ProLifeCon is only five days away.  We have an exciting lineup of speakers, and one of the goals is to empower online activists to bring awareness to the policies impacting the pro-life community in Washington.

We are excited to have Rep. Chris Smith from New Jersey as one of our speakers.  As co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, Rep. Smith has been instrumental in advocating for pro-life legislation in the House of Representatives.  Rep. Smith has also been a strong voice against human trafficking, and as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Human Trafficking, he has successfully written and passed into law The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler from Missouri will also be joining ProLifeCon as a featured speaker.  Rep. Hartzler was elected to serve the Fourth District of Missouri in 2010, and she has been a tireless advocate for pro-life issues.  She supported H.R. 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith.  Rep. Hartzler is also a member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and Congressional Caucus on Human Trafficking.

ProLifeCon has more exciting speakers who will be featured throughout this week.  Click here to register today and learn how you can spread the pro-life message to others.

Comments: - |

Recently, Hot Air reported that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi doesn’t understand why the U.S. Catholic bishops are against requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives, including known abortifacients.  She belittles Catholics who object, conscientiously, to paying for or performing services that their church teaches are wrong.

Perhaps she should consider the Catholic Catechism, which says that “Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil.”  What could be more good than defending life?  And what could be more evil than to disregard it, or denigrate those who seek to uphold it.

Even though the former Speaker is Catholic, she seems to have long forgotten that Catholicism is unequivocal in support of the sanctity of human life, from conception onward.  This teaching is discussed throughout the Catechism, and there is even a section regarding the usage of abortifacients, and the Catholic Church’s stance against the use.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, economist and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, concluded a recent column on Obamacare: “Yes, health care will be affordable for low-income Americans – but only if they’re unmarried.”  Her column doesn’t appear to have received a great deal of attention, but Furchtgott-Roth was describing one line of analysis from an October 27^th hearing conducted by the House Committee on Government Reform.  The hearing was entitled “Examining Obamacare’s Hidden Marriage Penalty and Its Impact on the Deficit.”  The details are a bit complicated, so I recommend reading the Furchtgott-Roth article.  (A committee staff report is also available.)  Suffice it to say that there is much to learn about Obamacare as Mrs. Pelosi once told us.

Comments: 1 |

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the fiscal year 2010 deficit was $1.3 trillion.  If the roughly $700 billion from Social Security had been kept in its own so-called “Trust Fund” and, as a result, subtracted from federal general revenues, the deficit would have been more than $2 trillion.

Instead, as economics writer James Pethokoukis observes, monies supposedly dedicated to Social Security are used as part of a fiduciary “shell game” to “mask the true depth of the budget deficit.”

How can Social Security and the federal government get away with this?

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Marcia Walden, a licensed counselor in Georgia, explains why she was fired after referring a homosexual client to a colleague. Marcia referred the client to another colleague because offering counseling services would conflict with her Christian beliefs on homosexuality. Under ENDA legislation currently before Congress, Christian employers and employees across the nation would experience similar attacks on their Constitutional right to freedom of religion, speech and association.

For more on how you can protect the religious liberties of employers and employees, visit FightEnda.org.

Comments: 2 |

Not only are the Obama administration and the Pelosi-led Democrats in Congress out of step with the American public in giving high priority to pushing a radical homosexual agenda, but they are out of step with their own Democratic base. That’s the message of a recent, admittedly unscientific survey conducted by The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC). Here’s how they described the survey:

“More than 2,000 Democratic supporters offered input, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. . . . Respondents were asked to rank how important a series of issues were to them. The issues were: Fully Funding Public Schools, Expanding Environmental Protections and Clean Energy, Strengthening Government Ethics Rules, Promoting Job Growth, and Promoting Equal Rights for the LGBT Community.”

The results? All five issues were rated “extremely important” by a majority of respondents–except for LGBT “Equal Rights,” which got that rating from only 47.3%. By contrast, over 80% of respondents rated “Public Education” as “extremely important.” The homosexual agenda even had 19.3% of these Democratic activists dismissing it with replies of “not very important” (7.9%), “not important at all” (5.6%), or “no answer” (5.8%). Only 5.6% were as negative toward education as a priority.

We can only hope Congressional leadership will take this into account in determining whether to make homosexuals in the military and ENDA a priority in the tight legislative calendar between now and next January, when the new Congress takes office.

Democrats’ 2010 Legislative Priorities Survey

Comments: 1 |

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: - |