Category Archives: family

DeMint Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention

Washington, D.C. – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today introduced S.R. 519, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, or CRC) in an effort to discourage the State Department and the Obama administration from submitting it to the Senate. Citing dangers posed to American families and to State and federal sovereignty if the treaty were ratified, the measure resolves that “the president should not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent.”

In Washington’s current political climate, the resolution has little chance of gaining 51 votes for adoption, but its proponents say that is not the point. Since ratification of the Convention requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, or 67 favorable votes, S.R. 519 needs only 34 cosponsors to prevent that vote and effectively end any chance of ratifying the treaty in the immediate future.

Opponents of the CRC warn that under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the treaty’s ratification would render it “the Supreme law of the land,” superseding all state constitutions or laws as well as pre-existing federal law. The only legal authority higher than a ratified treaty is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. According to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), ratification of the Convention would “undermine the U.S. system of federalism, a system on which this nation was founded.” All family law, the vast majority of which is currently set at the state level, would be federalized as a treaty obligation of the national government.

“We want to see the CRC taken off the table for this Congress, and this resolution will do that. But I am also aware that the only permanent solution to this threat to our families is a parental rights amendment to the Constitution,” DeMint said, referring to another resolution he champions, S.J. Res. 16, which proposes just such an amendment.

Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, agrees. “The Amendment is what we really need, but this resolution is a good temporary fix in the meantime.”

Poll: Independent Voters Wary of Anti-Family Government Agenda

Independent voters report a growing skepticism toward the long-term positive impact of current government policies, according to a survey released by the Ohio Right to Life Society. In the final installment of its Ohio Cultural Index, the group found independent and Republican voters share many of the same views on the direction of the state and the corresponding impact to its culture. Also, the survey found a majority of Ohioans continue to have a strong faith in God, oppose taxpayer funding for abortion and believe abortions have a negative impact on the women who have the procedure.

“As Democratic leaders in Washington and Columbus march in lock-step with many anti-family groups, independent voters are growing uneasy,” said Ohio Right to Life Executive Director Mike Gonidakis. “Our leaders seem to forget Ohio is a center-right state and its people hold traditional Midwestern values. Missteps like including federal funding for abortion in the recently passed national health care law will cost Democrats dearly among independent voters.”

The survey found significant negative movement in the responses of self-identified independent voters toward issues such as government funding for abortion. Seventy-eight percent of independents surveyed opposed using tax dollars to fund abortions, 83 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of Democrats also opposed the policy.

Sixty-two percent of independents said they believe public schools undermine moral and religious teachings children receive at home, 77 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of Democrats agreed. Also, 46 percent of independents reported they perceive government policies in Ohio are causing harm to families. Among Republicans it was 58 percent, while only 28 percent of Democrats agreed.

Overall, 80 percent of respondents reported a strong belief in God, and 54 percent believe abortions have a negative impact on women who have them. And, over 51 percent of Ohioans surveyed oppose abortion.

“After a tumultuous year in which taxpayer funding for abortion was at the center of a national debate over health care, opposition to it has grown from 67 percent three months ago to 72 percent now,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel. “The political implications could be tremendous for those Ohio congressional representatives who voted for the federal health care bill, as their opponents will have a powerful issue to use on the campaign trail this fall.”

The index’s significant findings include:

* 80% of Ohioans surveyed strongly believe in God;
* 51% oppose abortion;
* 54% believe abortion has a negative effect on women who have them;
* 71% oppose use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion;
* 47% believe some elderly or very sick patients will be denied health    care because of cost factors;
* 48% believe entertainment today negatively impacts families;
* 44% believe government policies are harming traditional family values;
* 56% believe public schools undermine values taught at home; and
* 53% believe families do a worse job of developing character than a    generation ago.

This installment of the Ohio Cultural Index is the last of a four-part survey examining Ohioans’ views on important cultural issues. The complete poll crosstabs are available for download here. Charts tracking each quarterly response are available for review here. Lastly, a podcast on this latest round of polling is available here.

The index is calculated on a 100-point scale based on responses to 11 questions about different aspects of culture and character in Ohio. It is based on a quarterly public opinion survey of adults across the state. The Ohio Cultural Index rating is 61.7 on a 100-point scale. The score is half a point lower than the previous rating of 62.2, registered in January 2010.

The survey was conducted by Wenzel Strategies from April 16-18, 2010, and included 777 Ohio registered voters contacted by phone. The poll carries a margin of error of +/- 3.49 percentage points.

Source: Ohio Life Wire, May 3, 2010

Wait No More: Finding Families for Ohio’s Waiting Kids

Right now, more than 3,000 legal orphans in Ohio foster care are waiting for adoptive families. Ohio has over 14,000 churches, and God has given clear commands for Christians to take care of His orphan children.

So if the command is clear and the need is apparent, why are these kids still waiting?

Join Focus on the Family on May 8, 2010 at Christ’s Church at Mason, 5165 Western Row Road. You’ll hear more about the kids who are waiting, the process of adoption from foster care and ways to support adoptive families. In addition, agency and county representatives will be on site to answer questions and help you get started.

Wait No More: Finding Families for Ohio’s Waiting Kids Saturday, May 8, 2010 from 1:00 – 5:00 pm Christ’s Church at Mason, Mason, Ohio

Exhibitors Include:

Bair Foundation, Butler County, Citizens for Community Values, Clermont County, Coalition of Care, Focus on Youth, Hamilton County, Hope for Orphans, Making a Difference Ministries, Montgomery County and Preble County.

For more information or to register, go to the I Care About Orphans website.

Life Solidarity Conference 2010

On Thursday, April 22, church leaders, pregnancy center directors, community leaders and students met in Xenia, Ohio to address the most critical issues of our time: abortion. Reverend Arnold Culbreath, the Urban Outreach Director of Life Issues Institute in Cincinnati, presented the staggering truth about abortion in the African American community and provided insight about what we can do to help end this form of genocide. Greg Koukl, Founder and President of Stand to Reason in California, gave a wonderful presentation on the simple and reasonable explanations as to why abortion is incorrect and unacceptable.

After lunch, Carl Hayes of the High Impact Leadership Coalition in Washington D.C., addressed many critical issues that are threatening our families and our nation. Carl outlined the practical steps that we can take in our own communities to address these issues. At the end of the day there were small group discussions and a Q & A session with the speakers and additional pro-life panelists. This gathering was a step towards achieving a better understanding of the impact that abortion has on our communities, specifically the African American community.

Ohio Right to Life was proud to have helped plan this event and even produced the toolkit that was distributed to all who attended. This toolkit will be used to help church leaders start pro-life ministries in their communities; it will also soon be available for Ohio Right to Life supporters to use in the future. Through more events like Life Solidarity 2010 and an increase in dialogue about the issue, we hope that we can remove the barriers that restrict us from achieving real change.

Ohio Right-to-life Opposes Ohio House H.B. 333

H.B. 333, which was introduced by State Rep. Dan Stewart (D, Columbus) in October, has been advancing in the Ohio House Health Committee. A hearing was held for proponents of the bill on February 24 and the bill is scheduled for proponent, opponent and interested party testimony on Wednesday, March 3.

The bill tramples on the conscience rights of medical professionals and religious hospitals.

Under H.B. 333:

  • Hospital emergency rooms, including those at religiously-affiliated hospitals, are required to provide the morning-after pill (referred to as “emergency contraception”) to victims of sexual assault.
  • Hospitals would be required to inform the women that emergency contraception “does not cause an abortion” or “interrupt an established pregnancy”. (Because “emergency contraception” in some cases may cause the death of an early human embryo by preventing implantation after fertilization has occurred, this information would be very misleading to any pro-life person who believes that life begins at fertilization.)
  • If a hospital violates these requirements, the Department of Health can impose a civil penalty of at least $10,000 with no limit on the maximum penalty. If there is a second violation, the State can seek an injunction to close the hospital.

H.B. 333 – Key Arguments

  • The bill violates the conscience rights of pro-life health care workers and religiously-affiliated hospitals by forcing them to distribute the morning-after pill, which, in some cases, might cause the death of a living human embryo.
  • The State of Ohio should not coerce health care providers into violating their religious and moral objections against ending a human life.
  • The bill requires hospital emergency rooms to give women misleading information that the morning-after pill does not cause an abortion or interrupt an “established pregnancy”.
  • This information would only be relevant in obtaining the informed consent of persons who had moral concerns about abortion, and those are precisely the persons who are most likely to be misled by it.
  • Although supporters of this bill claim to be “pro-choice”, their bill would deny pro-life people in the health care professions the “freedom to choose” not to participate in the destruction of human life.
  • This bill would require health care providers to violate the original Hippocratic Oath which stated: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”
  • If the State of Ohio decides that the desire for immediate access to the morning-after pill for rape victims requires health care providers and facilities to provide it despite their moral objections, it will set a precedent for using a similar argument to require health care providers and facilities to provide surgical abortions.
  • The morning-after pill is already widely available at many pharmacies (over-the-counter for adults and by prescription for minors under age 17), yet the proponents of this bill want to force even pro-life hospitals to dispense it.
  • Although proponents of the bill claim it is needed to improve access to health care, the bill allows the State to close a hospital for failing to distribute the morning-after pill. How would closing a hospital improve access to health care for anyone?

Abstinence-Only Education Linked to Decreased Promiscuity : Study

Theory-based, abstinence-only intervention has been linked a lower rate of sexual involvement among African American preteens, according to a report in the February issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, a publication of the American Medical Association.

John B. Jemmott III, Ph.D, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate one intervention – an eight-hour abstinence-only program targeting reduced sexual intercourse.

The study found that the probability of ever having sexual intercourse was approximately 15 percentage points lower among teens in the abstinence-only program than those in condom-promoting courses or those undergoing no sex education.

The study randomly assigned 662 African-American students (average age 12.2) to participate in one of four programs: abstinence-only intervention; safer-sex–only intervention targeting increased condom use; comprehensive interventions targeting both sexual intercourse and condom use; or a control intervention focusing on health issues unrelated to sexual behavior.

The researchers found that the probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5 percent in the abstinence-only program and 48.5 percent in the control group attending health promotion courses. Rates in the safer sex and comprehensive programs did not differ significantly from the control group.

In addition, fewer students in the abstinence-only group (20.6 percent) vs. those in the control group (29 percent) reported having sex in the previous three months during the follow-up period. The abstinence-only intervention did not appear to affect rates of condom use. The eight-hour and 12-hour comprehensive programs appeared to be associated with reduced reports of having multiple partners when compared with the control group.

The authors of the study, which was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, concluded that theory-based abstinence-only interventions “can be part of [the] mix” of methods to reduce sexually-transmitted infections among teens.

Pro-life leaders hailed the study as reflecting a common sense approach to sex education initiatives.

“We have known for years that teaching abstinence changes lives,” Leslee Unruh, founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). “Abstinence education treats the whole being, teaching youth to respect themselves, set goals, avoid risky behavior to have a healthy future.”

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America remarked: “Once again, science validate a moral truth – that promoting chastity leads to healthier lifestyles.”

Wright told LSN that, “the only people that will be disappointed by this good news – that encouraging abstinence results in kids abstaining from sex – are the people who profit from kids being sexually active.

“Too many adults make a living from, or seek validation for their own bad behavior by pushing kids to be sexually active,” she added.

Commenting on the study, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council called it unfortunate that “this Congress and administration has zeroed out abstinence education in favor of sex-ed programs that advocate high-risk sexual behavior when it is children and young teens who suffer the consequences.”

Following President Obama’s budget recommendations last year, Congress voted to gut $99 billion in federal abstinence education funding, and increased funds for contraceptive-based education initiatives.

“The government does not promote drug use or underage drinking, and it should not promote high-risk sexual behavior either,” said Perkins in a statement Monday. “The evidence shows clearly that sexual abstinence is the healthiest behavior for youth.”

Source: LifeSiteNews February 2, 2010

Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration

By Gary Palmer

On November 20, 2009 a group of nationally known and respected Christian leaders set forth an historic declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a long overdue message from men and women of faith to all those in political power from state and local governments to the federal government and its myriad bureaucracies. The Declaration focuses on three foundational principles of justice and the common good on which the signers will not compromise: the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions; the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

The Declaration states, “Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.”

Obviously, this is a direct challenge to the power of the government at every level but especially the federal government under the current dominant liberal regime. In an interview with Katherine Lopez of the National Review, Dr. Robert George, one of the principal authors of the Manhattan Declaration, said that important decisions are now being made, or soon will be made, by state and federal government on the issues addressed in the Declaration.

Dr. George said that as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections there is unprecedented strength in both houses of Congress and in many state legislatures to push laws that advance the abortion agenda, that seek to legalize same-sex marriage, and that threaten religious liberty. In fact, some Christian groups have already come under assault.

In May 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston ended its 103 year ministry of providing adoption services to place foster children rather than comply with the Massachusetts state law that required them to place children with homosexuals. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is threatening to take action against Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic college in North Carolina, because the college refuses to include insurance coverage for abortion and contraception in the college’s health insurance plan.

While both of these involve Catholic institutions, they could just as easily be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or any other denomination.

Lopez later asked Dr. George how the White House should take the Declaration. He responded, “I hope that President Obama will understand that the signatories to the Manhattan Declaration are determined to defend the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and respect for religious freedom. On these issues, they cannot compromise, and they will not remain silent.”

The Declaration’s signatories understand that the principles of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and religious freedom are under threat from powerful political and cultural forces in our nation. They want it understood that, as Christians, those who sign the Declaration regard these principles as non-negotiable, and will therefore be unceasing in their defense of them. A critical line of the declaration states, “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

In explaining why he signed the Manhattan Declaration, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky wrote that he signed it “…because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.”

Dr. Mohler was referring to the last lines of the Declaration that should be regarded as a solemn oath by all who sign it, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.” Mohler then added, “I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all.”

The opportunity to stand with other believers of such courage and moral clarity is why I signed the Declaration.

You can read the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Mandating Higher Insurance Costs

By Marc Kilmer

At a time when the U.S. Senate is debating legislation that will supposedly bring down health insurance costs for Americans, the state House of Representatives just passed legislation that would hike these costs. While this legislation was passed with the best of intentions, it’s effect will be to hurt small businesses and lead to more uninsured in the state.

The legislation at question is two bills that mandate insurance companies cover treatment for autism (up to $36,000 a year) and treatment for diabetes. Some Ohioans will certainly benefit from these mandates and will find their costs for these treatments decline. The benefits from the legislation aren’t the whole story, though. The wider harm caused to everyone else that has health insurance was disregarded by legislators who promoted these measures.

Treatments for autistic children can be very expensive. Parents of these children understandably want someone else to help share their burden. Likewise, coverage for diabetics can cost a lot of money. But this legislation doesn’t really force insurance companies to pay for these treatments. Instead, legislators have forced everyone who has insurance to pay for them. Insurance companies don’t just print money to pay for services. They get money from the insurance premiums you pay. If they need more money, they raise the price of premiums.

While not the intended effect, if these bills become law it will lead to higher prices for health insurance in Ohio. Not all health insurance will be affected, though. Big companies that provide their own insurance aren’t covered by state law. Small businesses and individuals who purchase their own insurance are the ones who will be paying for this legislation.

Ohio has seen many small businesses close their doors or lay off workers in the past couple years. Business owners are cutting cut costs to stay in business. Even a modest price increase for health insurance will likely mean that some will drop such coverage completely. The result will be more people without insurance in the state. For those companies that do decide to keep insurance, it will mean either less profit for employers or lower wages for employees, both of which are especially unwelcome during a recession.

Ohio already mandates that insurance companies must cover a number of procedures, artificially raising the cost of insurance. For instance, even if you believe that chiropractors offer few legitimate medical treatments, your insurance must cover their services. Or even if you’ve never touched a drug in your life, state legislators mandate that your insurance cover drug addiction treatment. But compared to other states, Ohio does pretty well. Legislators have been steadily adding to these mandates over the years, though, and the governor wants even more regulation of health insurance. At the same time, these same politicians decry the rising cost of health insurance, even though they are directly responsible for part of this price increase.

All this is not to say that insurance should not cover treatment for autism or diabetes. Health insurance consumers should have the freedom to buy such insurance if they wish. But if you want to pay lower prices for a policy without such coverage, you should be free to do so, too. Not every one wants, or can afford, a policy that covers every disease or treatment. Ohioans should have the freedom to shop for insurance policies that meet their budgets and their medical needs. The Ohio House of Representatives wants to take that freedom from you, though. If this were the automobile market, it would be like legislators saying that if you don’t buy a Cadillac, you can’t own a car at all. For some people, a Kia works just fine.

The best way to help health insurance consumers is to remove government mandates and allow health insurance companies to tailor policies to meet individual consumers’ needs. Imposing politically-driven restrictions on insurance drives up the cost for all and helps only a very few. That’s not the kind of health insurance reform Ohioans need.

Marc Kilmer is a policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a research and educational institute located in Columbus, Ohio.

Evidence of Counseling Abuse at Planned Parenthood Continues to Surface in Undercover Student Video

New undercover footage from an Appleton, WI Planned Parenthood abortion clinic shows clinic staff, including the abortion doctor, lying to two young women about fetal development and encouraging the one who is pregnant to obtain an abortion because “women die having babies.”

In the undercover video, when the two women ask a Planned Parenthood counselor if the pregnant woman’s 10-week-old unborn child has a heartbeat, the counselor emphasizes “heart tones,” and answers, “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus–can survive–which is about seventeen or eighteen weeks.” On the contrary, embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks. Wisconsin informed consent law requires that women receive medically accurate information before undergoing an abortion.

The counselor then says, “A fetus is what’s in the uterus right now. That is not a baby.” Dr. Prohaska, the abortion doctor, insists, “It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that.” Prohaska also states that having an abortion will be “much safer than having a baby,” warning, “You know, women die having babies.”

The video comes one month after the widely reported resignation of Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson. Johnson left her leadership position at Planned Parenthood in Bryan, TX after watching a 13-week old fetus being aborted in her clinic on ultrasound. She said during a recent interview, “Planned Parenthood really tries to instill in their employees and the women that are coming in for abortions that this is not a baby.” In another interview, she noted, “They don’t want to talk about when your baby has a heartbeat,” because “they don’t want to give the woman information that could give her a connection with her baby.”

The investigation is organized by Live Action, a nonprofit student group. Lila Rose, the 21-year-old UCLA student and Live Action president, says medical lies and manipulative counseling are routine at Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain.

“They will do or say anything in order to sell more abortions to more women, whether it is covering up sexual abuse or lying to women about medical facts,” says Rose. “Our team has visited dozens of Planned Parenthood clinics undercover. Planned Parenthood, while claiming to support patient self-determination, operates with an ‘abortion-first mentality.’”

The video is the first in Live Action’s “Rosa Acuna Project,” a multi-state undercover audit documenting Planned Parenthood’s abortion counseling. Planned Parenthood has come under fire recently after Live Action’s investigations found them willing to conceal sexual abuse and accept donations targeted to abort African-Americans only. Videos of abuse cover-up prompted state investigations of Planned Parenthood and diversion of the abortion giant’s public subsidies.

“Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar organization with nearly $350 million of government funding, and stands to gain hundreds of millions more from national health care,” says Rose. “Do we really want to subsidize an organization that gives women in need atrocious misinformation and predatory abortion practices?”

To see the new video, go to: liveaction.org/rosaacuna. To learn more about Live Action, visit: liveaction.org.

Women Win Under Spupak Amendment to HR 3962

Late Saturday night, Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts, (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur, (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) successfully led an effort to protect women and children from abortion in health care reform.

During debate preceding the vote on the Stupak Amendment, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) declared, “Women deserve better than abortion.”

The Stupak Amendment will maintain the current policy of preventing federal funding of abortion in health care reform, and any benefits packages that would otherwise include abortion.

FFL President Serrin M. Foster said, “Thanks to Members of Congress who led effort and the activism of thousands of FFL members, women will not have to face additional pressure to have abortion. We can refocus our efforts on meaningful, holistic solutions that everyone can support.”