One of highlights of the various 2011 state legislative sessions is the successful passage of many solid pro-life bills.  According to a recent report by Guttmacher, 80 bills restricting abortion were passed in 19 states, more than tripling the 23 passed last year.  This impressive number not only sets a record for the most life-affirming bills passed in one year, but it also more than doubles the previous record of 34 bills in 2005.

Some abortion advocates suggest that this is an example of legislators with extreme right-wing social ideologies “pushing” their agenda on the people in their state who likely do not agree with them on these issues.  They even go so far as to assert that there has been an all out “attack on women” by these state legislators. 

Now, thanks to Gallup poll data released today, we can check those assertions.  Are these pro-life legislators out of touch or do they reflect the feelings of the majority of Americans?  Are women feeling attacked and fighting back, or do they support and advocate bills that require their doctor to fully inform them of potential abortion risks, show them an ultrasound, and get parental consent for minors to receive an abortion?

Gallup says:

 “Of seven abortion restrictions tested in a July 15-17Galluppoll, informing women of certain risks of an abortion in advance of performing it is the most widely favored, at 87%. Seven in 10 Americans favor requiring parental consent for minors and establishing a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. Nearly two-thirds favor making the specific procedure known as “partial birth abortion” illegal”

Data from this poll also affirms a striking consistency in polling data that abortion is not a man verses woman issue, with men pushing pro-life views on women who just want to make choices with their pregnancies.  To the contrary, four out of seven pro-life measures addressed in this poll scored a higher percentage of support among women than men!   

Read the Poll results in their entirety for yourself here.

Comments: - |

Since the passage of Obamacare, officially titled the Paitient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many states have stepped in to fill the loophole allowing taxpayer funding of abortion.  They have accomplished this by passing laws prohibiting abortion coverage in health plans created through the state exchange program set up by Obamacare.  Arizona was the first state to do so in April of last year followed by four other states that session.  Eight more states have passed laws prohibiting abortion coverage in the 2011 session and eight additional states currently have such legislation pending.  The following chart and map gives details:

Comments: - |

An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose using taxpayer money to fund abortion.  When asked specifically if they supported or opposed the use of public funds to provide coverage for abortion in health insurance plans created by Obamacare, 72% of Americans were in opposition!  Only 23% percent supported publicly funded abortion coverage in insurance plans, and 5% did not know (Quinnipiac 2009).

In an effort to reflect the will of the people, 9 state governments have passed laws (and at least 16 more have pending legislation) prohibiting the coverage of abortion in any of the state insurance exchange programs instituted by Obamacare.

Several states have gone beyond this and restricted or proposed legislation restricting abortion coverage in all health insurance plans (public and private) except through the optional purchase of a rider.

In addition, several states which have not completely restricted abortion coverage in all insurance plans have restricted it in state-funded (read: taxpayer-funded) insurance plans.

The following map will give you a clear picture of the state of abortion coverage in insurance across the states:

=  AL (SB183, SB202 and HB 558), AR (SB113), FL (H97 and S1414), GA (SB4 and SB29), IA (HF576, HSB57, and SF38), IN (SB116), KS (HB2292, HB2377), MI (HB4143 and HB4147), (MT SB176), NE (LB22 and LB132), NJ (A3085), OH (HB79), OR (HB3600), PA (SB3), SC (H3406 and S102), TX (HB552, HB636, HB1816, HB3112, HB3419 and SB404)

= AL (SB201, SB281 and HB557), IN (SB241), KS (HB2292, HB2377), MI (HB4143 and HB4147),  MN (Only state-funded insurance: HF201, SF103), NE (LB22), OR (HB3600), SC (H3406), TX (SB404)

Comments: - |

Simply put, he is a liberal Democrat.  And that fact accounts for the recent failure of many Republican-backed pro-life and pro-family bills despite the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.

One individual’s “vote” can make all the difference in the world, especially when that individual is the governor of a state.  This point can be illustrated by looking at two states in particular: Arizona and Kansas.  Both of their former governors, staunch democrats Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius respectively, were appointed to positions by President Barack Obama.  Both states now have Republican governors: Jan Brewer in Arizona, and Sam Brownback in Kansas.  In recent weeks several pro-life bills have been sent to those governors’ desks such as a bill prohibiting abortion after 22 weeks based on fetal pain in KS and a bill strengthening abortion clinic regulations in AZ.  These and other similar bills would have been met with a ready veto a few years ago, but instead governors Brownback and Brewer were happy to agree with their legislatures and celebrate the bills’ passage.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Since the Adjournment of Idaho’s 2011 legislative session on April 7^th, a wide spectrum of adjectives have been used to describe this year’s proceedings.  Governor Otter called it “very succesful,” while Senate Democrats called the session “the worst in their collective memories.”  Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis said it was “a difficult session among some of the worst economic times in memory” and Representative Erik Simpson summed it up by quoting Charles Dickens: “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”

From a pro-life and pro-family perspective it is easy to agree with the Governor and call Idaho’s 2011 session very successful indeed.  According to Julie Lynde, Executive director at Cornerstone Family Council, Governor Otter signed every piece of pro-life legislation that crossed his desk.  And many of those measures were quite significant.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Maryland legislators ended their three month session yesterday, April 11^th.  The completion of this year’s session brought the passage of bills that would raise the alcohol tax by three percent, increase the buffer zone between picketers and funerals, provide incentives for facilities that create energy by burning trash and many others.  But more notable than what was passed, is what was not passed.

Same-Sex “Marriage”

Contrary to many predictions that Maryland would soon become the 6^th state to legalize same-sex “marriage,” SB 116, which would accomplish that goal, failed to pass the House of Delegates and was recommitted to the House Judiciary Committee.  This victory came through the dozens of phone calls and letters from those of you who stand for traditional marriage.  Many thanks are due to Derek McCoy, President of the Association of Maryland Families, and their entire staff for the tireless work that was poured into supporting this effort.

This victory for traditional marriage, though huge, is not necessarily a permanent one.  Since the bill was recommitted to committee, and not actually voted upon and failed, it can be brought up again next year at its current stage in the process.  Indeed, Chuck Butler, chairman of Equality Maryland the states’ leading LGBT advocacy organization said:

“So we agreed that if we could not pass the bill this year, we should try again next year.  Importantly, House leadership committed to bringing up the bill again in 2012. To preserve our prospects of success, therefore, it was best not to hold a vote now, given the chances of the bill’s defeat by a wide margin. It would be more difficult, within a year, to convert “no” votes to “yes” than to obtain a “yes” from delegates who had not locked in their position with an actual vote.”

Therefore we must remain ever vigilant on this issue, because homosexual activists certainly will.

“Gender Identity”

Another bill that ended in the “did not pass” category was HB 235, the “gender identity” bill which would prohibit alleged discrimination against a person based upon their gender identity.  The concept of gender identity attempts to legitimize a person’s wish, perception or belief that he or she is actually the opposite sex than his or her own sex at birth. This type of legislation tries to normalize and mainstream transgendered behavior such as cross-dressing.  House Bill 235 was recommitted to the Senate Judicial Proceeding Committee by a vote of 27 to 20.

These two victories in one of the most liberal states in the union are welcome news for everyone who stands for conservative family values!

For a more complete list of legislation that was passed (or failed) in Maryland this legislative session, click here.

Comments: - |

Ambulatory Surgical Centers exist in all 50 states across the US.  They are health care facilities that perform surgical procedures not requiring overnight hospitalization.  They can also be known as “outpatient” facilities, performing pain management, diagnostic, and other minor surgical procedures.  Under this definition it makes sense that an abortion facility would fall under the category of an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) and should thus be regulated as one, however, prior to the 2011 legislative session only one state, Missouri, defined and regulated their abortion clinics as Ambulatory Surgical Centers.  This lack of regulation of a procedure that has been documented to pose health risks to women is a dangerous oversight which needs correcting.

Fortunately, we are now starting to see this course-correction happening across the states.  Since the horrific discovery of Kermit Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” in Philadelphia which facilitated the death of at least seven infants after they were born alive and two women, there has been a push in many state legislatures to further regulate abortion clinics.

In Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell recently signed legislation that causes abortion clinics to be regulated like hospitals and instructs the Department of Health to create specific regulations to that end.  The language for those regulations has yet to be finalized.

Delaware, also home to clinics where Kermit Gosnell performed his gruesome abortions, recently passed legislation through the House of Representatives (HB 47) that would further regulate abortion clinics (thought they are not mentioned by name).

In Arkansas a bill requiring clinics that perform ten or more surgical or chemical abortions a month to be licensed with the Department of Health (HB 1855) has been sent to the governor’s desk.  Other measures regulating abortion clinics are also moving through the AR legislature.

The Illinois House voted yesterday on an amendment to a bill (HB 2093) that would require child abuse to be reported by more workers in centers that provide reproductive health care than currently required.  Planned Parenthood and other organizations are opposing this bill, as well as another bill, HB 3156, that regulates abortion clinics as Ambulatory Surgical Centers.

Other state efforts to further regulate abortion clinics or define them as “Ambulatory Surgical Centers” can be seen in the second figure below and their corresponding state bill numbers can be referenced as well.

Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” is by no means the only place where deaths and other tragic abortion abuses have occurred.  Amazingly, despite the publicity following Kermit Gosnell, abortion giant Planned Parenthood continues to lobby against such regulations – just as they did against similar regulations that were designed in Pennsylvania to stop butchers like Gosnell.

Note: Information for the above map was gained from Americans United for Life.

 IA (SF 40), IL (HB 3156), KS (HB 2337 and SB 165), KY (SB47), MD (HB 23 and SB 505), OK (HB 1548), OR (SB 901), PA (HB574) and TN (HB 956 and SB 47)

AZ (SB 1390), IN (HB 1204 and SB 328), OK (HB1642) and TX (HB 2787)

DE (HB 47), IN (HB 1474), MD (HB 18, HB 19, HB 20, HB 187, and HB 746), MI (HB 150, HB 4119, HB 4120, SB 54 and SB 55), MO (HB 483), ND (HB 1297), NM (SB 225), OK (HB 1970), TN (HB 435 and SB 642) and TX (HB 2555 and HB 3446)

Comments: 1 |

Indiana is one of twelve states that define marriage as between one man and one woman in their statutes, but not in their constitution.  Many proponents of traditional marriage are hopeful that this will soon change as HJR 6, a constitutional marriage protection amendment, has now successfully passed both the House and Senate.  Before its addition to the Indiana Constitution however, it will need to pass next year’s legislative body as well, and then be approved by the voters.  Still, successful passage of this first step is definitely something to be celebrated by those desiring to protect a rightful definition of marriage, one of the most foundational institutions of society.  Further emphasizing the sacred bonds of marriage, SB 119 defines a “Covenant Marriage” and provides legal grounds for male and female couples to declare their marriage a Covenant Marriage.

There are many bills this session that regulate or restrict abortion, including several bills that address its funding. House Bill 1210 covers everything from restricting abortion based on an unborn child’s ability to feel pain, to requiring physicians to inform women of the potential risks involved in an abortion and requiring the physicians to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, to providing funding to health care providers who offer breast cancer screening, to details about fetal development materials which must be placed on the state department’s website.  It recently passed the house with a vote of 72 to 23, and is now in the Senate Committee on Health and Provider Services.

Other bills concerning abortion include:

HB 1204 - Requires an abortion doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

HB 1205 – Prohibits the state from funding abortion or entities that perform abortions.

HB 1228 and SB 488 – Ensures conscience protection for health care workers.

HB 1258 – Establishes requirements for the prescription of an abortion drug.

HB1474 – Requires abortion clinics to file “terminated pregnancy forms” and specifies the content of those forms.

SB 20 – Prohibits the state from entering into a contract with or making grants to Planned Parenthood and cancels any current state funding.

SB 50 – Requires a woman to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

SB 116 – Prohibits health insurance plans established under Obamacare from providing coverage of abortion.

SB 241 – Prohibits insurance coverage of elective abortion unless it is through a separate rider.

SB 328 and SB 457 – Specifies what information should be given a woman in order for her to make an informed consent to an abortion.

SB 522 – Prohibits abortion after 20 weeks based on the unborn child’s capacity to feel pain.

And finally, SB 290 which makes it illegal to perform an abortion at any stage in the pregnancy except to save the life of the woman.

Also sitting in committee is a “Bias Crimes” bill (HB 1332) which would allow the perpetrator of a crime to receive a harsher sentence if it was determined that the victim was acted upon because of his or her “gender identity” or “sexual orientation.”  These types of bills are dangerous because they seek to legalize the punishment of thoughts and motives in addition to criminal actions.

All bills can be accessed by clicking on their number.  For a complete list of legislation FRC is tracking or to check the status of these bills click here for our legislative tracker.

Comments: - |

Mirroring a bill passed last year in Nebraska, the Kansas legislature recently gave final approval to a measure prohibiting abortions after 21 weeks based on an unborn child’s ability to feel pain.  This measure, HB2218, has now been sent to Governor Sam Brownback who is expected to sign it.  Passage of this legislation signals a huge step toward fully protecting and valuing unborn human life.  It also sets a precedent among states, the majority of which currently protect life at fetal “viability,” a stage which can be hard to definitively determine.  Kansas is not alone in their effort to protect unborn children who can feel pain, 12 other states currently have similar legislation (ID, OK, OR, AR, AL, GA, SC, FL, MS, MN, IA, IN).

Another pro-life bill passed by the legislature was HB2035.  It defines the criteria for those required to report cases of suspected child abuse and broadens it to include those who work or volunteer at organizations that provide pregnancy services to minors.  Also included are reporting requirements for abortion providers; a provision allowing a woman to file suit if an abortion was performed upon her illegally; and a parental consent requirement among other things.

On the topic of abortion, other bills in the legislature would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion (HB2377), specify licensing requirements of abortion clinics (HB2337, SB36, SB45 and SB165), create health exceptions to late-term abortions (HB2007), and address abortion coverage in health insurance (HB2292 and HB2293).

In other areas, the legislature recently passed a bill requiring citizens to present valid ID before voting and in order to register to vote.  Provisions of the law do not start going into effect until January 1^st, 2012.

Currently in committees of origin are bills that establish covenant marriages and enact divorce reform (HB2254), prohibit public funding of human cloning (HB2214), and include “sexual orientation and gender identity” in state law prohibiting discrimination (SB53).  Also of note is a bill which has passed the house and is now in a senate committee that addresses the method of selecting judges (HB2101).

For more on the issue of fetal pain please read “The Science of Fetal Pain” by Jeanne Monahan.

Comments: - |

With the recent passage of the Continuing Resolution here in DC there has been much debate about whether taxpayer money should be used to fund abortion.  Currently, due to provisions in various federal appropriations bills, federal tax dollars are not supposed to be used to fund the procedure of abortion.  President Obama changed all this, first by eliminating the long standing policy called the “Dornan Amendment” that prohibited all funds that Congress approved for D.C. (both “local” and “federal”) from being used for elective abortions.   With a liberal majority in the last Congress, language contained in a Continuing Resolution banned only the use of “federal” funds for elective abortions.  This change by pro-abortion legislators gutted the entire policy, because the District government could then use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion as long as a bookkeeping sleight-of-hand was employed to claim the abortions were being paid for with District of Columbia tax monies.  President Obama’s second successful attempt to federally fund abortions was through his health care legislation, which both funds and subsidizes the abortion industry.

In addition to the aforementioned examples, nothing currently prevents millions of dollars of grant money and subsidies from being allocated to the scandal-plagued abortion giant Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers annually.  This money goes to fund their non-abortion services, effectively freeing up their other funds to finance not only the hundreds of thousands of abortions they perform each year, but also their lobbying efforts to stop any piece of legislation that seeks to protect the life of the mother or her unborn child. 

Congress is not the only entity that is currently addressing this grave misuse of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars; several state governments have also taken up the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion.  As noted in the map below, four states have proposed constitutional amendments prohibiting the public funding of abortion.  Even more noteworthy, four additional states have proposed legislation not only aimed at denying direct funding of abortion but also denying funding to any entity that provides elective abortions. Two states in particular, New Hampshire and Indiana, have called out Planned Parenthood by name, emphasizing the fact that they will not be receiving state funds, and Montana has specifically not allocated any funds to Planned Parenthood in their state budget.

In addition to the states below that have addressed the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion, many other states have introduced bills that would prohibit coverage of abortion in health insurance plans (both state and private plans).  These measures are not addressed in the following map.

For further information check out the Chiaroscuro Foundation’s report: Does Planned Parenthood Need or Deserve Federal Funds?  An Analysis of Planned Parenthood’s Revenue and Services

Comments: - |

In an address to the U.N. General Assembly President Bush said:

“Each year, an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human beings are bought, sold or forced across the world’s borders. Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as five, who fall victim to the sex trade.  This commerce in human life generates billions of dollars each year — much of which is used to finance organized crime.  There’s a special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable. The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see the very worst of life, an underground of brutality and lonely fear. Those who create these victims and profit from their suffering must be severely punished. Those who patronize this industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others.  And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a form of slavery.”

This tragic form of slavery is not just a problem “over there,” in third world countries far removed from us.  On the contrary, it is happening right in our own backyard.  Despite laws criminalizing it, sex trafficking is a huge problem in America.

In The National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: America’s Prostituted Children, Shared Hope International affirms that at least 100,000 American children a year are victims of sex trafficking, and that number may be much higher.  The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) highlights the fact that sex trafficking of children is largely under-reported in their estimate that 1 in 5 girls are sexually abused or assaulted before they become adults and 1 in 10 boys, however less than 35% of those cases are reported.  Researchers estimate that 10–15 percent of children living on the streets in the United States are trafficked for sexual purposes according to the National Institute of Justice in their report Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: What Do We Know and What Do We Do About It?.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Polling data affirms that more Americans now consider themselves “pro-life” than “pro-abortion” with the percentages coming in at 51% to 42% according to a Gallup poll conducted May 7th – 10th, 2009. This pro-life view was voiced at the polls last November resulting in the election of many pro-life legislatures across the states. Pledging their commitment to support the rights of the unborn child, legislators in many states have sponsored a broad range of pro-life bills. These bills range in subject matter from requiring ultrasounds, to parental consent, to stricter abortion clinic regulations, to bills that would outlaw abortions from the point at which the unborn can feel pain, but all are uniformly based on the fundamental idea that life is precious and should be protected at all stages of development.

The following maps will begin to give you a picture of the state of pro-life legislation in the states.  More maps documenting pro-life legislation will be forthcoming.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Same-sex “marriage” bills (H 5012 and S 29) have been heard in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but have not yet received a vote. Gordon Fox, openly homosexual and the speaker of the largely Democratic House, wants to delay the vote on the House version of the bill until he can be sure it has enough supporting votes to pass.  This hesitance to move forward with same-sex “marriage” is good news for supporters of marriage defined as one man and one woman.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Several state non-discrimination statutes include the phrases “gender identity/gender expression” and “sexual orientation” as factors in addition to race and sex against which alleged “discrimination” is prohibited.  Other state legislatures have proposed legislation which would add these terms or further broaden them.  Many bills would make it illegal to deny employment, housing and even public accommodations such as rest rooms and other traditionally sex-specific spaces to a person based upon what sex they perceive themselves to be any particular day.

The concept of “gender identity/gender expression” attempts to legitimize a person’s wish, perception or belief that he or she is the opposite sex than his or her actual sex at birth.  This type of legislation tries to normalize and mainstream transgendered behavior, cross-dressing, etc.  Additionally if enacted, those measures that include “public accommodations” become a public safety concern.  This occurs by creating “legitimized access” sought by predators to women and children in places such as public restrooms and gym locker rooms, where entitlement to privacy has always been recognized.                                                                                    

The map below will give you an idea of the state of “gender identity/gender expression” and “sexual orientation” in the states.

Comments: - |

Shortly before the Wyoming legislature adjourned (March 3^rd), a final vote to concur on HB74, as passed out of the joint conference committee, was held in both the House and Senate.  The final version of HB74 stated that Wyoming would not recognize same-sex “marriages” performed out-of-state, but did not address civil unions or other relationships.  The House voted 31 to 28 to pass the bill as amended, however the Senate failed the bill by a 16 to 14 vote.

It is unfortunate that this bill would die by such a close margin, especially with strong Republican majorities in both Houses.  Becky Vandeberghe, president of WyWatch Family Action, emphasized however that this bill and other pro-family bills had made it farther in the legislative process this year than in past sessions, and that constituents now have a clear voting record of their legislators stance on marriage.

Other marriage-related bills that did not receive a final vote before the session adjourned include:  SJ 5, a Marriage Protection Amendment, HB 150, a bill establishing civil unions, and HB 149, a bill that would legalize same-sex “marriage.”  These are issues that Wyoming voters can expect to weigh in on in future sessions.

Concerning other issues, three bills that did not pass out of the legislature this session include a bill that would prohibit assisted suicide (HB 148), a bill that would establish gender identity/sexual orientation “non-discrimination” (HB 142), and a bill that would require doctors to give specified information to women and tell them they could view an ultrasound before performing an abortion (HB 251).

Comments: - |

Since Oregon became the first to legalize physician assisted suicide, this issue has come up in several other states.  Many have passed laws prohibiting physician assisted suicide, while others are currently debating this issue.  The following map will give you a good picture of the state of physician assisted suicide in the states.

Comments: - |

On Wednesday, the South Dakota Senate approved HB1217, a measure designed to protect women and help ensure that a decision to have an abortion is informed and not coerced.  The bill establishes a 72-hour waiting period for an abortion, after a physician has consulted with the woman and completed a risk assessment.  Additionally, the physician will be required to provide the woman with contact information for nearby pregnancy help centers for her to schedule a consultation with them so that she can be fully informed of the risks of the abortion procedure and hear about possible alternatives.

Chris Hupke, Executive Director, South Dakota Family Policy Council says this bill is all about education. “Planned Parenthood has established themselves to be unreliable to provide the education (to women seeking an abortion).  This bill would not be necessary if Planned Parenthood was doing their job.”  Citing cases where women are forced into an abortion by the father of the child, or feel pressured while emotionally vulnerable Chris goes on to emphasize that, “Coercion is not choice.  We are trying to make sure that (abortion) is a voluntary choice.”

Governor Dennis Daugaard has appeared to indicate that he will sign the bill, stating in an article by the Rapid City Journal:

“I am pro-life, I’ve read the bill and I’m inclined to sign it, but I want to examine it along with the counsel of others to make sure there’s no unintended consequences that haven’t been identified during the debate.”

Passage of this bill by both chambers is an enormous victory for life and we congratulate the South Dakota Family Policy Council for their tireless work on this bill.  If signed into law, South Dakota will surpass the other states with the strongest safeguards ensuring that women are informed about their unplanned pregnancies.

Comments: - |

Two bills (HB437 and HB443) repealing same-sex “marriage” (which was passed into law last year) and defining marriage as between one man and one woman have been heard in the House Judiciary Committee, and may be voted upon as soon as today.  (Update: Both measures received a “vote to retain” meaning they will not be passed on to be considered before the full legislature this session.)

Recently a bill for which FRC sent an alert, HB 329 requiring parental notification before performing an abortion on a minor, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee.  It will now proceed to the full house floor.  The passage of this bill out of committee was a great victory for parental rights and for life.  Credit is due to Cornerstone, the NH Family Policy Council for their continual support of families through involvement in the state legislature.

Another bill that supports families, for which an alert was sent, is HB 587.  This bill prohibits spouses from getting a divorce solely on the grounds of “irreconcilable differences” if they have minor children.  The public hearing started this morning at 9:30am in the Legislative Office Building Room 206. (Update: The outcome for HB 587 is unknown, however it is likely that it may be amended to a study committee.) 

Scheduled for an upcoming vote in committee is HB 228, a bill which would prohibit the use of public funds for abortion.  In addition, this bill also prohibits the Department of Health from entering into any sort of contract with Planned Parenthood.  The Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee meets at 10:00am in the Legislative Office Building Room 205 and will likely vote on HB 228 March 9^th.

Two more bills, both in the House Judiciary Committee, which we have been tracking, HB 513 and HB 569, are scheduled for votes sometime next week. House Bill 513 would legalize physician assisted suicide, and House Bill 569 would establish domestic unions, making them the legal equivalent to marriage. (Update: HB 513 received the vote “inexpedient to legislate” on March 3rd and will be brought before the full house with a strong recommendation to fail.)

Comments: - |

Currently Same Sex Marriage is legal in five states and the District of Colombia, while some form of civil unions or domestic partnerships is legal in nine other states.  The maps below give a clear picture of the state of homosexual relationships in the states.

Comments: - |

In effort to continue to help equip and inform you about important current issues, Family Research Council is adding a new category to our blog, the “State of the States.”  As this 2011 legislative session advances, we will keep you apprised of the status of key family-related legislation across the 50 states as well as post color-coded maps giving you the state of the states at a glance.  Armed with that knowledge you can then take steps to get involved in the legislative process by calling your legislators and encouraging your friends to join you and Family Research Council in advancing faith, family, and freedom today!

Below are two maps outlining the status of marriage in the states.  Check back tomorrow for more maps detailing the status of homosexual relationships in the states.

Comments: - |