Author archives: Family Research Council

Action #5 - Defund Human-Animal Chimera Research

by Family Research Council

December 16, 2016

The Obama administration proposed a new NIH policy, issued on August 5, 2016 that would allow for NIH to fund human-animal chimera research. The proposed scope of funding would include research which attempts to give an animal (a chimp, pig, mouse, etc.) a substantially human brain or the ability to produce human sperm or egg cells, which can affect heredity. This serious violation of bioethics and common human decency could be fixed by simply withdrawing the proposed chimera funding policy.

Action #4 - Withdraw Title X Planned Parenthood Funding

by Family Research Council

December 16, 2016

The Obama administration proposed a rule on September 7, 2016 to block states from defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from Title X. This problematic rule would harm states that have chosen to prioritize family planning funds for health clinics and community health centers that seamlessly offer a full range of healthcare services including family planning, but do not participate in abortion. This problem could be fixed by simply withdrawing the proposed Title X regulation.

Action #3 - Establish Transparency Regarding Obamacare’s Abortion Coverage

by Family Research Council

December 16, 2016

Americans should be informed about whether their Obamacare plans cover abortion or not, especially since even the abortion funding schemes in Obamacare require such notice and a “separate” payment for abortion in such plans. However, the Obama administration implemented rules issued on February 27, 2015 allowing insurers to hide the abortion surcharge in plans that cover abortion, and which are subsidized by federal premium credits. Moreover, the ACA requires multistate plans to provide one pro-life plan in each state. However, rules issued on February 24, 2015 implementing this requirement do not require pro-life plans until next year. Another example of lawlessness is the Obama administration’s rule on October 2, 2013 which allowed federal employee subsidies for health plans with abortion coverage for Members of Congress and their staff, despite current law forbidding such subsidies.

Action #2 - Defund UNFPA

by Family Research Council

December 16, 2016

The Obama administration restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund which funds coercive abortion practices overseas, especially in China. Funding such entities violates current law prohibiting U.S. funds from involvement in coercive abortion practices. One way to fix this problem is to restore President George W. Bush’s State Department restriction on UNFPA funding first issued on July 24, 2002, and continued through fiscal year 2008.

The Top 20 Actions the Trump Administration Must Take in the First 100 Days

by Family Research Council

December 16, 2016

Each presidential administration has the opportunity to impact everyday Americans in significant ways by issuing executive orders, agency regulations, and administrative guidance through memoranda, letters, and other internal documents issued by the agencies and departments of the Executive Branch.

In the last eight years, the Obama administration enacted multiple agency actions that were extra legal or illegal.

Over the next four weeks, we will highlight the top 20 ways that the Trump administration can address values issues through administrative and agency actions in order to repair some of the damage that the Obama administration has inflicted on the dignity of life, natural marriage, and religious liberty.

 

Action #1 – Restore The Mexico City Policy

The Obama administration rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which was first implemented by President Reagan, to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding international organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas. Millions of taxpayer dollars have funded abortion providers like International Planned Parenthood. One way to address the problem of funding abortion providers overseas is to rescind Obama’s Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, issued January 23, 2009, and to restore President George W. Bush’s Memorandum Restoring the Mexico City Policy, issued on March 29, 2001.

Homosexual Activist: Hate Group Charge Doesnt Require Hate

by Family Research Council

August 28, 2012

On August 15, a gunman, apparently hostile to our positions on the issue of homosexuality, shot one of my colleagues in the lobby of the Family Research Council headquarters. In the wake of this attack, even liberal journalists, such as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and James Kirchick (named Journalist of the Year in 2007 by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association), have called on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other homosexual activists to back off on their inflammatory labeling of FRC as an anti-gay hate group.

The SPLC refused. Since SPLC has doubled down on the hate group charge, FRC recently posted a brief response to some of the key charges made by SPLC in support of this defamatory label. At the end, the piece addressed what would seem to be the key issue with the following question and answer:

Does FRC “hate” homosexuals?

As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor—including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as “hate.”

One homosexual blogger (and regular critic of FRC) did a detailed critique of the FRC Issue Brief. To this final point, he emphasized that the SPLC hate group label is not because of our political positions, but because we support those positions by saying things which (they claim) are untrue.

After reiterating this SPLC definition of an anti-gay hate group, the writer then says the following:

Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant.

Say what?

[W]hether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant (emphasis added) to the question of whether we are an anti-gay hate group?

I certainly appreciate the (implicit) concession that FRC may not, in fact, actually hate homosexuals at all.

If you are going to call someone a hate group, however, shouldnt it be a minimum necessary condition that they actually hate someone?

I think this statement—whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant—is what lawyers call an admission against interest. It shows, quite clearly (albeit perhaps accidentally), that the hate group label is not meant to be a description of reality.

That label is, instead, a weapon—merely a tool to be used against certain pro-family groups to cut us out of the public debate on crucial issues. (For example, in a webcast shortly after the SPLCs designation of FRC as a hate group in 2010, SPLC President J. Richard Cohen said, We dont believe these people should be put on TV.) The hate group label is a rhetorical weapon, in the minds of those who coined it—but a weapon nevertheless.

If FRC says things that other people find offensive, such people should say, That offends me (but those same people should also then listen to the explanation). If FRC says things other people think are untrue, such people should say, I don’t believe that (but those same people should then examine the evidence). That is all part of political and social debate.

But when homosexuals and other pro-homosexual activists have been told over and over, first by the SPLC and then by others who parrot their line, that Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group, someone may actually begin to believe that FRC hates homosexuals. And that person may hate us back. But the weapon he uses may not be words.

The debate over homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage must continue, and not be stifled.

The false hate group label must go.

Archives