Wednesday’s headline in The Hill led with the caption “Abortion-rights groups threaten not to fund Rodriquez and Teague.”  Apparently NARAL and Planned Parenthood are ticked because Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas) and Congressman Harry Teague (D-N.M.)  voted in support of the Stupak Amendment which removed abortion funding from the health care bill (1).

Very few news organizations are reporting on the divide that is developing within the Democratic Party.  Many Congressional Democrats, who firmly believe in the federal funding of abortion, are out for the blood of those who exercised a vote according to their conscience.  This shouldn’t be terribly surprising since these pro-abortion House Members are also interested in taking away the conscience rights of doctors, but I digress.

Still, there is a huge overlooked question that begs to be asked.  Why is a charitable organization which receives federal funds allowed to make financial contributions to candidates who vote for giving federal funds back to the organization?  Let alone threaten to remove the base of support when the candidate votes their conscience.  Does anyone see anything wrong with this circular problem?  Planned Parenthood receives over $350 million annually in federal funds (2).  Through this legislation, they were lobbying to up the ante significantly, thus lining their fat pockets even more.  And, although the Stupak Amendment passed the House for now, they are not done with that fight!

While NARAL doesn’t receive federal funds, their business practices are questionable as they fail to meet the Better Business Standards for Charity Accountability (3).  Considering NARAL’s work got its start through the successful use of enormous lies, this is simply par for the course (4).  Every time NARAL comments on issues like these, the public should be reminded of their questionable practices and roots

When will this outrageous behavior end?  Who are elected officials representing:  the people who vote for them; or the special interests who pay for slick advertising to sway the voters?  Okay, so that question is too easy.

Every time Planned Parenthood opens their mouth on an issue like this, why aren’t reporters calling into question the dog Planned Parenthood has in this hunt?

Why isn’t Planned Parenthood being investigated?  As previously mentioned, they make campaign contributions to Members of Congress who reciprocate through the funding of Planned Parenthood.  Their staff have been recorded numerous times counseling underage girls who admit to being impregnated by adults.  Instead of reporting a crime of rape, they provide abortion counseling support and encourage the girls to conceal the age and specifics of their rapists (5).

Reporters need to stop scratching their heads and the surface of these stories.  We’ve heard it before and I’ll shout it again, “it’s time they dig deep, accurately investigate and report on these issues.” We’ve come a long way from the days of Murrow.   Even worse, we’ve come even further from a time when our elected truly represented the electorate.

(1) Abortion-rights groups threaten not to fund Rodriguez and Teague http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67473-threat-to-rodriguez-teague-from-abortion-rights-groups-

(2)  Planned Parenthood Annual Report: Abortion Totals, Government Funding Increase http://www.lifenews.com/nat4978.html

(3) BBB Wise Giving Report for

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/naral-pro-choice-america-foundation-in-washington-dc-507

(4) Lies and Fraud of Roe v. Wade: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872

(5) Live Action Films:  http://liveaction.org/

Comments: - |

On November 5, 2009, two days before the House vote on health care,
thousands gathered on Capitol Hill to be heard.

Comments: 1 |

Be sure to tune in tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST for the live video webcast of “Government Takeover of Health Care: Counting the Cost.” We’ve invited Members of Congress, financial analysts, and FRC policy experts to join us live at our Washington, D.C. headquarters to help us assess this bill as Congress prepares to vote this week.

Participants include:

• Host: Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action
• Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
• Congressman Charles Boustany, M.D. (R-La.)
• Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.)
• Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life
• Karen Steward, Research Analyst, The Polling Company
• Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association
• Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis, American Family Association
• Richard Scott, Chairman, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Conservatives for Patients Rights
• Phil Kerpen, Policy Director, Americans for Prosperity
• Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President, FRC Action
• David Christensen, Senior Director of Congressional Affairs, Family Research Council
• Dr. David Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Center for Human Life and Bioethics, Family Research Council
• Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow, Legal Studies, Family Research Council

An archive of the webcast will be available following the event.

Comments: - |

Here are some of the highlights from the FRCAction Health Care Townhall Webcast on Thursday, September 10, 2009.

Comments: - |

FRC has recently noted the contradictions of the position of Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who calls himself “pro-life” but was actually drummed out of the Democrats for Life of America because his plan for reducing abortion is to give more money (for contraception) to America’s largest abortion provider (Planned Parenthood).

But this quote from Rep. Ryan in a LifeNews.com article about the split with Democrats for Life really jumped out at me: “I can’t figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception.”

Really? He “can’t figure it out”? Not “for the life of” him?

Perhaps Rep. Ryan is under the impression that engaging in sexual relations is mandatory. It’s not. Perhaps he thinks people will die if they don’t have sex. They won’t—but thousands die each year (of sexually transmitted diseases) because they do.

If Rep. Ryan “can’t figure out . . . how to stop pregnancies without contraception,” let me spell it out for him.

A-B-S-T-A-I-N.

Comments: 3 |

Is global warming the gateway to global governance?  Before you tune me out, those are not my words.  They are the words of Al Gore, the guru of global warming.

Recently in a speech in the United Kingdom, the former Vice President praised Congress for passing the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill, saying “it was a step in the right direction.”  But he didn’t stop there.

Mr. Gore went on to say, “It is the awareness (of global warming) itself that will drive the change.  One of the ways it will drive the change is global governance and global agreements.”

His matter of fact candor belies repeated denials that embracing the proposed solutions to the global warming hype would lead to the loss of national sovereignty – among other things.   In the end, the effort to stop supposed global warming is about power, not people.  It’s a twisted view that says political power must be consolidated so that we can save the planet.

This reminds me of another group that consolidated their power to reach the heavens – at the Tower of Babble.  Whenever man thinks he can manage his own affairs without God, whether personally or through some form of global government or anything in between, confusion and disarray ensue – just like at Babble.

For more about the global warming debate, click here to listen to the audio of our important panel discussion, “Faith and Science in the Global Warming Debate.”  The experts on the panel were Dr. Calvin Beisner, Dr. Kenneth Chilton, Rev. Dr. Jim Ball, and Dr. Lowell “Rusty” Pritchard.

Comments: - |

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 won’t see anything bold until the second Obama term, when the logic of the first-term ideas really takes hold.  Here’s a peek:

Continue reading »

Comments: - |