Category archives: FRC in the News

FRC in the News: July 16, 2013

by Karah Kruger

July 16, 2013

Defending the Religious Liberty of Those Who Defend Us

Ken Blackwell, Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment, wrote an article for Breitbart.com about the recent attacks on religious liberty. It is very obvious that members of our armed forces are the ones experiencing outright suppression of their religious freedoms. Family Research Council recently released a document containing dozens of incidents of hostility toward religious expression, entitled “A Clear and Present Danger.” After citing the story about when Muslim radical Nidal Hasan shot 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, TX, which Obama did not treat as a terrorist attack, Ken gave the following comments:

No wonder even such a measured and sober analyst of public affairs as veteran columnist Michael Barone can describe Obama administration policy bluntly. This Harvard-educated senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute says Mr. Obama’s military policy is: “Christianity bad; Islam good.”

The cover of FRC’s Clear and Present Danger report shows a white cross from the U.S. Cemetery at Normandy. It might as well have shown the Stars of David that are nestled among those beautiful crosses. For Jewish service members have their religious freedom threatened by Obama policies, as well. Now is the time for Congress to act to protect the religious liberties of all those who protect us.”

New Coalition Pushes Back on Obama Admin’s Religious Liberty Failures

Ken Klukowski, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart.com concerning the response lawmakers have received from Obama’s military appointees after Members of Congress sent letters to the Pentagon asking why Pentagon officials were meeting with an anti-Christian activist and how their current stated policies, such as forbidding proselytizing, could be justified with our federal law protecting religious liberty. The three responses tried to assure the lawmakers that they had nothing to worry about. These Secretaries can deny the reality of religious liberty being attacked, but we know that his administration is aggressively against the expression of Christianity, as Obama openly threatened to veto Rep. Fleming’s (R-La.) religious liberty amendment. Ken made the following statements:

…A new coalition—Restore Military Religious Freedom (RMRF)—was announced to secure passage of this new religious-freedom legislation and establish a long-term agenda to protect the First Amendment for those in uniform. The RMRF coalition was launched on Capitol Hill in a press event with Members of Congress and conservative religious-liberty leaders.”

RMRF pledged to organize national support to work with Congress to see these new protections put into law. Military service members put their lives on the line to protect against threats to the freedoms of all Americans, and now lawmakers and policy leaders are returning the favor.”

FRC in the News: July 11, 2013

by Karah Kruger

July 11, 2013

Politifact Deserves ‘Pants on Fire’ on Religious Liberty and Gay Marriage

Ken Klukowski, Family Research Council’s director for the Center of Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart addressing the media’s intentional downplaying of stories of Christians who have experienced persecution due to their opposition to same-sex marriage. We have been hearing about more and more incidents of Christian bakers, florists, and photographers who have been punished because of their refusal to cater to the wedding needs of same-sex couples because of their beliefs. As a result, many liberal media sources have not written on these stories, or have at least made them seem less serious than they actually are. Ken gave the following remarks:

This is a big story—a serious story—and one that you can expect liberal media outlets to ignore or downplay in their efforts to avoid any negative stories involving supporters of traditional marriage. It’s harder to call someone an ignorant bigot when you see them suffering because they’re simply trying to live out their faith in their daily life.”

Reporters without law degrees or law licenses presuming to dismiss the legal judgments of professional attorneys to promote a left-wing media agenda by saying traditional-marriage supporters’ claims are only “half true” might satisfy liberal editors and colleagues, but it is an appalling betrayal of the public trust because it deceives the public on the truth on a matter that impacts many millions of Americans. Such abysmal pseudo-journalism should be spurned for the toxic waste it is.”

Americans seek the news to understand the truth about what’s going on in their world. Some outlets won’t give the people that, which is why we will.”

NC Same-Sex Marriage Case May Endanger Religious Liberty

Ken Klukowski, Family Research Council’s director for the Center of Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart about the recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against North Carolina, challenging their ban on same-sex marriage. Their basis is that North Carolina’s Constitution violates the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, by not allowing homosexuals to marry. ACLU is trying to create a constitutional right for same-sex marriage and strike down all 50 states’ right to choose whether they want same-sex marriage or not. This could be brought before the Supreme Court in the next two years. Ken made the following statements:

Those in the new forms of marriage could demand all public, legal, and taxpayer rights for any marriage unit they choose to create. This could pose profound dangers to religious organizations (such as churches) and individuals (especially business owners) who refuse to recognize or participate in same-sex marriage.”

Already, this issue is moving again through the court system, where its fate is uncertain.”

Transformation Through Christ, Not the State

Rob Schwarzwalder, Family Research Council’s Senior Vice President, wrote an article for Religion Today citing historic examples of communist individuals who claimed that man can achieve self-transformation into an overall improved person through external means, such as good economic or political conditions. Christ teaches just the opposite. It is only through Him that a person can find true fulfillment and change of the heart. We must internalize His law, not just outwardly obey its commands. Rob gave the following comments:

It is noteworthy that socialism, communism, fascism, emperor—worship and all other forms of totalitarianism displace God and elevate the state to His position of primary and central Lordship. Thus, invariably they lead to the crushing of freedom, economic stagnation if not collapse, and power concentrated in the hands of those relatively few who have seized authority and become “more equal than others.” This is because power, materialism, and god-like authority ultimately are irresistible to the unredeemed sons and daughters of Adam or at least to those not penned-in by allegiance to what they believe is a higher power.”

Only God is infinite, which is why He ordained the family and interpersonal friendships: To enable finite and fallible persons who still bear His image to love and care for one another in small, knowable, intimate groups. For example, no one loves any child more than his own – this is an ineradicable feature of human nature. Attempts to change it are futile exercises in self-arrogation.”

Press Conference Media Hits

On Tuesday, July 9, Family Research Council joined Congressmen Fleming, Bridenstine, and Gohmert, and groups concerned about religious liberty, on Capitol Hill to participate in a press conference urging support for Rep. John Fleming’s (R-LA) military religious freedom amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. In addition to the speeches given, Family Research Council released a new report consisting of incidents of hostility toward religious expression in the military. The following news sources covered our event:

CNS News- “There’s a long list of things that have been happening in very recent years that for those who do the most for us – uniformed members – who put their lives on the line and who have done that over 237 years, those who have fought for our religious liberties the most are the ones today who are having those very liberties taken from them,” Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said at the press conference.

The Christian Post- Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of FRC, explained in a statement the purpose of the press conference and its support for the amendment to the NDAA. “We must do all we can to ensure that our service members have the right to practice the very freedoms that they risk their lives to defend,” said Boykin.

Stars and Stripes - “We get calls all the time telling us how bad it is to be a religious person in the military,” said retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, now executive vice president of the conservative Family Research Council. “Political correctness has destroyed the ability to live your faith in the military.”

Navy Times - “The evidence is beginning to point to a clear and present danger to religious liberty in our nation’s military,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. Perkins said there’s a “growing hostility toward religious freedom. Unfortunately, members of the military cannot speak out about these things.”

The Daily Caller - Lawmakers like Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, warned that recent examples in the media about religious freedom in the military could end up keeping people out of the armed forces.“ If this administration is going to continue to tolerate this kind of intolerance, we’re going to lose members of the military that cannot serve if their first amendment rights are not going to be protected with regard to religious,” he said.

The Oklahoman - In a message to the House last month, the Obama administration strongly objected to the language.

By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale and mission accomplishment,” the White House message said.

Bridenstine quoted that message and compared it to a statement made in 1787 by George Washington that purity of morals was “highly conducive to order, subordination and success in the Army.”

I don’t know about you, but I think President Washington was a little more qualified to discuss military matters than our current president,” Bridenstine said.

World Magazine- “We believe that those who are wearing the uniform, those who are putting their lives on the line to protect the religious liberties of all Americans should not themselves have to give up those religious liberties that they are willing to die for,” said Ron Crews, the alliance’s executive director, at a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday.

US News and World Report - The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty said Tuesday it planned to reach out to Christian members of the military in coming months to inform them of their “constitutionally guaranteed religious liberties.” The alliance will connect with those soldiers through its 2,400 member chaplains – which represent nearly half of the total number of chaplains in the military.

They’ll receive a palm card… saying: here are your religious liberties and here is what to do if threatened,” said Ron Crews, the executive director of the alliance, at a press conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday. “They could receive counsel from chaplains, or legal representation.”

Fox News - Perkins and Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, the FRC’s executive vice president, released a nine-page document detailing anti-religious behavior in the military.

Unfortunately, pressures to impose a secular, anti-religious culture on our nation’s military services have intensified tremendously during the Obama Administration,” the FRC report states.

We will stand with servicemembers who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of religious liberty,” Boykin said. ‘We must do all we can to ensure that our servicemembers have the right to practice the very freedoms that they risk their lives to defend.”

The Family Research Council said it is evidence of an attempt to “scrub the military of religious expression, through which the chilling effect of punishment and potential career destruction lie at the back of everyone’s mind.”

The document, titled, “A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military,” dates back to 2005 when Mikey Weinstein became a major critic of the United States Air Force Academy.

The Washington Post - Fleming’s amendment has already passed the House, and a similar amendment by Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has passed the Senate Armed Services Committee. Fleming hopes the Obama administration will leave it intact after saying the amendment “would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.”

We know the president is very uncomfortable with your religious liberty,” Fleming said.

Houston Chronicle - Obama objected to an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow individuals to express their faith. The president said that it would “limit the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units.” According to a White House statement, the provision would have an adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.

At the press conference, Gohmert spoke of the founding fathers and how they were actually able to attend church at the Capitol. The Republican lawmaker believes that the type of intolerance we are seeing mirrors the type of intolerance that forced Pilgrims to flee to America.

FRC in the News: July 3, 2013

by Karah Kruger

July 3, 2013

Pro-Life Bill Protects The Most Vulnerable

Anna Higgins, FRC’s Director for the Center for Human Dignity, wrote an article for Townhall about Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and the fact that babies in the womb at 20 weeks and over are given anesthesia for prenatal surgery.  This fact demonstrates the inconsistency of some in the legislature who are opposed to Rep. Franks bill, yet adhere to the truth that unborn babies feel pain and should receive anesthesia during surgery. Many Americans agree that late-term abortion should be banned, yet some Members of Congress have refused to stand and reflect the majority opinion. Anna gave the following comments:

As a Member of Congress, Ms. Pelosi is well-aware that abortion is a political issue, whether she believes it should be or not. Abortion on demand was imposed by Roe v. Wade and is regulated by states and by Congress. Thus it is her job to represent the people of her district and her job as Minority Leader to represent the Democrats in her caucus. She, like other representatives, must be held accountable to the American people for their support or opposition of legislation put before the House — including bills on abortion. Her avoidance of the issue only drives home the fact that Ms. Pelosi and her allies have no reasonable defense for opposing legislation meant to protect the most vulnerable persons among us.”

Allowing pain-capable children to be dismembered in the womb is an overt violation of human dignity. In this country, of all countries, we can and must do better. We must not allow these barbaric practices to continue and we must hold our representatives accountable in their vote for or against legislation that reflects the will of the people. The passage of H.R. 1797 in the House of Representatives is a positive first step toward ending abortion on pain-capable unborn children. We now look to the Senate to stop future Gosnells and put an end to brutal late-term abortion practices by passing legislation to protect pain-capable children.”

White House Violates Law with Obamacare Delay

Ken Klukowski, FRC’s Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart.com about the Obama administration’s illegal delay of enforcement of the Employer Mandate section of the Affordable Care Act. The White House is beginning to realize that Americans are noticing that their “free” healthcare isn’t so free. The Employer Mandate requires that for companies with 50 or more full-time employees, employers must provide them with health care insurance. The Obama administration has decided not to carry out this mandate until 2015 … in order to manipulate the 2014 midterm elections. Because of the delay, Americans now have to find their own insurance, which leads them right back to the government because many health care insurance providers on the individual market have had to raise their prices due to the mandates and entitlements. They will be forced to purchase insurance from a state-based exchange, where the federal subsidies are from taxpayers. Ken gave the following comments:

In the meantime, though, this will drive millions of Americans onto government-run healthcare, conditioning them to think of it as an entitlement. By promising them all the benefits now but delaying the massive costs until after the 2014 midterm election, Obama and his team hope to buy themselves a couple years to make this system work.”

Bad policy makes for bad politics, however; sooner or later everyone has to pay the piper. Maybe Obama will delay the most onerous parts of Obamacare until after the 2014 elections in an attempt to keep the Senate and retake the House, but it might take a miracle to keep this shell game going until after the 2016 election, when voters decide on a new president and what direction we take as a nation.”

Whether Obamacare remains the law of the land will be at the center of that national discussion for 2016. Suspending the Employer Mandate just added to that debate.”

 

 

FRC in the News: July 1, 2013

by Karah Kruger

July 1, 2013

Halt arbitrary fetal euthanasia: Opposing view

Anna Higgins, FRC’s Director of the Center for Human Dignity, wrote an article for USA Today about the recent passing of the 20 week abortion ban through the House, and the steps other states have taken to follow in that direction. The pro-choice “viability” argument continues to lose credit as technology improves. Babies are able to survive outside the womb at a younger gestation age. Babies also receive anesthesia during surgical procedures while in the womb, another proof they feel pain. While the majority of Americans oppose late-term abortion, proponents for it are now arguing for the case of abnormalities that arise. The following is a quote from her article. She states:

Some say abortion bans at 20 weeks cannot be justified because of fetal abnormalities diagnosed after that time. Allowing late-term abortion for babies with fetal abnormalities confronts us with arbitrary fetal euthanasia. Which conditions? What about Down syndrome? Cleft palate? A missing finger? Ending lives for such things is illegal for children after birth, so why is it acceptable to end their lives before birth?”

Not so Fast: New Supreme Court Filing as California Jumps the Gun on Gay Marriage

Ken Klukowski, FRC’s Director for the Center of Religious Liberty, wrote an article for Breitbart explaining that last Friday the Ninth Circuit issued an order to allow for gay marriage in California, which cannot be done until California officials have the power to do so: 25 days after the decision is handed down, then will an order for possible rehearing be given by the Supreme Court. Lawyers for traditional marriage from Alliance Defending Freedom went to the Supreme Court Saturday to file an emergency application with Justice Anthony Kennedy to restore the rule of law on the Prop 8 case, and to order that California not begin any gay marriages. Here is a portion of what Ken had to say:

 “The lawsuit is not yet over. Yet once again public officials are violating their oaths of office to collaborate with gay-marriage activists to force this issue, seemingly trying to create the impression that this train has left the station and there’s no going back to traditional marriage.”

This may be a preview of coming attractions as the conflict over gay marriage moves to the next level nationally, one that will likely focus on state sovereignty, parental rights, and religious liberty.”

All eyes are on Justice Kennedy to see what he does with this emergency application. And all eyes will likely remain on him as these other issues work through the court system in the next few years.”

A New Dawn for the Defense of Marriage

FRC President Tony Perkins wrote an article for The Christian Post about the hope we have despite the marriage rulings of the Supreme Court last week. These decisions should be used as a motivation for us to fight even harder for our convictions and values. We have seen that our religious freedoms have been attacked, but God has equipped us with the Truth. Tony offered the following enlightening remarks:  

The Court can declare same-sex “marriage” a legal right in the eyes of government, but judges cannot make it morally right in the hearts of the people.”

The Left will say that we are on the wrong side of history, but that doesn’t matter if we’re on the right side of truth…Forty years ago, many people thought – as some might today – that the battle for life was lost. Over time, our movement and technology helped to change people’s hearts and minds to a new understanding of the sanctity of the unborn child. And we will do it again. As more Americans see and feel the erosion of religious liberty, of parental rights, of children’s innocence, and of conscience rights, their opinions will no longer be swayed by emotions and popular opinion – but by the reality of the fundamental harm that same-sex “marriage” poses to society.”

Someday – years from now – when law students are memorizing this date and its importance in American history, what will they say about our movement? That it united together and changed the conversation on marriage? That it refused to quit until it transformed state and federal laws? Hopefully, they will say that you and I stood on truth – and restored marriage and the Author of marriage to their rightful place in American policy.”

FRC in the News Regarding Yesterday’s Supreme Court Marriage Decision

by Karah Kruger

June 27, 2013

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on two very big cases: U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, offered remarks about the SCOTUS ruling on marriage which were picked up by various news networks. They include the following:

USA Today—”The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture, which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married mother and father.”

Washington Times—“The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by refusing to defend the law,California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Associated Press—”While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.”

CNN—”Their refusal to redefine marriage for all states is a major setback for those seeking to redefine natural marriage. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’”

New York Times—“The lines are being drawn between states that stand with natural, traditional marriage and states that redefined it.”

Tony Perkins also wrote an article stressing the inevitable consequences this ruling will bring on society. The article is found in CNSNews. Many questions now arise regarding future litigation. Tony Perkins asks those questions:

The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex “marriages” in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers.”

For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their “marriage?” This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.”

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, was mentioned in the Washington Post. He said:

Advocates of redefining marriage did not get what they wanted today — a declaration that all 50 states must treat same-sex unions as “marriages.” That means that this debate will continue across the country. This is an issue which should be resolved through the democratic process, not the courts.”

In an Associated Press article, he echoed what Tony Perkins said about the court ruling of federal recognition: ‘‘it raises as many questions as it answers.’’

‘Will recognition be based on the law in the state where the marriage was celebrated or the state in which the couple resides?’’ he said. ‘‘The doors may now be wide open for whole new rounds of litigation.’’

Ken Klukowski, Family Research Council’s Director, Center for Religious Liberty, wrote an article that appeared on Breitbart.com. Klukowski defends the fact that Proposition 8 is still California law and explains the outcome of the Court’s decision to dismiss ruling on California’s Proposition 8:

As of today, there is no appellate opinion (meaning an opinion issued by a court of appeals) against Prop 8. The Supreme Court refused to issue one, and threw out the only other one (the Ninth Circuit’s). There is only a trial court opinion. So every agency inCaliforniais legally bound to regard Prop 8 as binding law.”

Since no one who wants to defend Prop 8 has standing to appeal rulings on it to the Ninth Circuit, there will never be such an opinion in the federal court system. So the only way to get an appellate opinion would be in the California state court system. So someone would have to file a lawsuit regarding Prop 8, and then appeal it to a California court of appeals and then maybe to the California Supreme Court. Only when one of those courts hold Prop 8 unconstitutional can the public officials in that state regard it as stricken from the books.”

That litigation could take years. And in the meantime, supporters of traditional marriage can continue making the case for marriage.”

Supreme Court’s Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition

by FRC Media Office

June 26, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings on marriage:

While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.

We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country. However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their ‘marriage?’ This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.

We are disturbed that the court refused to acknowledge that the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to defend Proposition 8. This distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by refusing to defend the law, California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What is inevitable is that the male and female relationship will continue to be uniquely important to the future of society. The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture, which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married mother and father,” Perkins concluded.

Perkins will discuss the Court’s decision today on his daily radio show, Washington Watch, heard daily from 5-6 p.m. Eastern on the American Family Radio network and online at www.TonyPerkins.com.

FRC’s Ken Klukowski, J.D. attended oral arguments. He co-authored a legal brief in the marriage litigation. FRC’s Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., worked with Paul B. Linton, J.D. of the Thomas More Society on FRC’s amicus briefs in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

FRC’s Defense of Marriage Act amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-us-v-windsor

FRC’s Proposition 8 amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-hollingsworth-v-perry

FRC in the News: June 20, 2013

by Karah Kruger

June 20, 2013

Theological Reflections on Homosexuality as We Await the Supreme Court’s Decisions

Rob Schwarzwalder, Senior Vice President of Family Research Council, wrote an article for ReligionToday.com which encompasses several quotes from various Christian thinkers. The overall tone of the article is neither political nor legal; instead, the comments in the article consist of sound theological reflection filled with the compassion and love of Christ towards humanity. As Christians, we believe homosexuality to be a sin that is never to be affirmed, yet God calls us to still love the person and call them to faith in Christ, the only place they will find healing and grace. The following is a quote found in the article:

To affirm sin is to diminish humanity. To affirm righteousness and advocate for it in a spirit of winsome courage is to restore humanity. Believers cannot support homosexuality as a God-glorifying way to live. We recognize humanity most in other people when we see how sin has trapped them, feel empathy for them, and call them to the obedience of faith. This, and no other, is love; this, and nothing else, is compassionate”. – Owen Strachan, Ph.D., assistant professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Boyce College

Rob Schawarzwalder concluded his article with this statement:

Christians can await the Supreme Court’s decision not without concern but without apprehension. We know Him Who both created human sexuality and also overcomes the world.”

FRC in the News: June 18, 2013

by Karah Kruger

June 18, 2013

Peter Sprigg Comments on California’s Proposed Bill to Allow Boys and Girls to Use the Opposite Gender’s Facilities  

Peter Sprigg, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, was quoted on FoxNews.com about California’s decision on allowing boys and girls to use the opposite sex bathroom and locker room in the state’s public schools. The specific legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, would mandate that all California public schools allow students to use the facility that reflects their gender identity. As a result, boys could use the girl’s bathroom and vice versa, just because they perceive themselves as the opposite gender. Peter Sprigg had this to say about the proposed bill: 

It’s being demanded that we affirm that a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man,” he said. “Even though the chromosomes and every sing cell in their body will never change. This is an absurdity.”

Sprigg said it was especially troubling that advocates are using children to push an agenda, and the proposed law is trying to affirm a falsehood.

It’s one thing for an adult to decide they want to be the opposite sex,” he said. ‘But for us to allow children to make these life-altering decisions – and even affirm and celebrate that – is particularly alarming.”

FRC in the News: June 17, 2013

by Karah Kruger

June 17, 2013

Anna Higgins Comments on the Obama Administrations’ Prioritization of Politics over Children

Anna Higgins, FRC’s Director for Human Dignity, was quoted in The Washington Times about the Obama administration abandoning a recent lawsuit that would have stopped the over-the-counter distribution of the abortifacient “Plan B” to girls of any age. Higgins stated:

It’s “a clear example of the administration’s willingness to put politics ahead of the health and safety of little girls. We’re disappointed that this administration has once again sided with its political allies and ignored the safety of girls and the rights of parents.”

The Obama Administration to Make Sure Same-Sex Couples Have Access to All Federal Benefits, Regardless of State Borders

Chris Gacek, FRC’s Senior Fellow of Regulatory Policy, was quoted in The New York Times about same-sex couples receiving benefits on the federal level, if DOMA is overturned, depends on if they reside in a state that currently does or does not allow same-sex marriage. Gacek said the following:

We certainly wouldn’t go for imposing gay marriage on the country administratively,” Mr. Gacek said.

He continued, “Once you open up this can of worms, there are a lot of issues here.”

The Supreme Court Decides to Place a Ban on Patenting Human Genes

David Prentice, FRC’s Senior Fellow and Director of Life Science, was quoted in The Washington Times about the Supreme Court decision to ban the patenting of human genes. Family Research Council also determined the 9-0 ruling as an important legal decision. Prentice made the following statement:

That the patent office approved patents on our genes is a profoundly disturbing idea, as is the idea that someone else can own parts of your body, especially your genetics.”

FRC in the News: May 30, 2013

by Krystle Gabele

May 30, 2013

With the IRS it’s now your money and your life

FRC President Tony Perkins recently wrote an op-ed that appeared on Fox News discussing the recent IRS scandal.  Perkins noted that it is not just the IRS investigating conservative groups, but the overreach into our personal lives as well. 

The vast powers of this agency are not limited to taxing us. They can demand and get a vast amount of information about our personal lives. Applicants seeking to register with IRS were required to divulge what they read, whom they hired, what they talk about, even what they pray about. One pro-life group was instructed to abstain from protesting the abortions performed by Planned Parenthood. In short, they had to agree to give up their constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances as a condition for exemption from taxes. As the editors of the Associated Press are learning, under this administration, First Amendment freedoms of religion, press, assembly, and petition are all at risk.

Preventing the suffering that abortion inflicts

Anna Higgins, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at FRC, wrote an op-ed that was featured in The Washington Times today regarding the pain that is inflicted on unborn children through late-term abortion.  Higgins mentioned, in the light of the Gosnell trial, we should be actively trying to stand for the sanctity of human life by eliminating the practice of late-term abortion.

For too long, we have accepted the violent and inhumane practice of late-term abortion as a “reproductive right” instead of condemning the practice for what it is — a violent assault on the most vulnerable among us. Late-term abortion places women at high risk and violently ends the life of an unborn child who is capable of experiencing pain. Studies have shown that unborn infants can experience pain by at least 20 weeks gestation. This is why fetal anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children who undergo pre-natal surgery. Killing a child in the second or third trimester, and thereby inflicting excruciating pain on him, is unconscionable and disturbing. More compassion is bestowed on animals and convicted criminals.

Archives