A4c4d) same sex unions
(A4c4e) Operation Outcry (overturning Roe versus Wade)
(A4c4f) (A) home page

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***