Tag archives: Obama Administration

Perkins on Point: Bearing False Witness on Health Care Reform?

by Tony Perkins

August 21, 2009

President Obama has accused FRC and others who are opposing the government takeover of health care of breaking the 9th commandment. Listen to this (clip).

Really Mr. President we are bearing false witness.

Mr. President this is what you said in a speech to Planned Parenthood in July of 2007. (Clip or transcript)

And your administration has made it clear that reproductive health care includes abortion (clip of Hillary)

Mr. President since you have taken to quoting scripture. Allow me to quote the words of Jesus, those Red Letters in the New Testament, where He says let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Mr. President if what you say is true, which the present House bill would suggest is not the case when it comes to government funded abortion, why not let your no be no and accept one of the dozen amendments that have been offered that make it clear that abortion will not be a part of the government healthcare plan.

Until you let your yes be yes and your no be no, Mr. President we can not have a true debate about the core ethical and moral obligation of insuring all Americans have access to affordable healthcare a discuss we look forward to having.

Change Watch: Eric Lander, Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)

by David Prentice

August 7, 2009


APPOINTEE: Eric S. Lander

BIRTH DATE: February 3, 1957 in Brooklyn, New York


A.B. in Mathematics, Princeton University, 1978

D.Phil. in Mathematics, Rhodes Scholar, Oxford University, 1981

FAMILY: Wife-Lori Weiner; three children-Jessica, Daniel, David



1993-present Professor of Biology, MIT

Professor of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School

2003 Founding Director, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard

1990 Director, Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research

1986, 1989 Fellow, Member, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, MA

1984,1989 Visiting Scientist, Associate Professor, Dept of Biology, MIT

1987-1990 Associate Professor of Managerial Economics, Harvard Business School

1981-1986 Assistant Professor of Managerial Economics, Harvard Business School

Member, National Academy of Sciences

Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Member, Institute of Medicine




Leonard Zon, a Harvard stem cell scientist who knows Lander and Varmus and has followed Holdrens career, said the three men are likely to recommend more federal support for embryonic stem cell research, and budget increases for the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. agency that backs the bulk of basic science conducted at academic institutions.

I know theyre very enthusiastic about stem cell biology, Zon said.


Among Participants and Attendees at President Barack Obamas Signing of Stem Cell Executive Order and Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum


Young scientists, who might have been hesitant to enter the promising field, no longer need to worry about funding, said Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and cochairman of a presidential scientific advisory council.

I think it sends an extraordinary message to young scientists today - that this nation will back them,” he said from Washington, where he attended Obama’s signing and speech.


Lander is a renowned stem-cell researcher at MIT, a world-class university that stands to get even more federal funding, thanks to Obama’s stem-cell move. An MIT spokeswoman says the university takes conflict-of-interest precautions when its faculty serve in government positions - but added that it won’t recuse itself from funding opportunities related to Obama’s decision.



Eric Lander, a leading figure at the HGP and a biology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the United States, said human cloning is “impossible” and “absolutely wrong.”

He said scientists cannot produce human beings, nor should they try to change human beings. He added that HGP is designed to understand the human genome, not to change it.

Many scientists warn of horrific consequences if anyone tries to apply the techniques used to create ‘Dolly’ the sheep for producing cloned people.

Cloning involves enormous risks and is inefficient. There are many other natural ways of helping infertile women give birth. Mankind does not need to clone itself, Lander said.



Look, there are a small number of things that are destiny. A small number of genetic certainties where you can say the baby, God forbid is, gonna have some terrible disease that we can’t do anything about. But most of the genetic information that’s encoded in the human DNA is not about certainty.

It’s about the fact that perhaps when she grows up she’ll have twice the risk of diabetes. That’s not good but it’s not a disaster. I think, as a parent, that you have to add this long list of maybe’s that genetics is gonna potentially give you to a much longer list of worries that every parent has had since there were parents.


Genomic science is dramatically widening the scope for understanding cancers, but breakthrough cures should be expected within generations, not years, says Eric Lander, one of the leading scientists in this field.



Modern biology is undergoing a revolution that will fundamentally leave our understanding of life so changed that we won’t be able to remember how we used to think about life before that point.”


Science Czar or Bizarre?

by Tony Perkins

July 23, 2009

Science Czar or just plain bizarre? Among President Obamas growing list of czars there are as many as 34, by one Congressmans count - is the White House science czar, Dr. John Holdren.

Holdren wrote a text book with well-known scientist Paul Ehrlich. Your remember Paul Ehrlich, right? He wrote a popular but now discredited book entitled The Population Bomb more than three decades ago in which he claimed that the world was overpopulating and would be out of food by the end of the 1970s. Well, were still here, with greater food supplies than ever in history.

Holdren and Ehrlichs book, which they wrote in 1977, is entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In it, they advocate for radical government action to limit population growth. Their proposals included coercive abortions for women and involuntary sterilization through infertility drugs placed in food or the water supply.

So-called undesirables those that contribute to supposed social deterioration, would be forcibly sterilized at puberty. Holdren also advocated a planetary regime that could control the global economy. Holdren and the White House have dismissed the concerns saying he made those statements 30 years ago.

My question: Does he now disavow them? And as he works in the White House shaping national policy, what recommendations is he making?

To learn more about how FRC is defending the culture of life, visit us as www.frc.org.

Nine for the Road

by Family Research Council

July 16, 2009

The Obama Administration is off to a lightning-fast start passing legislation on everything from financial system bailouts to corporate acquisitions. Despite criticism from many conservatives, the truth is that these bills are just modest first steps. We really wont see anything bold until the second Obama term, when the logic of the first-term ideas really takes hold. Heres a peek:

  1. The Duplicative Home Reduction Act. Its a dirty little secret, but many Americans own more than own home (this is a bipartisan phenomenon, and some of the second homes are as far away as Ireland where Sen. Chris Dodd even had one!). How can we allow this? The carbon footprint of these multiple dwellings is more like a carbon centipede, and imagine the carbon spew it takes to fly between them. The DHRA would end the tax deductibility of mortgage interest on the second home, phasing out in year five to a ban on ownership of any second residence. We could even limit mortgage deductibility now to the home that has the smaller footprint. Think globally, yes, but live locally.
  2. The TransFat Anti-Twinkie (TFAT) Tax. Yes, chips can fall where they may, but some of the tastier varieties make for very overweight and unhealthy people. Obesity can and must be made taxable. Any exchange of fatty foods between adults weighing over 126 pounds (scales can be erected on sidewalks and in shopping malls and made mandatory for passersby, as we do for tractor trailers on the interstate) should be subject to a 25% excise tax. As a back-up measure, we can tax obesity directly. The more deposits, the more deposits.
  3. The Depopulation Acceleration Act, aka Gates-Buffett-Soros Neighborhood Desertification Plan. Lets face facts: What good is a tax credit that gives parents $1,000 off their federal income bill for each qualifying child? The DAA would limit the number of qualifying children to three fewer than the number each family actually has, with a maximum of four qualifying children. Legislators may then not notice that the GBS NDP is a one-child per family credit! As a gesture of compassion, the credit will not be refundable to the government for families with mathematically negative numbers of children.
  4. The Windmill Proliferation Act. With a suitable exemption for the Kennedy Compound in town of Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, the WPA will require each U.S. residence to have a windmill projecting from its roof by 2015. The windmill will be used to power a solar panel which will be used to power the battery on the cell phone each family will be required to have in order to respond to text message alerts on healthy living from the White House.
  5. The Super-Light Car Crash Indemnification Act. This legislation will award $100,000 to every family that waives its right to sue over the death of any of its members in an automobile less than 1,000 pounds (passenger weight excluded) that is purchased from GM (Government Motors) and utterly destroyed in what used to be known as a fender-bender on a U.S. interstate.
  6. The Tinpot Dictator Recognition Act. This law will render automatic U.S. diplomatic recognition of any dictator seeking to join an international organization formerly premised on democratic processes and create, as a matter of U.S. policy, advance support for unilateral executive actions to abolish presidential term limits in foreign countries. This will require a side amendment to the Unitary Executive Criticism Act of 2010.
  7. The Government Contracting Abolition and Enduring Bureau Act. In order to assist in and expedite the permanent expansion of government, contracting out of government services for any temporary purpose shall be suspended until further notice.
  8. The Environmental Reparations Act. Polar bears, snail darters, and wolves have suffered greatly at human hands. Preserving habitat and achieving animate equality are no longer enough. The ERA will distribute cash endowments to the surviving members of schools and packs affected by direct (e.g., bow and arrow) and indirect (global warming) human interference.
  9. The Media Management and Cooperation Act. This law will elevate the Fairness Doctrine to a statutory requirement and create media equality by obligating all future radio and television broadcasts to emanate daily from the White House. To further ease the information overload on viewers, only the answers to questions from qualified reporters will be shown. Viewers will be encouraged to infer the questions from the answers given.

This glimpse of the future is offered as a public service with the understanding that the actual text of the bills will not be available unti1 20 years after their enactment by the totally transparent Democratic Congress expected in the year 2013.

Change Watch: Dr. Francis Collins, Director, National Institutes of Health

by David Prentice

July 11, 2009


NOMINEE: Francis S. Collins

BIRTHDATE: April 14, 1950 in Staunton, Virginia


B.S. in Chemistry, 1970, University of Virginia

Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, 1974, Yale University

M.D. 1977, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

FAMILY: wife Diane L. Baker; two daughters from previous marriage


2009 Founded Biologos Foundation, to address the tension between religion and science

2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom for contributions to genetic research.

2006 Published book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

1993-2008 Director of National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)

1989 Identified gene for cystic fibrosis

1984-1993 Faculty position at University of Michigan

1981-1984 Fellow in Human Genetics at Yale Medical School

1978-1981 Residency and Chief Residency in Internal Medicine, North Carolina Memorial Hospital, Chapel Hill

Member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences

Physician volunteer in a rural missionary hospital in Nigeria

Member of the Obama transition team


I would say the idea that we go in and begin to manipulate our own germ-line gene pool is something that, unless very, very strong argument can be brought forward to the benefit and the theological and philosophical positives, is something we shouldn’t do.


The notion that we could eventually take charge of our own evolutionary state and improve ourselves is a chilling one for most people, and especially, I think, for people of faith. The idea is that we would re-engineer the human race by deciding which features we would like to improve upon, such as making ourselves smarter and stronger. But who’s going to decide what’s an improvement? I think any kind of activity where we systematically change our very nature jeopardizes our relationship with God, who I believe was intent on creating humankind in our current state.

The notion of altering DNA that’s going to get passed to future generations, and is of uncertain consequence, does not measure up to most people’s standards of ethical acceptability. It certainly doesn’t measure up to mine.



It is a great pleasure for me to be standing here today, a day when Congress has finished its work on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 and is sending it to the President for signature. This is a great gift to all Americans. It will make it safe for Americans to benefit from the medical results of the Human Genome Project, in which they invested so much. It will make it safe to have their genes examined without fear that they may be discriminated against in employment or health insurance. This is a great day. …

Finally, I want to thank President Bush, who has been a strong supporter of legislation to protect individuals from genetic discrimination for many years. When he came to visit NIH last year, he called on Congress to send him a bill that he could sign. And now, with the passage of this legislation, I look forward to that day soon when he gives all Americans the protection they need to freely participate in genomic medicine. …

This is a momentous day. Thank you, members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, for giving a wonderful gift to the American people: protection from genetic discrimination.


Passage of GINA can be credited to extensive efforts by literally hundreds of scientists, patients, lawyers, health care providers, and legislators spanning a decade. However, Francis Collins reasoned arguments that the American public should not have the fruits of the Human Genome Project used against them were of singular importance. The accomplishment of the protections GINA affords serve as a testimony to the good one individual can create in a system that to many seems hopelessly mired in competing interests.



He is also concerned about prenatal diagnosis in the fast-approaching time when the major disease-causing genes are easily detected. He cited with trepidation one survey that showed 11 percent of couples would abort a fetus if they knew it carried a gene for obesity. No such gene has been found; it was a study designed to probe where couples would draw the line. It is difficult to say you can’t abort, but for overall cultural mores, you run into problems, Dr. Collins said. It’s the classic slippery slope. You have a gray scale going from diseases like Tay-Sachs disease that cause death in early childhood all the way to the other end of the spectrum with abortions for sex selection, which most people would say is a misuse of technology. In between is a gray zone. Where do you draw the line? Another problem is that genetic risk assessment does not give absolutes, but instead gives probabilities. It may tell you that you have an 80 percent chance of getting Alzheimer’s disease or a 70 percent risk of diabetes, for example. Do you abort a fetus based on a risk rather than a certainty? Dr. Collins asked.

He said he wondered how much genetic information a couple should be entitled to. If people can learn everything that science can tell them about fetuses, he wonders, Will that move us toward homemade eugenics? He worries also that those who have money and resources will try to have the perfect baby, by aborting fetuses with genetic defects, and those who are poor will have to take what they get, creating a sort of genetic underclass.




ABERNETHY: Not far behind, says Collins, is the development of drugs for Alzheimer’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease, asthma and diabetes. Collins is also a strong supporter of stem cell research, and he thinks there’s a way to do this that, for him, removes the moral objections to destroying a human embryo. Collins favors what’s called somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of an egg is replaced by the nucleus of, for instance, a cell of skin.

Dr. COLLINS: Now that is very different in my mind, morally, than the union of sperm and egg. We do not in nature see somatic cell nuclear transfer occurring. This is a purely manmade event. And yet somehow we have attached to the product of that kind of activity the same moral status as the union of sperm and egg. I don’t know quite how we got there.


Do you believe that personhood begins at conception?

You mean, is that when we get a soul? Now we’re into theology, and it’s an area where science isn’t really going to give you an answer. The only thing that science can say is that whatever line you draw between the fusion of sperm and egg and the birth of the baby is somewhat arbitrary. On the other hand, that doesn’t prove that the soul exists right at that moment of fusion. Identical twins do not have the same soul, yet they started out as the same union of sperm and egg.

You’re a born-again Christian who suggests that therapeutic cloning could be acceptable. Some other devout people consider it fundamentally immoral. What do you see differently?

There is a difference between doing research on an embryo that was generated by sperm and egg coming together, which is the way human beings are created, versus the very bizarre laboratory phenomenon of taking a nucleus from a skin cell or the udder cell of a sheep and putting it into an environment that takes it back in time to its stem cell state. In public discourse, they’re both called embryos. Even though the somatic cell nuclear transfer approach is a very different biological phenomenon, in many people’s minds it has been all blurred together. As a result, we’ve really missed out on a chance for a much more thoughtful, nuanced discussion, and we’re still trying to recover from that.


In the book, Collins also defended research on existing embryonic stem cells, though he has expressed opposition to purposely creating them for research. Collins was present during the signing of an Executive Order by President Obama that reversed the government’s ban on funding stem-cell research back in March.


So I think one thing we ought to do is, sort of, tone down the rhetoric and try to get our scientific facts straight. So stem cells— theres lots of different kinds of stem cells. The kind that I think many people are most concerned about are the ones that are derived from a human embryo which is produced by a sperm and an egg coming together. The way you and I got here.

There are hundreds of thousands of those embryos currently frozen away in in vitro fertilization clinics. And it is absolutely unrealistic to imagine that anything will happen to those other than theyre eventually getting discarded. So as much as I think human embryos deserve moral status, it is hard to see why its more ethical to throw them away than to take some that are destined for discarding and do something that might help somebody.

But as a scientist — I would say we are currently not making as much progress as we could if we had access to more of these stem cell lines. The ones that are currently available for federal funding is a very limited set and they clearly have flaws that make them hard to use. But you know what? I think that kind of stem cell research is actually not the part thats going to be most interesting.

The part thats really showing the most promise is to take a skin cell from you or me and convince that cell, which has the complete genome, to go back in time and become capable of making a liver cell or a brain cell or a blood — cell if you need it to. Thats reprogramming. Thats called [somatic] cell nuclear transfer in the current mode. And yet people still refer to those products as an embryo. Well, theres no sperm and egg involved here.


It is a classic example of a collision between two very important principles. One is the sanctity of human life and the other is our strong mandate as human beings to alleviate suffering and to treat terrible diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s, and spinal-cord injury. The very promising embryonic stem-cell research might potentially provide remarkable cures for those disorders. We don’t know that, but it might. And at the same time, many people feel, I think justifiably, this type of research is taking liberties with the notion of the sanctity of human life, by manipulating cells derived from a human embryo.


Stem cells have been discussed for 10 years, and yet I fear that much of that discussion has been more heat than light. First of all, I believe that the product of a sperm and an egg, which is the first cell that goes on to develop a human being, deserves considerable moral consequences. This is an entity that ultimately becomes a human. So I would be opposed to the idea of creating embryos by mixing sperm and eggs together and then experimenting on the outcome of that, purely to understand research questions. On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of such embryos in freezers at in vitro fertilization clinics. In the process of in vitro fertilization, you almost invariably end up with more embryos than you can reimplant safely. The plausibility of those ever being reimplanted in the future — more than a few of them — is extremely low. Is it more ethical to leave them in those freezers forever or throw them away? Or is it more ethical to come up with some sort of use for those embryos that could help people? I think that’s not been widely discussed.


Yeah, it’s called cloning, which is a very unfortunate term because it conjures up the idea that you’re trying to create a copy of that human being. And at this point, you’re doing nothing of the sort. You’re trying to create a cell line that could be used to substitute for something that a person desperately needs. It would only become a cloned person if you then intentionally decided to take those cells and reimplant them in the uterus of a recipient woman. And that, obviously, is something that we should not and must not [do] and probably should legislate against. But until you get to that point, it’s not clear to me that you’re dealing with something that deserves to be called an embryo or deserves to be given moral status.


I would argue that the immediate product of a skin cell and an enucleated egg cell fall[s] short of the moral status of the union of sperm and egg. The former is a creation in the laboratory that does not occur in nature, and is not part of Gods plan to create a human individual. The latter is very much Gods plan, carried out through the millennia by our own species and many others.

From: Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, NY), 2006; p. 256

I have two problems with cloning. The most apparent one is the safety concern. There will be carnage of unimaginable consequence if we attempt to clone human beings right now. Everything we know about every animal species for which cloning has been attempted indicates that only a tiny percentage give rise to live births that survive for more than a few days. Most of them result in miscarriages, birth defects, and newborn deaths of uncertain cause. Puzzling and troubling outcomes occur when you try to convince DNA from a differentiated cell that it’s actually an embryo again. It is unacceptable, given all of that data, to contemplate the cloning of a human being at the present time.

But of course, even if the safety issues were solved, would human reproductive cloning be an acceptable practice? It wouldn’t be for me. I believe that human beings have come into this world by having a mother and a father. To undertake a different pathway of creating a human being is a profound departure from the normal state of things. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why we need to do that.


Like virtually everyone else, I am strongly opposed to the idea of human reproductive cloning. Implanting the product of human SCNT into a uterus is profoundly immoral and ought to be opposed on the strongest possible grounds. On the other hand, protocols are already being developed to convince a single cell that has been derived from SCNT to be converted into a cell that senses glucose levels and secretes insulin, without going through any of the other steps of embryonic and fetal development. If such steps can result in tissue-matched cells that cure juvenile diabetes, why would that not be a morally acceptable procedure?

From: Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, NY), 2006; p. 256


An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20 percent (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.

From: Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, NY), 2006; p. 260


First of all, it would be a mistake to simply leave those decisions to the scientists. Scientists have a critical role to play in such debates, since they possess special expertise that may enable a clear distinction of what is possible and what is not. But scientists cant be the only ones at the table. Scientists by their nature are hungry to explore the unknown. Their moral sense is in general no more or less well developed than that of other groups, and they are unavoidably afflicted by a potential conflict of interest that may cause them to resent boundaries set by nonscientists. Therefore, a wide variety of other perspectives must be represented at the table.

From: Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, NY), 2006; p. 270-271

Change Watch: Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools

by Family Research Council

June 8, 2009


NOMINEE: Kevin Jennings

Born: Winston-Salem, N.C.

Occupation: Executive Director, and founder, of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Education: graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College

View of Christians

Addressing a church audience on March 20, 2000 in New York City just days before “Fistgate” GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings offered a stinging (and quite intolerant) assessment of how to deal with religious conservatives:

Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit … I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—-] ‘em!’ which is what I want to

say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead! It should be noted that GLSEN and Jennings make heavy use of the words “respect” and “tolerance” in their public rhetoric and in descriptions of their programs. [Source]

GLSEN and Fistgate

GLSEN, which promotes homosexual clubs and the homosexual lifestyle in high schools, middle schools and grade schools and is the driving force behind the annual “Day of Silence” celebration of homosexuality

The most notorious education scandal involving homosexual activists is a GLSEN sponsored conference that occurred on March 25, 2000, dubbed Fistgate by conservatives. Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled What They Didn’t Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class part of the annual Boston-GLSEN Teach Out conference held at Tufts University. The Queer Sex session, advertised to youth only ages 14 to 21, was attended by Massachusetts family advocate Scott Whitemen, who taped it while standing in the back of the room.

In the workshop, instructor Michael Gaucher, prompted by a teen’s question, verbally guided the students on the mechanics of fisting a homosexual slang term for a sadistic sex act in which a man inserts his hand and arm into another person’s anal cavity.

Another instructor, Margot Abels, said fisting often gets a really bad rap, and described it innocuously as an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with. Abels and Gaucher also guided the students on techniques

of oral sodomy and lesbian sex. [Source]

On Statutory Rape

In his own writings and books listed on the GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network] Website, I’ve reported, Kevin Jennings has given tacit nods of approval to sex between young teens and adults, (Linda) Harvey told WND. In addition to that, the writings and books, many of which I’ve read and are incredibly graphic, seem to

normalize early teen same-sex sexual behaviors. [Source]

Excerpts: Winning the Culture War speech, presented by Kevin Jennings at the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference March 5, 1995

If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose.

In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.

We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card— safety—and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name- calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making

Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. [Source]

GLSEN: Kindergartners as Targets

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners. The cards asked signers to be an ally and to pledge to not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situationswhere others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts. [Source]

  • Page 3 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3