Tag archives: Health Care

Life-Affirming Title X Recipients Will Now Receive Even More Funding Thanks in Part to Planned Parenthood

by Connor Semelsberger

October 1, 2019

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Protect Life Rule, which separates abortion activities from federally-funded family planning clinics, is currently in effect, as further court proceedings play out in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In response to this rule, Planned Parenthood and several pro-abortion states decided that performing abortions is more important than providing family planning services to underserved women when they voluntarily withdrew from the Title X Program on August 19th.

This week, HHS announced that $33.6 million of the funding forfeited by pro-abortion grantees will now be awarded to 50 current Title X grantees that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning.

This supplemental funding will enable current grantees to better meet the family planning needs of underserved women across America. Contrary to what opponents of the Protect Life Rule claim, Title X patient coverage will not suffer. Clinics like Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Centers (RHCs), which do not promote or perform abortions, will now be able to provide high-quality and affordable family planning services to even more women and families in need than they did before.

Here is the list of Planned Parenthood entities and pro-abortion states that chose to reject millions of dollars in federal funding rather than stop referring patients for abortion:

Grantees Voluntarily Terminated

  • AK     Planned Parenthood of Great Northwest & Hawaiian Islands
  • CT     Planned Parenthood of Southern New England
  • ID     Planned Parenthood of Great Northwest & Hawaiian Islands
  • IL     Illinois Department of Health
  • IL     Planned Parenthood of Illinois
  • MA     Health Imperatives Inc.
  • MA     Massachusetts Department of Public Health
  • MD     Maryland Department of Health
  • ME     Family Planning Association of Maine Inc.
  • MN     Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
  • NH     Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
  • NY     Public Health Solutions
  • NY     New York Department of Health
  • OH     Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio
  • OR     Oregon Health Authority
  • UT     Planned Parenthood Association of Utah
  • VT     Vermont Agency of Human Services
  • WA     Washington State Department of Health

Grantees Receiving Supplemental Award

  • AL     Alabama Department of Public Health
  • AR     Arkansas Department of Health
  • AZ     Arizona Family Health Partnership
  • CO     Colorado Department of Public Health
  • CT     Cornell Scott-Hill Health Corporation
  • DC     Unity Health Care Inc.
  • DE     Delaware State Department of Health
  • FL     Primary Care Medical Services of Poinciana Inc.
  • FL     Community Health Centers of Pinellas Inc.
  • GA     Neighborhood Improvement Project Inc.
  • GA     Family Health Centers of Georgia Inc.
  • IA     Family Planning Council of Iowa
  • ID     Idaho Department of Health & Welfare
  • IL     Aunt Martha’s Health and Wellness Inc.
  • IN     Indiana Family Health Council Inc.
  • KS     Kansas Department of Health & Environment
  • KY     Kentucky Cabinet for Health & Family Services
  • MA     Action for Boston Community Development Inc.
  • MD     The Community Clinic Inc.
  • MS     Mississippi State Department of Health
  • MN     Ramsey County
  • MT     Montana Department of Public Health
  • ND     North Dakota Department of Health
  • NE     Family Planning Council of Nebraska
  • NM     New Mexico Department of Health
  • NV     Nevada Primary Care Association
  • NV     City of Carson City
  • NV     Washoe County
  • NV     Southern Nevada Health District
  • NY     The Floating Hospital Inc.
  • OH     Ohio Department of Health
  • OK     Community Health Connection Inc.
  • OK     Oklahoma Department of Health
  • PA     AccessMatters
  • PA     Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania Inc.
  • PA     Maternal and Family Health Services Inc.
  • PA     Adagio Health Inc.
  • RI     Rhode Island Department of Health
  • SC     South Carolina State Department of Health
  • SD     South Dakota Department of Health
  • TN     Tennessee Department of Health
  • TR     FSM Department of Health & Social Affairs
  • TR     Commonwealth Healthcare Corp.
  • TR     Family Planning Association of Puerto Rico
  • TR     American Samoa Medical Center Authority
  • TX     Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas
  • TX     City of El Paso
  • WI     Wisconsin Department of Health Services
  • WV     West Virginia Department of HHS
  • WY     Wyoming Health Council

You may find more information about the Title X program here.

Vermont Nurse Forced to Participate in an Abortion Despite a Conscience Objection

by Connor Semelsberger

August 28, 2019

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced today that they are issuing a violation notice to the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) because they forced a nurse to participate in an abortion despite a conscience objection.

In 2017, UVMMC (located in Burlington, Vt.) began performing abortions on site without notifying their employees. A nurse had expressed objection to assisting in abortions for many years, and was even included on a list of staff with objections. However, UVMMC purposefully assigned the nurse to assist in an abortion despite her objection to the horrific procedure. The nurse did not know that the procedure was an abortion until the nurse walked into the operating room and the abortionist said, “Don’t hate me.” The nurse then objected to assisting in the abortion. There were other staff on site who could have assisted with the abortion, but UVMMC forced the nurse to participate in the abortion or be subject to discipline that could include loss of licensure. In the end, the nurse decided to participate over fear of harsh retaliation by the health center.

Choosing between your sincerely-held religious or moral beliefs and your career is a decision that no health professional should have to make. When someone is pressured to violate their conscience or lose their livelihood, it leaves the health care provider in a situation that creates great emotional and spiritual turmoil. Even though abortion has been legal in America for over 40 years, our federal laws have fortunately protected the conscience rights of health care providers. In the 1970s, the Church Amendments were enacted to protect the conscience rights of individuals and entities that object to performing or assisting in the performance of abortion or sterilization if it would be contrary to the providers’ religious or moral convictions.

On May 9, 2018, the nurse from Vermont filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS. HHS responded by fulfilling their duties to enforce the Church Amendments and launched an investigation into the complaint, contacting UVMMC to seek cooperation, but the hospital refused to conform its policies to the law and would not produce witnesses to be interviewed about this incident. Now, UVMMC has 30 days to notify HHS that they will change their current policies that force staff to participate in abortions and take steps to remedy the effects of their past actions. If they do not comply in this timeframe, they could be barred from the $1.6 million in federal funding they received.

This is now the third conscience compliant that OCR has investigated since President Trump took office. The other complaints dealt with the states of California and Hawaii forcing pregnancy resource centers to post materials that advertise for abortion. Because of action by OCR, both complaints have been resolved. The enforcement of these conscience protections is yet another example of how the Trump administration has followed through in protecting life, conscience, and religious liberty. These enforcement actions should encourage health care providers who feel like their employer is coercing them to participate in an abortion to file a complaint with OCR, for as we see above, the Trump administration will certainly enforce our conscience laws and defend their rights.

Summary of Oral Arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Sebelius

by Travis Weber

March 27, 2014

The post-oral-argument predictions in the Hobby Lobby case will continue to pour out as various entities (more or less interested in the outcome) make guesses about which way the Supreme Court will rule now that the justices have had a chance to quiz the attorneys for each side. The truth is, no one knows what will happen. Nevertheless, several things were noteworthy and other things not noteworthy, about this morning’s arguments. My review of the arguments (with emphasis on noteworthy sections) is below (page numbers are those listed on the Supreme Court’s official transcript).

Arguments began with Paul Clement, the attorney for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, presenting his clients’ case first. After some initial questions about whether Congress meant to include corporations within the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s (RFRA) protections (pp. 4-9), the justices’ opposition to Hobby Lobby’s position predictably centered on what other claims corporations might bring should the Court rule for the Green family and against the government. Justices wondered whether a ruling for Hobby Lobby would lead to corporations objecting on religious grounds to providing vaccinations, blood transfusions, and the like. Hobby Lobby’s attorney Paul Clement disputed this implication, pointing out that the Court could be trusted to wade through these issues under RFRA. Furthermore, if the “parade of horribles” was likely to occur, where was it? RFRA has been around since 1993. Clement pointed that none of the claims over which the justices expressed concern had been brought (or they were brought but didn’t succeed) “notwithstanding the fact that the government concedes that sole proprietorships and partnerships and nonprofit corporations are all protected by RFRA” (pp. 14-15).

Clement was then questioned about how a corporation could exercise religion (pp. 17-21), but the argument drifted off into a discussion of what costs Hobby Lobby would incur if it refused to cover the contraceptives (pp. 17-29). A discussion subsequently ensued about grandfathered health plans, and then moved to the concept of burden shifting between the objecting employer and its employees (pp. 29-38). Clement noted that exemptions are allowed in the conscience law context — if a doctor objects to providing an abortion, the woman is not prevented from obtaining the procedure, but she must go to another provider (p. 38). Clement also pointed out that the government has available to it a less restrictive alternative than the current HHS mandate — allowing employees of objecting corporations to go on the exchanges and subsidizing them like it does for employees at companies with fewer than 50 workers (p. 40).

At this point, the government’s attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, took over and opened by arguing that the requested accommodation’s impact on third parties must be examined (pp. 43-46). He was then pressed by the justices on why the government insisted on hampering for-profit corporate religious exercise but not other religious exercise (pp. 46-49). When Verrilli said the Court had never ruled that corporations had a right to exercise religion, Justice Alito asked if “there’s something about the corporate form per se that is inconsistent with [a] free exercise claim” (p. 46). He followed: “Do you agree … that for­profit corporations must do nothing but maximize profits, they cannot have other aims … including religious aims?” (p. 47) Verrilli said no, but the point was made.

Verrilli then argued that ruling for Hobby Lobby would permit other problematic claims (pp. 52-53). He was pressed about the ability of corporations to have a racial identity (which courts have held), but said such a scenario was different from this case, which involves “exercise of religion — something the courts have never recognized corporations can do (p. 54). However, neither have the courts said corporations can’t engage in religious exercise. He was then pressed by Justice Kennedy about exemptions being given by the government apart from RFRA concerns (pp. 56-58). Verrilli explained that churches were exempt (as they have always been considered special under the law), but argued that the other companies and groups that do not have to pay were not actually subject to “exemptions” but were just categorized differently under the law (pp. 58-59). He was then pressed to explain when the grandfathered plans would end (pp. 59-60) — such continual “grandfathering” with slow and piecemeal implementation demonstrates the lack of a compelling government interest in enforcing the HHS mandate.

Justice Breyer then questioned Verrilli and asked him to explain how the government might meet the contraceptive needs of women less restrictively than enforcing the HHS mandate (pp. 64-69). Justice Kennedy quizzed Verrilli and said that according to the government’s logic, it seemed that a for-profit corporation could be forced to pay for abortions. Verrilli had to admit his logic allowed such a result, but he attempted to minimize the implication by noting there was no such law mandating abortions on the books at this time (p. 75). He followed by pointing out that the federal and state laws regarding abortion don’t consider the “particular forms of contraception” at issue in this case to cause abortions (pp. 75-77).

Verrilli had trouble batting away hypotheticals from Justices Alito and Breyer showing the problems corporations may face in bringing religious exercise claims (should the government win in this case) challenging laws banning kosher or halal slaughter methods (pp. 78-81). He concluded by pointing out that companies were going into the public sphere, and this would be the first time a company could be permitted to override statutory benefits under a Free Exercise or RFRA claim (p. 81). At the last moment, Verrilli was questioned by Justice Scalia about the government’s claim that it was not drawing a distinction between for-profits and non-profits (p. 82). Justice Scalia quite rightly noticed differences with how the government was treating the two groups (p. 82).

Paul Clement then had the last word. During his few minutes of rebuttal argument, Clement pointed out that Congress has applied the abortion conscience laws to all providers, including for-profit providers. But if Congress changed those laws, the government (according to its argument today) would take the position that RFRA does not apply to protect providers objecting on conscience grounds (p. 83). Clement also reminded the Court that if the government is going to burden religious exercise, its regulation has to do so in the least restrictive way. In this regard, Title X already provides for contraception coverage, so the government could provide contraceptive coverage through Title X (pp. 83-86). He also reminded the Court of one point Hobby Lobby already made in its brief — the government could simply pay for the contraceptives (p. 86). Clement concluded by noting that Congress has already spoken in an abundantly clear manner on the issue of religious freedom when it passed RFRA, but “[h]ere the agency has decided that it’s going to accommodate a subset of the persons protected by RFRA. In a choice between what Congress has provided and what the agency has done, the answer is clear” (p. 87).

With that, the arguments were concluded. A written decision in the case is expected in June 2014.

Who would want to get married today?

by Robert Morrison

November 25, 2013

With the mounting concerns over the “debacle” of ObamaCare, with Iran given permission to retain their nuclear program provided they “freeze” just certain portions of it, the world looks like a threatening place. So, who would want to marry and bring children into such a world, beset by economic worries, dogged by environmental concerns and living as we do under what President Kennedy called “a nuclear sword of Damocles”?

Well, things didn’t seem a whole lot brighter in 1978. Thirty-five years ago, my fiancee and I prepared for our wedding in San Francisco. The weather that entire week was gray and menacing. So somber was the mood. Hundreds of bodies were being returned to the Bay Area from Jonestown where people had been forced to drink poison Kool-Aid. The aftermath of that suicide cult hung over the city like a pall. Then, too the day after we exchanged our vows in dear old St. Paulus Evangelical Lutheran Church, we began our honeymoon in an Alpine village in Southern California’s San Bernardino Mountains. It was there we saw the news. San Francisco’s Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk had been assassinated.

The first good news we had from the outside world came on the third day of our getaway. We sat at a picnic table surrounded by snow-covered mountains and saw the newspaper headlines: “Pope on a Slope.” Pope John Paul II had been elected just six weeks earlier. There was great excitement around the world for this dynamic new leader on the world stage. Even as non-Catholics, we shared in the enthusiasm for the Polish Pope. Whoever heard of a Pope who skiied?

In the thirty-five years since that wedding day, we have had the usual portion of joys and sorrows. We have endured the loss of beloved parents and the death of a 16-year old cousin. We have had to cope with financial gains and losses. Was there something in those vows about for “not-so-richer or poorer”?

I had always been taught that a man should lay down his life for his wife. And I was prepared to do just that.

So imagine my surprise when I found my wife saving my life. I had just turned forty when I was stricken with a violent headache. It felt as if there were nine-inch nails being driven into my skull.

Rushed to the Emergency Room at Bethesda Naval Hospital, my wife, an officer in the Medical Service Corps, waited in the ER with our two small children for long hours for a diagnosis. Despite the lateness and the children crying in the summer’s heat, my wife pressed them to give me a spinal tap. The test results confirmed that I had viral meningitis.

Told there were no beds available for me at the hospital, my wife stubbornly refused to let me be taken to a local civilian hospital. She has often said that she wasn’t sure we had insurance for such treatment, but I know she did not want me taken to a place where she did not know the medical staff and their reputations. Emphatically, she told them she was a staff officer and knew there had to be a bed somewhere in the giant facility.

I awoke several days later in the Neuro Step-Down Unit. I was surrounded by dying patients. Naturally, I assumed I was one of them. It’s an experience you tend to remember.

Some time later, when I was out immediate danger, the navy doctors and my wife crowded around my hospital bed in their crisp, starched whites.

He’ll have short-term memory lapses. He’ll be emotional. And irritable,” they told her. Not skipping a beat, my beloved shot back: “And the difference I am supposed to notice in him is what?” One of the best ways to cross that threshold back from death’s door, I submit, is a good laugh.

Throughout our marriage — when children and grandchildren came and when we were earnestly praying for their safety — we remembered the words of that Polish Pope when he was first brought out onto the balcony of St. Peter’s in Rome. I had not heard the words, but read them from the clickety-clack of a teletype machine as it printed its message on a roll of yellow paper. I was on board our Coast Guard cutter, in the middle of the Bering Sea, about as far away from Rome as you can get.

The Pope spoke to the City and to the World and said:

Be Not Afraid!

Those words sustained us in our marriage. After four hundred twenty months of marriage, those are words I would still share with today’s young people: Trust in God and trust in your love for each other. Go ahead boldly and be not afraid.

Sebelius and Transparency at the Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing

by Bethany Brock

November 1, 2013

On Wedneday morning, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the roll-out debacle of Obamacare. Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) called the members of the Committee to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing was to “achieve fairness for the American people, and transparency” in the flawed launch of HealthCare.gov.”

Americans were assured that their experience would be equivalent to other online experiences such as booking a flight or ordering pizza,” Upton said as he looked straight at Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  “Today’s hearing is about fairness for the American people who are losing their coverage or seeing their premium skyrocket as high as 400 percent,” Upton said.

Once Sebelius was sworn in and seated before the Committee, the room stilled, reporters positioned cameras and prepared notepads, and all waited with anticipation.

In the summary of her written statement, Sebelius apologized for the flawed launch of HealthCare.gov. She agreed that the flawed launch was a “miserably frustrating experience,” and affirmed the American people that they deserved better. In addition to reporters, interns, and Hill staffers attending the hearing, the members of the gallery ranged from veterans wearing Vietnam or Korea ball caps to tourists who came to the hearing in jeans and tennis shoes.

Questions from members of the Energy and Commerce Committee ranged in topics from the security of Americans’ personal information, the cost of the creation and the maintenance of the website, the lack of freedom in choosing health care options, to how the HHS plans to deal with the November 30 deadline for nationwide coverage.

When Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked a question about the cost of the website, she requested that it be pulled up live. As everyone looked towards the screen, HealthCare.gov appeared with a page saying that the system was down.  Blackburn asked for a ballpark price for this disabled website; and Sebelius reported that this non-functioning website cost $118 million and has cost an additional $56 million to fix so far. This report was met with a noticeable rise in tension and awkward glances around to gauge others’ reactions.

Overall, the atmosphere of the room was inquisitive and people seemed genuinely interested to get answers on the Obamacare .

One question, however, that didn’t receive a clear answer was Rep. John Shimkus’s (R-Ill) transparency question. Shimkus asked if the American people would be able to see which healthcare plans in the federal exchange offer abortion coverage, and if Sebelius would provide committee members a list of these plans.  Sebelius said she “thought” she could provide a list and when pressed further said, “Sir, I can’t tell you what I don’t firmly know right now.” As the time expired, and the floor was given to another congress member for questioning, this question was left with an unsatisfied silence.

Three Cheers for the Santa Clara Broncos (and not for a sports victory)!

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 16, 2013

Santa Clara University, a Jesuit school located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay, “is dropping coverage for elective abortions under health insurance for its faculty and staff members.”

According to the Los Angeles Times,Santa Clara president Michael Engh, himself a Jesuit, wrote the school’s 1600 employees that “Our core commitments as a Jesuit, Catholic university are not compatible with the inclusion of elective abortion coverage in the university’s health plans.”  Reporter Larry Gordon notes that “as required by state law, the school still will cover contraception and so-called therapeutic abortions, those deemed medically necessary to save the mother’s life or health, among other factors. Santa Clara, which enrolls about 8,500 students, is not offering the possibility of the unsubsidized plan for elective procedures, according to campus spokeswoman Deepa Arora.”

SCU follows the lead of Loyola Marymount University, whose faculty and students last week were informed in a letter signed by university president David W. Burcham and Board of Trustees Chair Kathleen H. Aikenhead that “Catholic heritage and faithfulness to the Catholic Church’s core teaching on dignity of every human being at all stages of life” mandates that it drop coverage of abortion on demand.  Instead, the school will “offer employees a separate, unsubsidized plan to cover those procedures.”

The academic natives are more than restless over these changes: “This really makes Santa Clara University’s express commitment to openness, diversity and inclusiveness ring hollow,” said one SCU history professor.  And Loyola Marymount economics professor Jennifer Pate says the decision demonstrates that LMU “values diversity less than our Catholic affiliation.” 

Diversity, properly understood, simply means that opposing points of view concerning important issues are allowed to flourish.  For example, there are a host of opinions about how best to alleviate poverty and they are welcome as part of the atmosphere of inquiry and debate intrinsic to a college campus.  Diversity does not mean that all preferential practices (you abort a baby, I mainline heroin - hey, everybody’s different!) should be permitted. 

Why?  Because, in the case of abortion, the unborn child is not merely a collection of blood, tissue and DNA.  From the moment of fertilization, the tiny embryo is a person who should enjoy the most fundamental right of a person - the right to life.

Santa Clara and Loyola Marymount have taken modest steps to distance themselves from abortion.  It would be hoped that they would soon join with schools like The Catholic University of America (Washington, D.C.), Ave Maria University (Florida), and Belmont Abbey (South Carolina), and other Catholic and Evangelical Protestant colleges in suing the Obama Administration because it requires them “to violate (their)s deeply held religious beliefs or pay crippling fines of up to $15,000 dollars per day, or more than $5 million per year.” 

For now, let’s applaud the SCU Broncos and the Loyola Marymount Lions for bending the arc of political correctness in the direction of life.

What Would and Wouldn’t Shut Down

by Rob Schwarzwalder

September 30, 2013

A “government shutdown” is a misnomer of gigantic proportion. In July, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a Congressional Research Service study that makes clear “a ‘government shutdown’ does not cause all government functions to cease.”

Our military will remain vigilant, our ships at sea and our planes ready to fly, and our service members will be paid. According to a study by the Congressional Research Service published last week, “Historically, individuals responsible for supporting the nation’s global security activities, public safety efforts, and foreign relations pursuits have been excepted from furloughs that accompany a government shutdown.”

The federal judiciary will be funded through mid-October. Veterans and recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue receiving their benefits. You’ll still get your mail from the U.S. Postal Service.

There will be massive inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of civilian government employees who will be furloughed until a budget deal is reached. Mortgage loans will halt, although “the Office of Single Family Housing will ‘endorse new loans under current multi-year appropriation authority in order to support the health and stability of the U.S. mortgage market’.” Federal parks and zoos will close, but “Smithsonian and National Park employees responsible for protecting property and providing emergency care, including animal caretakers at the National Zoo, are exempt from the furlough.” And TSA employees and air traffic controllers will remain on the job.

National Institutes of Health employees would continue to treat current Clinical Center patients and provide animal care services, though new patients will be locked out of clinical research,” and federal disaster assistance will remain fully available. More than 40 million Americans would continue to get food stamps unabated.

As to the IRS, why should it be no surprise that “all payments would be processed?”

Perhaps the most serious problem will be “A lack of appropriations (that) will severely limit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ability to respond to outbreak investigations.”

The Food Safety and Inspection Service would continue all safety-related activities” and “the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration would continue inspections to the extent they’re paid by user fees.” However, the “inability to investigate alleged violations could hamper corrective action in the long term and could have an immediate impact on members of industry.” The FDA “would limit its activities but continue to monitor recalls and conduct investigations.”

Of perhaps particular note is that funding for the Patient’s Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) will continue. “It’s looking more and more like Tuesday will be a split-screen day … Obamacare will open for business.”

The above is not an exhaustive explanation, and it is not intended to suggest that limiting government services is trivial. However, if Congress and the President fail to strike a deal, the sky will not fall, Mt. Rushmore will not crumble, and our union will retain all 50 of its states.

Concern is justified. Panic isn’t.

Sources:

FRC in the News: February 6, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

February 6, 2013

Hot Off the Press: Tony Perkins on CNN News

FRC’s President Tony Perkins, was on CNN this morning discussing the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) vote that would allow open homosexuals to become members and leaders. Perkins points out that the BSA has stood for moral principles for decades and that the boys should not have to worry about being with men or boys who are attracted to them. The BSA is designed to help raise boys into manhood. The Associated Press and the Washington Post has just reported that the BSA will not vote on the decision until May. Please be in prayer for the BSA that they would stand firm in their timeless values. You can share the ad from FRC via email, Facebook, Twitter and any other favorite media sites!

When it Comes to Religious Rights, “Accounting Gimmicks” Won’t do!

After the outcry of “foul play” from religious organizations, the Obama administration is offering a proposal which will allow faith-based organizations to be exempt from paying for contraceptives. Churches and synagogues can choose not to provide contraceptives. However, “non-profits with religious affiliations” are not exempt. Anna Higgins, FRC’s Director for the Center of Human Dignity, was quoted in a recent CBS News article and stated that:

“The accounting gimmicks HHS is now proposing under the latest regulation fail to satisfy the religious freedom protections that exist in other current laws and in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution”

How to Really Help the Economy: Save the Family

Dr. Patrick Fagan, Senior Fellow and Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) at FRC, wrote an insightful article in The Public Discourse. Fagan’s research shows that even if the best of conservative economic plans were put into action, it still would not be enough to fix the economy. We must promote solid marriage, which produces solid children and productivity. As Fagan states:

“The intact married family with children is the household that generates the productive work, income, and savings that purchase houses, food, cars, and clothing, use energy, send children to school, and save for college and weddings.”

FRC in the News: February 5, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

February 5, 2013

Looking at the Boy Scout Ban from an Eagle Eye’s-View

FRC’s Government Affairs Intern, Lance Clevinger, wrote an article featured in The Washington Times from his unique perspective—that of an Eagle Scout. Clevinger describes his journey to earning the highly esteemed award that is based on character. He challenges the Boy Scouts of America to stand on their timeless values and show the boys what true character is: bravely standing strong for what is right.

Schwarzwalder to Boy Scouts: Stand on Principle and Don’t Bow to Pressure

Rob Schwarzwalder, Senior Vice-President at FRC, discusses how the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) should stand for morality in his article featured in The Christian Post. Schwarzwalder quotes the BSA’s handbook which states:

‘“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”’

Schwarzwalder also talks about how the BSA was founded on “a Judeo-Christian moral structure” and therefore should continue to promote these important values to their youth.

Boy Scouts: Will They Stand Strong for Timeless Values?

Watch our new video that questions whether the Boy Scouts will stand strong for timeless values, especially in light of their leadership considering changing the policy to allow homosexuals to become troop leaders. Also, visit our webpage and learn how you can take action today.

Obamacare and the Long Road Ahead

FRC’s Senior Fellow for Religious Liberty, Ken Klukowski, writes about the Obamacare HHS Mandate losing in the courts in his article featured on Breitbart’s website. As Klukowski states, “there are now at least 12 HHS Mandate cases in the federal court of appeals.” All of these court cases challenge the regulation requiring that employers who have a total of 50 employees or more “must offer healthcare plans that include birth control, sterilization, and abortion-related services.”

Evangelicals and Catholics Together? You bet.

by David Christensen

July 18, 2012

You may have heard about multiple Catholic organizations suing the government over the contraceptive mandate which forces religious organizations that are not churches to provide free abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations in their health plans.

But this isnt just a Catholic issue, as many protestant denominations have spoken against the threat of religious freedom this mandate poses.

Today, Wheaton College, an evangelical college, joined The Catholic University of America in yet another lawsuit. Wheatons President, Dr. Philip Ryken, describes the contraceptive mandate this way:

Wheaton College and other distinctively Christian institutions are faced with a clear and present threat to our religious liberty.

To read more, see Wheatons press release.

Archives