Month Archives: February 2007

Baby Amillia Goes Home!

by Family Research Council

February 22, 2007

People everywhere are talking about the baby born after spending less than 22 weeks in her mothers womb. Baby Amillia has been called everything from the pro-life icon, the new poster child for the pro-life movement, miracle baby to small wonder. Her parents are pleased just to hear her name. Yesterday, the Taylors were informed that they could take their daughter home. And even though her development is continually being monitored by medical staff people everywhere are rejoicing at the news.

The media attention Amillia is getting should WAKE UP AMERICA to the fact that life can not be determined merely by length of time in the womb. At 21 weeks, Amillia Taylor was more than just a blob of tissue as the media and pro-choice advocates would want you to believe. Although not fully developed yet, Amillia has attributes of a full term baby only smaller. She had tiny visible toes, wiggly fingers, and a beating heart! Instinctively Amillia knew she had to fight, and fight she did. Doctors are now saying her prognosis is excellent. Amillas continued success embodies the cliche big things come in small packages.

Despite her small package her life has and will continue to have big impact to the pro-life movement. Pro-choice advocates are no longer left to battle a faceless opponent. With every breath taken, Amillia serves as a living testament of what pro-lifers have been saying all along. For those who have closed their eyes and minds to the debate of when true life begins, Amillia is a loud voice resonating in a small body that calls out for us to WAKE UP.

Sadly, amidst the celebration of Amillias progress; her picture on every media outlet across the country, also reminds us of the countless faces we will never see due to those fighting to keep abortion legal. I know not only what Amillias birth does for the pro-life movement and the advancement of womens health, but also what it does for women in the black community. 40% of African Americans have their babies aborted, yet only represent 17% of the U.S. population. That statistic saddens and disturbs me. As the pro-life movement continues, I pray more women realize life begins at conception not at birth.

A recent article written by Dr. Lillie Epps, VP of Urban Development at Care Net highlights the effect abortion has had on the black community. Epps article quotes statistics that point to the continued dangers the option of choice has done to African Americans. Often convinced by political and social leaders many are told and believe the only option is to abort. Its time for leaders of every community to WAKE UP and help pregnant women understand all of their choices.

One day Amillia may have a lot to say to those who believed her life was not worth fighting for. Reaching hearts of individuals one at a time is what we can continue to do, as we pray for Amillia, her family and our country.

Hate Crimes: An American Debate In Paris

by Tony Perkins

February 22, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Since Congress started debating the new hate crimes bill, some people are seeing the French connection. In Paris, an Islamic mosque is suing a magazine for printing cartoons about the prophet Mohammed. The comic was one of twelve that have been published around Europe, but French Muslims say the cartoon is no laughing matter. Lawyers for the Paris Mosque are charging them with slander, a crime thats punishable by six months in jail. If the mosque wins, then its bon voyage for the countrys freedom of speech. Several French citizens support the magazine. One said, If we cant laugh at the terrorists, what weapon is left? Obviously, not all humor is appropriate, but who gets to decide whats acceptable and what isnt? The case against these cartoons has serious consequences for Europe. Hate crimes is definitely making a tour de France, but it could soon become American law. Call your representatives and tell them to vote no on hate crimes legislation in Congress.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. To subscribe to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

Congress Blocks Funding of Baby AIDS Program (Update)

by Family Research Council

February 21, 2007

Last week I wrote about Congress’ de-funding of the Baby AIDS program Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) believed the move was retribution by appropriators for his militant stance on spending, as well as for his criticism of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention while others claimed the initiative was simply an unfortunate casualty of earmark reform.

The new House appropriations chief David Obey (D-WI) even attempted to use this line of reasoning, claiming “Many worthwhile earmarks are not funded in this measure, but we had to take this step to clear the decks, clean up the process and start over.”

But notes Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal, The key language here is not funded in this measure,…

Congressional members, led by appropriators and an army of staff, have already figured out a new way to keep their favors in the money, and it might as well be called 1-800-EARMARKS (which unfortunately is already taken). All across Washington, members are at this moment phoning budget officers at federal agencies—Interior, Defense, HUD, you name it—privately demanding that earmarks in previous legislation be fully renewed again this year.

To ensure this back door option wouldnt be available to Coburn, language was included in the bill that explicitly stated that None of the funds appropriated by this division may be used for the infant AIDS program. Someone at the CDC was apparently still upset over another one of the Senators amendment to move $60 million from the CDC construction program to another AIDS reduction program.

Although the language will try to be overridden, Coburns staff is unsure that the money would actually be used for HIV/AIDS testing and prevention. In a memo to the CDC they wrote:

The $30 million will instead revert to other CDC HIV/AIDS prevention activities, which in recent years have included beachside conferences, flirting classes, erotic writing seminars, zoo trips and other dubious initiatives that do not have the same impact as HIV diagnosis and treatment,” the memo states.

So what would the CDC do with the money? Previous earmarks may offer a clue to what would happen to the funding. Here are just a handful of the activities that the CDC has paid for through the STOP AIDS Project. [Note: I started to post it here but even using asterisks to indicate edits for decency, it was still too filthy and disgusting to put on on this blog. Instead Ill refer you to the Abstinence Clearinghouse website. (Scroll down halfway down the page)]

Keep in mind that these are programs that are being funded with your tax dollars. These are the types of prevention programs that the CDC believes are more worthy of funding than one that protects babies from acquiring HIV.

FRC Blogger’s conference call write-ups

by Jared Bridges

February 21, 2007

Matt Anderson at Mere Orthodoxy has written some summaries (with commentary) of two of our recent FRC Blogger’s Briefing conference calls:

If you’re a socially conservative blogger and would like to join us for some of our conference calls,

with your name and blog information.

Iowa Puts Cloning Bill under the Microscope

by Tony Perkins

February 21, 2007

The state of Iowa is synonymous with farming, but if a dangerous bill passes the House, it could be cloned human embryo farms, not traditional agriculture, that the Hawkeyes will become known for. Yesterday, legislation that would repeal Iowa’s current ban on all human cloning passed through one of the state’s House committees.

The issue is reaching critical importance in the state, as the Senate narrowly voted to lift Iowa’s human cloning ban last week. A vote by the full House is next. Supporters of the bill are using deceptive tactics, similar to the campaign in Missouri, to convince citizens that the bill would not allow human cloning but only permit SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to generate embryonic stem cells.

Unfortunately, what some voters and legislators may not understand through the fog of scientific jargon is that SCNT is human cloning. This fact shouldn’t be lost on the University of Iowa, yet school officials are urging alumni to support the bill, writing, “Opponents of the bill are saying it will lead to human cloning. It [cloning] is unethical, immoral, and we will never support it.” As the University well knows, the bill under consideration will not lead to human cloning, but instead will legally protect human cloning.

Some legislators have been convinced by lobbyists that the SCNT process directly creates stem cells. That’s not true. Under SCNT an embryo is cloned. Period. If the embryo is intended for scientific experiments, that embryo is later destroyed for its stem cells.

SCNT is the same process used to create Dolly the cloned sheep; it’s merely a matter of what’s done with the resulting cloned embryo. Either supporters of the repeal are medically delusional or they are simply bluffing their way into the confidence of state leaders and voters.

Please take a minute to call your representatives at the Iowa State House, (515) 281-3221, and urge them to vote against House File 287.

There Are Some Things Money Cant BuyAnd That Should Include Mastercard

by Tony Perkins

February 20, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

At the Bank of America, interest rates are skyrocketing. But the interest has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the national attention the companys getting for its latest decision. Last week, Bank of America announced that it would start offering credit cards to illegal immigrants. Anywhere from 12 to 20 million people are said to be living in the country illegally, and the bank says its decision will help them put down roots. But the moves caused outrage from lots of citizens who say the bank should not be in the habit of lending to illegalsand that includes lending the wrong impression. Offering them credit only legitimizes millions of lawbreakers. Obviously, the company has a vested interest in expanding their base. But someone should remind them that the Bank of Americaof all placesshouldnt be giving special treatment to people living here illegaly. On an issue like this, banks should only give credit where credit is due.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. To subscribe to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

Elderly Homosexual Atheists Need Not Apply

by Family Research Council

February 20, 2007

If you’re a 72 year-old homosexual who doesn’t believe in God your chances of being elected POTUS are rather slim.That’s one of the conclusions that could be gleaned from a recent Gallup poll on presidential candidates. The poll asked Americans whether they would vote for “a generally well-qualified” presidential candidate nominated by their party with each of the following characteristics: Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, an atheist, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of age, and someone married for the third time. The results:

gallup_20070219_diversity.png

According to Gallup, only about one in five Americans said they would vote for an atheist when the item was first asked in the late 1950s, compared with 45% today. Just 26% said they would support a homosexual presidential candidate in 1978, compared with the current 55%.

(HT: Outside the Beltway)

Coming to a Library Near You…

by Family Research Council

February 20, 2007

Hey kids, want to see a R-rated movie? Whats that? Your parents wont take you to see and the video clerk wont rent it to you because youre under age? No problem. Just get the movie from your local librarian.

Libraries in Johnson County will let anyone, regardless of age, check out an R-rated movie. This news surprised Sally O’Rear. She found out the hard way. She saw her 13-year-old daughter with the movie.

ORear said, I want people to know you can go out there to the library and check these out. I want to be that voice to say, ‘Hey parents wake up. Look this is what’s going on.’”

For O’Rear, it is not so much that the movies are available. She wants the staff to help monitor what kids are doing inside the library. She said, I feel the parents should keep an eye also, but I feel the library needs to put up notification.”

North Liberty librarys assistant director Jennie Garner said, We can’t be baby sitters. We can’t monitor everyone’s age.” Library staff will tell you blocking kids from any material at the library is unconstitutional.

Garner said, Anyone, including minors, has the right to access any materials under the First amendment.”

The American Library Association’s website offers a “sample answer” that librarians can give when parents ask about such policies:

Kids can’t rent R-rated movies at the video store, or buy Playboy at the newsstand. Why won’t you use the same common sense restrictions at my public library?

* Those types of rating systems are voluntary, and libraries make them available to assist parents and others in making decisions for their families and themselves. As librarians, we strongly encourage parents to take an active role in monitoring what their children see and view, but as public employees, it’s not appropriate for librarians to make those decisions for them.

Childless in Seattle

by Tony Perkins

February 19, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

In Washington state, a group of same-sex activists say that if heterosexuals want to protect marriage, theyd better be ready to deliver. Literally. Gregory Gadow is collecting signatures for a proposal that would force newlyweds to have children in their first three years of marriage. If they refused, the law would dissolve their union. Gadow said that if homosexuals cant get married because they cant have kids, then reproducing should be requirement of those who can. The move may be a publicity stunt, but its raised some important questions. In todays world, we increasingly view childrennot as blessingsbut as burdens. How else can we explain the birth rate reaching record lows? While not every married couple can or should have kids, creating and raising the next generation should be high on Americas priority list. Obviously, this proposal is too extreme, but in the end, its an important reminder that our public policy should encourage a pro-procreation environment.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. To subscribe to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

Meet Generation Next

by Family Research Council

February 19, 2007

The Pew Research Center released a survey report that examines how young people ages 18 to 25 view their lives, futures, and politics. The results are alternately fascinating and disheartening:

About half of Gen Nexters say the growing number of immigrants to the U.S. strengthens the country more than any generation. And they also lead the way in their support for gay marriage and acceptance of interracial dating.

Beyond these social issues, their views defy easy categorization. For example, Generation Next is less critical of government regulation of business but also less critical of business itself. And they are the most likely of any generation to support privatization of the Social Security system.

They maintain close contact with parents and family. Roughly eight-in-ten say they talked to their parents in the past day. Nearly three-in-four see their parents at least once a week, and half say they see their parents daily. One reason: money. About three-quarters of Gen Nexters say their parents have helped them financially in the past year.

One-in-five members of Generation Next say they have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic, nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s. And just 4% of Gen Nexters say people in their generation view becoming more spiritual as their most important goal in life.

They are somewhat more interested in keeping up with politics and national affairs than were young people a generation ago. Still, only a third say they follow whats going on in government and public affairs most of the time.

In Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more with the

Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation

Next the least Republican generation.

They use technology and the internet to connect with people in new and distinctive ways. Text messaging, instant messaging and email keep them in constant contact with friends. About half say they sent or received a text message over the phone in the past day, approximately double the proportion of those ages 26-40.

They are the Look at Me generation. Social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and MyYearbook allow individuals to post a personal profile complete with photos and

descriptions of interests and hobbies. A majority of Gen Nexters have used one of these

social networking sites, and more than four-in-ten have created a personal profile.

Their embrace of new technology has made them uniquely aware of its advantages and

disadvantages. They are more likely than older adults to say these cyber-tools make it easier for them to make new friends and help them to stay close to old friends and family. But more than eight-in-ten also acknowledge that these tools make people lazier.

Their parents may not always be pleased by what they see on those visits home: About half of Gen Nexters say they have either gotten a tattoo, dyed their hair an untraditional color, or had a body piercing in a place other than their ear lobe. The most popular are tattoos, which decorate the bodies of more than a third of these young adults.

Voter turnout among young people increased significantly between 2000 and 2004,

interrupting a decades-long decline in turnout among the young. Nonetheless, most members of Generation Next feel removed from the political process. Only about four-in-ten agree with the statement: Its my duty as a citizen to always vote.

They are significantly less cynical about government and political leaders than are other

Americans or the previous generation of young people. A majority of Americans agree with the statement: When something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful, but most Generation Nexters reject this idea.

Their heroes are close and familiar. When asked to name someone they admire, they are

twice as likely as older Americans to name a family member, teacher, or mentor. Moreover, roughly twice as many young people say they most admire an entertainer rather than a political leader.

They are more comfortable with globalization and new ways of doing work. They are the most likely of any age group to say that automation, the outsourcing of jobs, and the growing number of immigrants have helped and not hurt American workers.

Asked about the life goals of those in their age group, most Gen Nexters say their

generations top goals are fortune and fame. Roughly eight-in-ten say people in their

generation think getting rich is either the most important, or second most important, goal in their lives. About half say that becoming famous also is valued highly by fellow Gen

Nexters.

(HT: Jollyblogger)

January 2007 «

» March 2007

Archives