Family Research Council

Unborn Victims of Violence Act Used in Tampa

by Chris Gacek

May 19, 2013

History may have been made last week when federal prosecutors used the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) to indict a man who is alleged to have killed his own unborn child.  It is quite likely that this is the first use of the UVVA.

The news of this terrible crime spread across the nation after the federal government announced an indictment of John Andrew Welden in Tampa, Florida.  Welden tricked his pregnant girlfriend, Remee Lee, into taking a drug, misoprostol (Cytotec^®), which produces abortions in early pregnancy.  Lee was six weeks pregnant and refused to have an abortion as Welden had demanded.

Welden’s father is an obstetrician-gynecologist who performed the ultrasound and blood tests that confirmed Lee’s pregnancy.  (Welden’s father, apparently, was not involved in the crime.)

After confirmation of the pregnancy, John Andrew Welden told Lee that her blood tests revealed that she had an infection.  He gave her a bottle of pills in an orange plastic bottle of the type one receives from a pharmacy.  Welden falsified a label somehow to indicate that the bottle contained amoxicillin and that a prescription from Welden’s father called for her to take the medicine three times daily. 

In fact, the bottle contained misoprostol, the second drug in the RU-486 abortion regimen.  Misoprostol is used primarily to prevent patients who take large quantities of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) from developing ulcers.  Very late in pregnancies it has legitimate obstetrical uses that, roughly speaking, have to do with inducing the delivery of a healthy full-term baby.  However, early, in pregnancies a pregnant woman who takes misoprostol will begin to have uterine contractions that can kill the baby by causing the uterus to expel its contents.

That is what happened in this case.  Lee says she woke up on Easter Sunday in a pool of blood.  The staff at a nearby hospital told her that her baby had died.  It was quickly apparent to these medical professionals that the drug she had been given was not the antibiotic.  Interestingly, Welden had gone so far as to eliminate drug-identifying features from the tablets.  It was quickly determined that she had, in fact, been given misoprostol.

I am not sure how the case developed – optimally this matter would be handled by state authorities who would prosecute the matter.  Unfortunately, Florida law is archaic when it comes to the protection of the unborn.  According to Americans United for Life (see Defending Life 2012), “[u]nder Florida criminal law, the killing of an unborn child after ‘quickening’ (discernible movement in the womb) is defined as manslaughter.”  Prior to quickening, killing an unborn baby is not a crime in Florida.

Remee Lee’s baby was only six week’s old gestationally.  Typically, quickening occurs from weeks 13 to 16.  A manslaughter prosecution would not have been possible in this case.  It may be this fact that brought about the federal government’s involvement. 

 On May 14^th a federal grand jury indictment was unsealed against Welden that contained two counts.  Count One charges Welden with tampering with consumer products (18 U.S.C.§ 1365(a)) – in this case, the drugs taken by Remee Lee which relied upon a falsified prescriptive drug label and tablets that were defaced.  Count Two, relying upon the drug tampering, then proceeds to charge Welden with violations of the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (18 U.S.C.§ 1841) and the federal murder provision (18 U.S.C.§ 1111(a)). 

 The UVVA is a federal act.  Federal jurisdiction in a Florida murder depends on the violation of an underlying federal law.  Typically, this will involve interstate commerce, and, in this case, it is tampering with a consumer product.  That provision is referenced in the UVVA.

 Praise needs to be given to the federal officials involved:  Robert E. O’Neill (U.S. Attorney - Middle District of Florida), W. Stephen Muldrow (Assistant, U.S. Attorney), and A. Lee Bentley, III (First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division – Tampa).

No cheers for the state of Florida which needs to amend its abortion statute.

See the story from the Tampa Bay Times by Patty Ryan and Will Hobson.  Go to this link for a PDF copy of the unsealed indictment.

Washington Examiner: DOJ should Investigate Southern Poverty Law Center for Consumer Fraud

by JP Duffy

April 29, 2013

Today, a Washington Examiner editorial called on federal government agencies to stop “bolstering” the Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-Christian organization that has been linked in federal court to the domestic terrorist shooting at Family Research Council.  Instead, the Examiner suggests that the Department of Justice should consider investigating the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for consumer fraud:

“What should be questioned, however, is why federal officials are bolstering this richly endowed group that critics across the political spectrum have long said does little besides enrich Dees and viciously slander groups he dislikes. The Justice Department’s Feb. 6, 2012, Civil Rights Summit, for example, featured SPLC spokesman Mark Potok, and SPLC speakers have been promoted by DOJ at similar events in Kansas and Arkansas. Instead of endorsing the SPLC in this manner, maybe the Justice Department should be investigating it for consumer fraud.”

The credibility of the SPLC has suffered in recent weeks after the revelation that the organization appears to have mislead investigators in the Texas District Attorney murders. The SPLC was also wrong when it attempted to blame “right wing groups” for the Gabby Giffords shooting.  The Examiner, and Gov. Mike Huckabee are exactly right. The SPLC is a thoroughly discredited organization that should no longer be promoted in anyway by government agencies.  

P.S. The Court announced today that the sentencing of Floyd Corkins has been rescheduled for July 15, 2013.

Tony Perkins interview on the SPLC

by FRC Media Office

April 23, 2013

FRC President Tony Perkins was interviewed via Skype yesterday on Tom Trento’s show regarding the rise of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center — a group that has been linked with terrorism in federal court. The audio is a little rough in places, but this is the first part in a series by Trento exposing the SPLC:

Supreme Court arguments suggest the end is not near in marriage debate

by Peter Sprigg

April 16, 2013

The mainstream media would have you believe that the decision to redefine marriage for the benefit of homosexual couples has already been made.

Time magazine ran a cover story under the title, “How Gay Marriage Won”—featuring cover photos of a male couple kissing or a female couple kissing—your choice. Pollsters claim that a majority of Americans now support legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that among young people, that majority is overwhelming. Democratic senators (and a couple of Republicans) who previously opposed redefining marriage have begun falling like dominoes. Same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable,” we are told—it is only a matter of time.

Do not believe it.

In a country where 41 out of 50 states still define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and voters in a majority, 30 have placed that definition in their state constitutions; it can only be wishful thinking for the advocates of marriage redefinition to claim that it is imminent or inevitable. I suspect that some in the mainstream media are hoping that their prophecy will be a self-fulfilling one.

It’s particularly ironic that the theme of the “inevitability” of same-sex “marriage” seemed to gain ground in the mainstream media the week of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the case challenging Proposition 8, the California state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Unlike the case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which presents somewhat narrower issues, the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, and their lead attorney Ted Olson, assert that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of same-sex couples to “marry.” If accepted, this argument would mean that marriage would be redefined to include same-sex couples not just in California, but in all fifty states. Such an outcome would be comparable to Roe v. Wade—the 1973 decision that forced legalized abortion on all fifty states.

However, the tone of the argument in the case (known as Hollingsworth v. Perry) actually did not seem to point in the direction of such a sweeping decision. The justices’ gave very little indication that they are prepared to redefine marriage for all fifty states.

Following are some quotes from the justices. We in the pro-family movement have sometimes made a slippery slope argument—if we redefine marriage to eliminate gender restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner, it would be hard to maintain other restrictions—ones which prevent anyone from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married.

When conservatives raise this logical question, we are routinely vilified for “comparing” homosexuality to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. Yet one of the justices raised the exact same point, putting it this way (this is slightly edited for clarity):

“If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people … that could get married, [with respect to] the incest laws, the mother and child [getting married], assuming that they are [both] the age [to marry]? I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest [in] protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?”

What’s interesting is that the justice who raised this was—Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee.

We have also raised concern about the impact of marriage redefinition on the institution of marriage and on children.

One of the justices warned:

“[T]here’s substance to the point that [the] sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”

That same justice later elaborated,

“The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters; and you can play with that metaphor—‘there’s a wonderful destination,’ [or] ‘it is a cliff.’

When Ted Olson, the attorney for the homosexual couples in the case, claimed that there was an analogy between banning same-sex “marriages” and banning interracial marriages, the same justice cut him off and said,

“[T]hat’s not accurate.”

The justice who made all those remarks was—Anthony Kennedy, universally viewed as the swing vote between the conservative and liberal factions on the court.

In fact, in the 9^th Circuit ruling on Prop 8 (which found the measure unconstitutional, but on narrow grounds that would apply only to California) it was almost comically obvious that the opinion was written to appeal to Justice Kennedy, based on the supposed precedent of his opinion in a 1996 case called Romer v. Evans.

Yet one justice referred to that 9^th Circuit opinion and said,

“That’s a very odd rationale.”

The justice who said that was—Anthony Kennedy!

It is dangerous to make assumptions about the outcome of a case based on oral arguments—we learned that in the Obamacare case. But few observers now expect a Roe v. Wade of marriage.

That means this debate is probably not near an end. It is likely to continue for years to come.

Guest Post: Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

by Katie Yoder

March 29, 2013

Below is a guest post from Newsbusters that provides a brief overview of the past week’s media coverage on marriage.

Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

From networks to news sites, reporters set liberal agenda.

By Katie Yoder

As thousands trekked across the country this week to protest at the Supreme Court while justices heard arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), the media did the same by voicing their own opinions. From the networks to online news sites, so-called neutral journalists twisted coverage in support of gay marriage.

CBS led the network pack and focused a one-sided light on Tuesday evening reports, the night of the first Supreme Court arguments. CBS went personal March 26 as reporter John Blackstone, during “Evening News,” highlighted a story of lesbian couple Torri and Sunnie. The program showed at least 12 different video or photo clips of gay weddings and quoted two gay marriage advocates – with one traditional marriage supporter.

Tuesday morning wasn’t much better, with four voices advocating for gay marriage, and one counter. Wednesday’s “This Morning” devoted over three minutes to David Boies, an attorney who argued at the Supreme Court against Proposition 8 with no one to offer a counter argument during the segment.

ABC followed suit in the Tuesday evening reports without any counter argument as anchor Terry Moran quoted two separate people whose family members sued for gay marriage. As Moran put it, ““For the two gay couples at the heart of the case … this was their family’s moment.”

NBC reporter Kristen Dahlgren flooded her report with TV gay icons, from Ellen DeGeneres to “Modern Family.” She acknowledged the media’s power on the issue though: “Over the years, television has changed the conversation about American sexuality.” She continued to say, “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” What she left out of her report was her own network’s pro-gay advocacy with the show “The New Normal.”

The one-sided coverage attracted even the attention of the liberal Huffington Post, which published a headline reading, “The Supreme Court May Be Divided On Gay Marriage, But The Media Isn’t.” In it, HuffPo media editor Jack Mirkinson noted major news outlets’ support of gay marriage and said, “Gay marriage is different. It is no longer all that controversial for many in the media.”

It wasn’t like another side to the story didn’t exist. Traditional marriage supporters made themselves hard to ignore March 26 by attending the National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) March for Marriage. According to NOM’s Thomas Peters, 15,000 marchers attended as the networks stood silent even during the next day’s morning shows. The Washington Post decided to cover the event though – even if they did shrink 15,000 attendees into a ‘few dozen.’

When the media decided to cover traditional marriage supporters, reporters didn’t play nice. ABC’s Wednesday “Good Morning America” illustrated the tug-of-war on marriage’s definition as the “21st century social movement” of gay marriage versus the elderly “downright perplexed” justices.

CNN contributor and GOP strategist Ana Navarro sang a similar tune and proclaimed gay marriage opponents must “get into the 21st century.” While urging Republicans to push the hot issue into the background, she lectured opponents that “folks who are in denial about this that have to get out of the closet. They have to wave goodbye to the GEICO caveman and step out gingerly and carefully into the brave new world.”

But then, according to the media, gay marriage already won the hearts of Americans. Just look at the upcoming TIME magazine showcasing two different covers – one of a lesbian couple kissing, one of a gay couple kissing – while advertising an article by David von Drehle titled, “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court hasn’t made up its mind – but America has.” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein, on March 26’s “Morning Joe,” commented on how rapidly the issue of gay marriage changed: “My God, I haven’t seen anything like it … To my kids, it’s just mystifying that anyone would be opposed to it.”

The Washington Post boasted a similar headline to TIME magazine that read “Political debate on same-sex marriage is over.” Writer Chris Cillizza explained, “[N]o matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over.”

Those who thought the gay marriage debate still exists were in for a brutal media bash. After citing GOP strategist Karl Rove on the possibility of a 2016 Republican presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage, CNN’s Carol Costello asked Alliance Defense Fund’s Austin Nimocks, “Austin, you heard what Karl Rove just said. Are you on the wrong side of history?” CNN zeroed in on traditional marriage supporters as host Piers Morgan and openly gay anchor Don Lemon smashed opponents as “homophobic” and likened them to segregationists.

When asked about fair coverage by social conservative Peter LaBarbera, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer pulled race into the argument and bluntly replied, “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter.”

MSNBC personality Luke Russert unleashed his opinion on FRC’s Tony Perkins during Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” and asked, “What do you fear so much” about gay marriage? When Perkins replied that he didn’t fear anything, Russert challenged, “Then why are you opposed?” He later charged Perkins with equating homosexuality with polygamy, after Perkins stated that the basis of marriage requires more than merely loving someone.

Those who did rally for gay marriage became heroes. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg showered favor upon Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), and gushed, “Ms. Bonauto is too busy juggling legal briefs, homework and piano lessons to see herself as a woman making history.” During March 27 “World News,” Diane Sawyer praised an 83-year-old lesbian involved in the case against DoMA and explained, “Edith Windsor received a hero’s welcome when she emerged from the Supreme Court, saying it’s time to take a stand for marriage equality.”

That left one to ponder how DoMA ever passed the first place – but the media held the answer to that too. Former President Bill Clinton signed it due to sleep deprivation and pressure from his 1996 opponent Bob Dole, according to The New York Times’ Peter Baker.

On the bright side, gay marriage reportedly benefits the economy. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos cited an 8-year-old study Thursday and stated that legalizing gay marriage “could bring in up to $1 billion a year – so, a net benefit for the Treasury from gay marriage.” He explained, “if gay or lesbian couples are married and they have about equal income, they would actually pay more in taxes than if they were single.” CBS anchor Charlie Rose agreed, saying on Thursday’s “This Morning” that “if it’s [DOMA is] struck down, it may not be a financial windfall for same-sex couples. The case has centered on federal benefits. If they become eligible for the benefits, they would also have to pay higher taxes.”

It was scary enough when NBC’s Reporter Kristen Dahlgren admitted “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” But a more frightening thought is to realize that what happens in the networks – on the news sites – doesn’t tend stay there either.

Oral Arguments on DoMA at the Supreme Court Today

by Chris Gacek

March 28, 2013

There is a great deal of news today about the oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  If you would like to read some good background information on DOMA, read the PDF of FRC’s 2010 pamphlet on the statute.  Learn why it was enacted, what it does, and why it is constitutional.  

Theologians for Prayer (You Read that Right)

by Rob Schwarzwalder

January 11, 2013

On January 7, the director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, Ken Klukowski, filed a compelling brief with the U.S. Supreme Court concerning efforts to prevent prayer at the beginning of government meetings (whether they be local, county, state, or federal). Signed by 49 Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the document makes a convincing argument that prayers before government meetings are constitutional and a matter of religious liberty for all Americans. A description of the brief, and the brief itself, are available here.

FRC President Tony Perkins, noting the importance of the case, said:

The Founders understood that religion is good for society, and defended “the free exercise thereof.” Family Research Council is honored that 49 Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have chosen FRC to present their arguments to the nation’s highest Court. We hope the Supreme Court will reject the freedom-threatening Second Circuit opinion in this case, and reverse it.

Ours was not the only brief filed this week. A group of prominent theologians, Protestant and Catholic, filed their own brief with the Court, making a strong argument for legislative prayer. The conclude eloquently:

Ultimately, attempts to promote “civic religion” or “religious neutrality” must establish the judiciary as the arbiters of the “neutral”’ orthodoxy. This orthodoxy would necessarily favor some religions over others. The only way to avoid this establishment of religion and to remain truly neutral is to follow the guidance of Marsh v. Chambers: refusing to consider the content of any prayer and permitting each person to pray according to the dictates of conscience.

FRC’s friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom have compiled a list of all relevant briefs, including FRC’s and that of the theologians, here. As we go forward advancing your religious liberty in this effort, we ask for your prayers, both for wisdom for us and for a sound outcome from the nation’s senior jurists.

“The Fool Says in His Heart…”

by Peter Sprigg

December 21, 2012

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” – Psalm 14:1a (NIV)

While many people who seldom attend church will show up at Christmas and join in singing sacred hymns, there is at least one Grinch who sits on the Montana Supreme Court.

On December 17, the court ruled (on narrow grounds) against same-sex couples who were seeking marital benefits. Justice James C. Nelson wrote a long and polemical dissent. Toward the end, he opined that “the sexual-orientation taboo … will die because of education, science, and changing social mores….” Footnoting the word “science,” he wrote this at the bottom of the page:

Indeed, with every advancement in science, religion loses ground. The more humans learn and understand about the laws that actually control the universe, the less is their need to rely on gods, miracles, and myths to explain that which they do not understand.

While I have read many judicial opinions that expressed hostility to public expressions of religious faith, I have never seen one express such overt hostility to religion itself.

Fortunately, Justice Nelson is retiring. Perhaps, this Christmas, you might say a prayer for him.

Thank you and goodnight, Judge Bork

by Jessica Prol

December 20, 2012

Yesterday, a conservative icon and one of the brightest legal scholars met his Maker.

Judge Robert Bork died on Dec. 19 at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington County of complications from heart disease. He was 85.

He has been lauded by the conservative think-world as a titan in the legal field, generous with both his time and wisdom.

I never met Mr. Bork in person, but I met his mind and his books at the rather tender age of 14 years. I credit (and teasingly blame) my thoughtful father—who doubled as my history teacher. Dad planted the seeds of political curiosity and nurtured them with his ”you-go-girl” encouragement.

What started as an 8^th grade class assignment—writing letters to one’s Congressman—led to a larger adventure. I admit to sifting through Slouching Towards Gomorrah and The Tempting of America in search of good footnote-able quotes (as any junior high student is wont to do). What emerged? A rather passionate and precocious letter to Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen sharing my concern about judicial activism.

The Lutheran Brotherhood plucked my letter out of its pile and invited me to Washington, DC as their New Jersey representative in the RespecTeen National Youth Forum. I made my debut on the talk-show circuit, on the O’Reilly Factor—a rather twiggy girl, trembling behind a large pair of glasses. Mr. O’Reilly was rather nice to me and told me that if they didn’t listen to me in Washington, I should let him know.

You’ll have to take my word for it, because my VHS copy of the segment has been mercifully misplaced amid the family archives. I do, however, live with the mild anxiety that some “friend,” somewhere, will produce said clip at a distinctly inopportune moment. For any such creative folks reading this post: this should not be construed as a dare.

My precocious advocacy slowed down a bit—and most people in my life breathed a sigh of relief. But the little seeds did grow into something larger. By 2005, I was a Witherspoon Fellow, reflecting on how judicial temperament mattered, when reviewing the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: “Judicial Activism and Suggestions for Senators.”

In the ensuing few years, I served three members of Congress: Rep. Jim Ryun (KS-2), Rep. Bill Sali (ID-01), and Rep. Bob Inglis (SC-04). Ironically, I became the Hill staffer who took the meetings with the next generation of junior constituent advocates. I had to break through my own cynicism about the political process (no, the Congressman didn’t get the chance to read almost any of the letters… that was my job). But I learned to convey the lesson I had learned a decade earlier—political advocacy helps us begin to take ownership of this great American experiment.

Many people have inspired me to serve in public policy. I have parents and teachers to thank. But I also want to say thank you to Judge Bork. In closing, I leave you with one of his quotes:

The judicial adoption of the tenets of modern liberalism has produced a crisis of legitimacy. Contrary to the plan of the American government, the Supreme Court has usurped the powers of the people and their elected representatives. We are no longer free to make our own fundamental moral and cultural decisions because the Court overseas all such matters, when as as it chooses. The crisis of legitimacy occurs because the political nation has no way of responding. The Founders built into our government a system of checks and balances, carefully giving to the national legislature and the executive powers to check each other so as to avoid either executive or legislative tyranny. The Founders had no idea that a Court armed with a written Constitution and the power of judicial review could become not only the supreme legislature of the land but a legislature beyond the reach of the ballot box. Thinking of the Court as a minor institution, they provided no safeguards against its assumption of powers not legitimately its own and its consistent abuse of those powers. Congress and the President check and balance one another, but neither of them can stop the Courts adventures in making and enforcing left-wing policy.

He’s a little more bombastic than I remember as a kid. But he’s also rather prophetic.

Thank you and good night, Judge Bork.

FRC’s Ken Klukowski Rightly Predicts Federal Court Decision

by JP Duffy

December 19, 2012

This past Saturday in a Breitbart.com opinion piece, FRC’s Ken Klukowski noted that at least two of the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit appeared ready to block the HHS mandate. On Tuesday, the appellate court reinstated lawsuits brought by Belmont Abbey College and Wheaton College. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in a news release praised the court for ordering “the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects the Colleges’ religious freedom.”

Read the piece here.