Proselytizing compared to rape? Really?

Rachel Allison

There are bombs going off on more fronts than I can name.  The attacks are relentless and escalating.

Abortion—Now the truth is coming out about the “safety” and “compassion” of abortion clinics.  And we thought the supposed “back-alley abortions” were bad?

Euthanasia—being legalized and accepted as “killing with compassion.”

Marriage—If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, marriage, completely severed from its original purpose, might never pull out of its death spiral.  Religious freedom and rights of conscience will be severely compromised.

Educational decline—we have all witnessed its decline, and with Common Core being rammed through at break-neck speed, it will continue to be an agenda driven program run by non-elected federal agencies.

And there’s so much more…

What’s most alarming, a majority of the people seem to be totally unaware and even apathetic to the bombardment.

The most recent bombshell: Court marshals for those who proselyte  in the military.

I quote Bethany Monk from CitizenLink

The Pentagon has released a statement, confirming its policy that would punish service members who share their religious beliefs.

That follows a private meeting last week between Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and the Pentagon. Weinstein said military personnel who proselytize are guilty of sedition and “treason.” He said they should be punished to quell a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”  

“If this policy goes forward, Christians within the military who speak their faith could now be prosecuted as enemies of the states,” according to the Family Research Council. “This has potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military. Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is not religious freedom in the military.”

As I have studied this and other relevant reporting it looks like the Department of Defense has had this particular regulation in place prior to Weinstein’s demands.

“Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council has said Weinstein’s hands are all over this work.  I wish I understood better whether MRFF could actually have had imput into the writing of the militaries’ regulations. Weinstein, an avid atheist is now demanding that the DOD start implementing it.

I quote Todd Starnes from Fox News

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein demanded to Fox News.  “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

Perkins and members of the Family Research Council were stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

If Weinstein has his way, and apparently he has the attention of military leaders “it threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state.”  “Non-compliance,” the Pentagon suggests, “even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

Does this sound like something that should be happening in the United States of America…or Hitler’s Germany?

With all the social, moral, and religious bombardment taking place we need to choose our battles wisely…but for America’s sake let us choose to fight! Apathy is a killer.

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Religious Freedom on Trial

Monday, March 26th began the first day that the constitutionality of the 2010 healthcare law, known as Obamacare, will be argued in the Supreme Court. This is a court case that many American’s have strong opinions about and will be closely watching the outcome. For some Americans, Obamacare means hope and safety for their future health. For others this law means a stripping of their religious freedoms.

The pasts few months, there has been a lot of talk about the new federal regulations requiring employer health care plans to pay for abortion inducing drugs, contraception and sterilizations. Originally, most churches were not exempt from this requirement.  Currently, churches are now exempt from this requirement.  However, church ministries and organizations (such as church run universities and hospitals) will be required to provide things like abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. It does not matter if those religious organizations maintain beliefs and teachings contrary to this.  Organizations that refuse will be subject to a $2,000 fee per employee per year.

Kevin Theriot ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) Senior Counsel said that, “this is effectively a Conscience Tax.”

Alan Sears, President and CEO of ADF states that:

With one fell swoop, the Obama administration has placed itself in the position of final arbiter of what does and doesn’t constitute religious faith and practice. In this way, they have trampled the rights of the conscience of every American, because they have interjected a man-made standard for religiosity that curtails the protections of the First Amendment by government fiat.

As an average American citizen, I wonder how a government mandate clearly contrary to religious freedom could affect me. Kevin Theriot believes that:

If the federal government can force these ministries to act in a way that is completely contrary to their religious beliefs, they can tax all of us when we act according to our religious convictions by doing such things as refusing to participate in abortions, objecting to sexual immorality, or raising our children according to our faith.

Clearly, most Americans would like to see the serious ill and the poor better assisted with heath care costs. But, fixing and changing health care should not come with the removal of religious freedom and the right to conscience. Most religions are concerned with the sanctity of life and the moral consequences that attend life and death. When employers and individuals are mandated to pay for medicine or procedures that are contrary to their beliefs and teachings it is at a loss to religious freedom.

More Information:

Justices Could Strike Other Parts of Health Law

 

 

Reader Poll: “If the Prop 8 case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, will the court agree to hear the case?”

Here’s the question we asked our UFI readers:

“If the Prop 8 case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, will the court agree to hear the case?”

Here’s how readers responded:

70 Percent                          “Yes”

11 Percent                          “No”

19 Percent                          “Don’t know”

The Power of Public Opinion

Rachel Allison

On February 2^nd, I wrote my letter to Komen’s Foundation Headquarters praising their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.  But apparently for every letter voicing support, they received a much larger number condemning their decision.  Such is the power of the most vocal… or the most organized …or the most angry, despite the support of the silent masses. From what I hear, many of the bitter protests sent to the Komen Foundation expressed anger to the point of threatening bodily harm.

This  Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco is not going away.  Nor should it.  When we can read about how fierce and manipulative the opposition to Komen’s decision was, it’s a lesson for all of us to study and understand.  Having been rewarded with a Komen capitulation like this only emboldens those using such draconian methods.  Men and women who understand the facts much better than I are calling them “Gangster Tactics.”

May I quote  five paragraphs of the above link?

IN the most recent Gallup poll on abortion, as many Americans described themselves as pro-life as called themselves pro-choice. A combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be “illegal in all circumstances” or “legal in only a few circumstances.” …In the first Gallup poll to show a slight pro-life majority, conducted in May 2009, half of American women described themselves as pro-life.

But if you’ve followed the media frenzy surrounding the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision — which it backpedaled from, with an apology, after a wave of frankly brutal coverage — to discontinue about $700,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood, you would think all these millions of anti-abortion Americans simply do not exist.

But of course millions of Americans — including, yes, millions of American women — do oppose Planned Parenthood. They oppose the 300,000-plus abortions it performs every year (making it the largest abortion provider in the country), and they oppose its tireless opposition to even modest limits on abortion.

But there’s something quite a bit different, something creepy and not a little despicable, about the Planned Parenthood set’s besmirching Komen’s good name across a thousand platforms for having the audacity to stop giving them free money. And I don’t care why that decision was made, frankly.

Look at it this way…

Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grill Old Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?

Nothing. Nothing would justify that. Nothing at all.

We at United Families International condemn such tactics. We strongly encourage our readers to let your voices be heard. We must speak out to support organizations, legislators, and/or  private individuals  when “tipping point” decisions are being made.  Voices of reason and understanding aided by study and learning are recognized.   We need to recruit and organize our ranks.  This battle is not over.  Our letters may yet help them understand the significance of their decision.   Read the above links, and voice your support to the Komen Foundation!!!  Web link:  news@komen.org    address: 5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250, Dallas, TX, 75244,   phone: 1-877-465-6636

 

UFI Reader Poll: If a measure to repeal California’s Prop 8 were placed on the ballot, would it pass?

Here’s this week’s question:

“If a measure to repeal California’s amendment banning same-sex marriage were to be successfully placed on the ballet in 2012, do you think it would pass? (thereby repealing Prop 8)”

Here is how UFI readers responded:

17 Percent                           Yes

75 Percent                           No

 8  Percent                           Not sure

 An effort is currently underway to determine if it would be a wise decision to attempt to repeal California’s amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state (Prop 8).   Supporters of same-sex marriage have held “town halls” among their constituency to determine whether there is support for a drive to collect the signatures to place the repeal language on the 2012 California ballot.  Then, of course, they still have to run the actual campaign for their repeal effort to succeed.

Prop 8 is slated to be tied up in the courts for years to come and some gay advocates want something done much sooner.    But a repeal effort is not without substantial risks for homosexual advocacy.  Some fear that if the effort is unsuccessful it could have a negative impact on the way Prop 8 plays out in the courts and it also sends another negative message to the country that not even citizens in the ultra-liberal state of California are supportive of same-sex marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage eye 2012 ballot

 

 

Prop 8 returns to California Supreme Court

The issue of whether or not proponents of Prop 8 have “standing” has been tossed back to the California Supreme Court for a decision.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has requested an interpretation of California law that would permit the Prop 8 proponents to appeal.  Once that decision has been made – assuming it is determined that the proponents do have standing -the Ninth Circuit panel will move on the merits or the substantive constitutional issues of the case.

Arguments supporting a ruling for ‘standing”

There is a history.  The California Supreme Court ruled that proponents had standing in the Strauss v. Horton case (2009).  This was the case that determined whether or not Prop 8 was the proper subject of a ballot initiative.  There are other unrelated cases where-similarly situated proponents of initiatives were given standing by the California court.

Secondly, if the court rules that the proponents do not have standing, then the ballot initiative process in California is in question.   The governor and officers of the state will have been given the power to override a citizen vote simply by refusing to defend a successful initiative.

How might this all play out?

If the California Supreme Court declines to rule (and they could), then the Ninth Circuit will be left to make the decision on standing.  Legal analysts seem to agree that the Ninth Circuit appears to want the standing issue resolve before the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court where that court could rule only on that issue.  The U.S. Supreme Court could simply decide the proponents of Prop 8 don’t have standing – game over – same-sex marriage in California would become legal again.  Thus there would be no U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the definition of marriage itself that would impact the rest of the country.  Again, it is widely believed that the majority of the Ninth Circuit panel want to push the constitutional issue of same-sex marriage upon the country’s highest court.

All of this back and forth in the courts is going to take some time; many, many months.  Same-sex marriage advocates plan on pushing for a repeal of Prop 8 in 2012 and claim that they will settle the issue in California before the courts can get it done.  We’ll see.

Violent Video Games vs. Free Speech: How serious are we about protecting children?

The video game industry is making billions off of selling our children their products.  If a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is allowed to stand, video game manufacturers can continue to sell children games that feature decapitation, mutilation, and other mind-numbing images of violence and sexual depravation.

In 2005, the California legislature passed California Civil Code Sections 1746-1746.5 prohibiting the sale or rental of these violent video games to minors under 18.  The law defines a violent game as one that includes “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that a reasonable person would find appeals to a “deviant or morbid interest,” is patently offensive, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”  A fine of as much as $1,000 could be assessed to retailers who violate the law.

The statute was immediately challenged in court by the Entertainment Merchants Association and this spring the Ninth Circuit ruled on behalf of the plaintiff, and found the statute to be unconstitutional because it “violates freedom of speech” of minors.  The U. S. Supreme Court will be taking up the case this fall.

What is the content of some of these violent and sexually explicit video games?

We apologize in advance for such unsavory descriptions.  According to an amicus brief filed in support of the new California law by eleven states’ Attorney Generals (Louisiana, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia), video game players engaged in virtual activities such as:

-  Burning people alive with gasoline or napalm;
-  Decapitating people with shovels and have dogs fetch their severed heads;
-  Beating police to death while they beg for mercy;
-  Killing bald, unshaven men wearing pink dresses (in an “expansion pack” called Fag Hunter);
-  Slaughtering nude female zombies;
-  Urinating on people to make them vomit;
-  “Running with Scissors” (name of video game) which is promoted by the tag line:  “[R]emember… it’s only as violent as you are…”
-  An “Easter Egg” called “hot coffee” (as a reward for reaching a particular level) leads to simulated sexual intercourse between the main character and his girlfriend.

Quick perusals of articles written by media outlets like the LA Times, The NY Times, and Washington Post reveal some typical arguments in support of the video game industry’s position.  We offer a few rebuttal points and encourage you to read the various Amicus Briefs submitted regarding California’s new law.

1.  The statue is a violation of the rights, particularly freedom of speech rights, of minors.

Video games are role-playing activities that do not constitute free speech.  Courts have never held that video games are free speech; it not established “expressive conduct” that is protected under the First Amendment. In addition, minors’ freedom of speech is legally and regularly curtailed; such as schools banning particular types of speech.

Playing a video game is conduct and there are numerous legal controls on the conduct of minors.  Conduct such as voting, marriage, military service, consent for healthcare, curfews, sentencing guidelines; all involve legal treatment of minors that is dramatically different than treatment of adults under the law.

“If a state may restrict a minor’s right to vote or to marry, then it may also restrict her ability to purchase graphically violent video games. If a state may not impose the death penalty on minors–because they are “more vulnerable … to negative influences and outside pressures,” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)–then a state may also keep them from buying games which invite them to commit digital atrocities.” (States’ Brief)

States regulate access of minors to such things as gambling, pornography, cigarettes, and alcohol.  Facilitating parental control over their children’s access to violent video games certainly has precedent within constitutional law.  In addition, the California statute does not prohibit anyone from playing these video games (adults or children), but stops the selling or renting of these games to children.  If a parent chooses to buy/rent the game for their child, they are able to do so.

2. There is not enough evidence of a “causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm.”

This is a situation of which studies do you choose to believe.  It is established that playing violent video games ranks almost as high as gang membership as an indicator and predicator of youth violence.  Playing violent video games is three times a greater risk factor for aggressive/violent behavior than engaging in substance abuse, being from a broken home, having abusive parents or having a low IQ. (Effects of Violent Video Games on Behavior)   As one Amicus Brief pointed out:  “A legislature has not been required to cite million-dollar studies or take exhaustive testimony in order to justify requiring parental consent for a minor to play bingo, get married or serve in the military.”

The technology used in these video games is the same as that used by the military, aerospace and medical industries to train soldiers, police officers, doctors, pilots, and astronauts.  To say that regular exposure to this type of simulation is not effective in training and motivating individuals to behave in particular ways is to deny reality (or it seems there is a lot of money being wasted on simulators).

3.  The well-established “obscenity standard” does not apply to depictions of violence.

This is the argument that has garnered the most attention because it would create, as some experts have stated, a “sea change” in constitutional law.  The Supreme Court (Ginsberg 1968 and forward) has held that states have the right to restrict commercial dissemination to minors of erotic materials (pornography).  The Ninth Circuit, through their ruling, has declined to extend that exception to violence–particularly the violence in video games because it might, by extension, be applied to violence in films, books, magazines, etc.   That question will be decided by the Supreme Court this fall.

Just as there is a state’s right to protect vulnerable children from purchasing Playboy or Penthouse, there should be a right for a state to protect its children from the damaging effects of violence and sexual titillation delivered to our youth through video games.  The First Amendment certainly permits this type of modest regulation of the direct sale/rental of pernicious material to a child that does not in any way limit the freedom of an adult nor does it stop a commercial enterprise.

4.  The task of protecting children should be left to parents without interference from government.

As outlined in the States’ Amicus Brief:  “The California statute constitutionally protects the intrinsic parental right to control the upbringing of children, a well-recognized constitutional objective.”  It is interesting to note that it is constitutional to require parental approval for children to play Bingo, participate in internet gambling and other game playing, but the Ninth Circuit deems it unconstitutional to limit children’s access to violent and pornographic images that have multiple layers of damaging effects to children and to society.

Lastly, parents are limited in their ability to screen video games for offensive material.  These games are not a movie that a parent can watch, or a book that they can flip through and make a determination of its suitability.  Video games are complicated and require high levels of skill and massive amounts of time to reach the different levels where content is revealed.  The “just let the parents do their job!” line is hardly applicable here.  This is certainly a time where assistance should be rendered to parents through effective labeling and restriction on youth purchases.

“California’s law permissibly seeks to reinforce the authority of parents. Limits on juvenile freedoms find their strongest justification when they simply help parents guide their own children as they see fit.” (States’ Brief)

United Families International notes that the types of ideology displayed by the Ninth Circuit ruling– children possess the ultimate right to make decisions for themselves–is part of a broader international “children’s rights” movement designed to take power from parents and turn it over to the state.  United Families will continue to expose the agendas and actions of entities, both national and international, who espouse the “children’s rights” doctrine.

Conclusion

The California statute in question is a common sense law that prevents no adult from buying or renting said games.  Even minors are still allowed to play them with adult consent.  It is a law that helps to ensure that parents–not video game manufactures and retailers–decide what children will be exposed to.

As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated regarding the new law, “We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies.”

If you live in a state where your Attorney General has already given support to California’s new law, please consider contacting them with a note of “thanks.”  UFI will keep you informed as the case continues through the system and we’ll alert you if other Attorney Generals move to support those who would eagerly sell graphic violence to your children.

Go Here to contact Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff.

U.S. District Judge Overturns California’s Prop 8

In a stunning display of judicial arrogance, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Prop 8—California’s Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.   This is the first case in U.S. history where “thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs” of seven million voters were put on trial for “improper intent.”

Daniel Blomerg, attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, characterized it this way:  “It’s not just marriage that was put on trial, but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your beliefs.  It’s pretty shocking.”

Judge Walker declared Prop 8 to be “unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses,” referring to the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.   In his 136-page decision on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Walker stated in part:

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.

We find that to be an astounding few sentences; conclusive evidence “that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” Amazing….   UFI has spent the last 15 years compiling research and empirical data that shows the critical importance of man/woman marriage to children and to society.

We state again:  “Marriage is a unique, opposite-sex union with legal, social, economic and spiritual dimensions.  It is a fundamental and universal social institution and the mechanism by which every known society seeks to obtain for each the love, attention and resource of BOTH a mother and a father.”

This understanding is not “irrational, discriminatory, nor unconstitutional” as Judge Walker claims.

On Tuesday evening, the Prop 8 defense team filed a motion with Walker asking for a “stay” on same-sex marriages in California until the appeal process is completed.  As of this post, Walker has not responded with his decision.

It is important to realize that this decision makes this case no longer just a “California issue.”  This has ramifications that will impact every state.  Appeals will go to the 9^th Circuit and then potentially on to the U.S. Supreme Court where the entire nation’s definition of marriage hangs in the balance.

More quotes from the Prop 8 decision:

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.”

Boy Scout case rejected by Supreme Court

In the ongoing battle over the Boy Scouts’ use of San Diego’s Balboa Park, this week the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case–allowing a Ninth U.S. Circuit court decision to stand.  The case will now return to the federal and state courts for appeals.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case involving allegations that the Boy Scouts of America should not be allowed to lease property in San Diego’s Balboa Park because of the group’s religious overtone and its policy banning gays, agnostics and atheists from being members or leaders”.

The Boy Scouts in the San Diego area began their association with Balboa Park back in 1918.  Since a lease to use part of the park was issued, the Boy Scouts have made an estimated $4.9 million in improvements to the Balboa site and to a city-owned site in Mission Bay.  The improvements to these facilities include a multi-million aquatic center and campsite which is open to all members of the public for a fee.

This legal nightmare for the Scouts began when the 50-year lease came up for renewal in 2000, the ACLU sued the Boy Scouts on behalf of an agnostic couple and a lesbian couple who claimed that the lease violated the establishment clause and that the Boy Scouts were a discriminatory organization.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit had ruled against the Boy Scouts on the reasoning that they are the equivalent of a religious organization and based that, in part, because of the Scout oath that includes “to do their duty to God and my country.”  Attorneys for the two couples claim that their clients were personally affected because if they have to pay a fee to use the Boy Scout site fees this amounts “to a toll payable to a discriminatory, religious organization to use public property.”

To meet legal requirements for standing in a case, the couples had to prove that they have been “injured.”  What was their injury?  This from The Christian Science Monitor (CSM):

“The couples said they would like to use those portions of the public parks, but that they were so offended by the exclusionary policies of the Boy Scouts that they avoid those sections of the park…The families cannot visit those sections of the parks ‘without gaining approval from and submitting themselves under dominion and control of an organization that openly rejects their beliefs and sexual orientation…’  Washington lawyer Seth Galanter wrote in his brief. ‘Even if they did access it, their enjoyment would be diminished by having to view symbols of the [Boy Scouts’] presence and dominion on the land.”

The CSM article continues:  “Lawyers for the Boy Scouts said the families’ claim is ‘contrived.’ The families choose not to visit certain sections of the city parks, the lawyers said, because they’d have to ‘interact with people they don’t like.’ The lawyers added that any alleged injury was of the families’ own making.”

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain writes in dissent to the Ninth Circuit ruling:

“Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western states. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact.”

That ramifications of that statement ought to give everyone pause.

Judge O’Scannlain emphasized the insanity of such reasoning by adding that the Ninth Circuit decision “creates a new legal landscape in which almost anyone who is almost offended by almost anything has standing to air his or her displeasure in court.”

The Boy Scouts are allowed to continue to use the Balboa Park facilities until the appeals process is completed.

Roe vs. Wade’s 37th Anniversary…a Time for Regretful Reflection

70 percent of women who under go an abortion say they wouldn’t do it again if they faced another unwanted pregnancy, about 60 percent experience emotional distress, and 16 percent suffer from severe distress warranting professional psychiatric attention*.

That story is rarely told.

Last Friday, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, that story was told–over and over again–by hundreds of experienced parents who know the emotional toll of abortion. Heart-rending tales of regret took the stage as these parents spoke out in pro-life rallies across the country–watch some here.

Legislators and every day citizens need to know the facts, not just their political preference.

For more facts, read United Families International Issues Guide found here.

*(Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (1998): 173-178)