Month Archives: June 2011

Iran Steps-Up Anti-Christian Persecution and What You Can Do To Help

by Rob Schwarzwalder

June 30, 2011

According to the respected anti-persecution ministry Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), an Iranian Christian pastor has been sentenced to death in Iran for, to put it simply, being a Christian.

CSW says that “the death sentence handed down in 2010 for the crime of apostasy, to evangelical house pastor Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, has reportedly been upheld by the third chamber of the Supreme Court in the Shia holy city of Qom. Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani of the Church of Iran denomination was arrested in his home city of Rasht on 13 October 2009 while attempting to register his church. His arrest is believed to have been due to his questioning of the Muslim monopoly on the religious instruction of children in Iran.”

According to the Voice of Martyrs, With (Pastor Nadarkhanis) sentence now upheld and confirmed, it is possible that the authorities will ask him to recant his faith and execute him without advance notice if he refuses —- a typical pattern of action taken by authorities in such cases.

This death sentence has been issued despite Iran being a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose Article 18 states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Sadly, persecution of Christians in Iran is extensive:

A major spike in the harassment and arrest of Iranian Christians in recent months is revealing just how nervous the Islamic republic is about the prodigious success of house churches, say Iranian Christian leaders. At least 202 Christians in 24 cities faced arbitrary arrest between June 2010 and January 2011, according to Elam Ministries. Elam, run by Iranian expatriates, counted 80 arrests over 2008 and 2009 combined.

You can express your concern for Pastor Nadarkhani and ask for his release by calling the Iranian Interest Section at the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, DC at (202) 965-4990. You can also contact the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the United Nations: Email -; Phone - (212) 687-2020.


The Social Conservative Review: The Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News—Special July 4 Edition

by Krystle Gabele

June 29, 2011

Click here to subscribe to The Social Conservative Review.

Dear Friends,

Welcome to a special Fourth of July edition of the Social Conservative Review.

As our nation prepares to celebrate Independence Day, our gratitude for our country and the brave men and women who defend it is great. There is no nation like American, one founded upon the belief that our rights are gifts of God, not bestowals of the state.

Yet the direction of our country remains troubling. In New York , legislators succumbed to extraordinary political pressure to pass, on the last day of an extended legislative session, a measure allowing homosexual “marriage” in the Empire State. Wrong for a host of reasons in itself (see FRC’s new video, “The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage“), this law now opens the door to all manner of living arrangements, each of which further corrodes the family as we have known it (see George Weigel’s compelling article on this theme).

Upcoming votes on same-sex marriage in Minnesota and elsewhere also promise to be hard-fought battles. Of course, it is worth bearing in mind that whenever same-sex marriage has been put to a vote of the people, the people have said no.

Still, with all the bad news, much good is also taking place. For example, earlier this week the Ohio legislature “voted to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks.” As Reuters reports, “The Ohio House also passed two other abortion restrictions Tuesday, one that would ban late-term abortions after 20 weeks if a doctor determines that the fetus is viable outside the womb. Another bill excludes abortion coverage from the state insurance exchange created by the federal health care law.”

FRCAction has produced a comprehensive, 28-page State Legislative Report on all the family-and life-related measures and initiatives in the states so far in 2011. Read it and be encouraged: Many governors, state representatives, and attorneys general are working actively to strengthen families and protect unborn life.

The establishment of Civil and Religious liberty is the Motive which induced me to the field,” wrote George Washington at the close of the American Revolution. Does the preservation of these precious liberties still motivate us to contend — graciously, wisely, and courageously - in the field of political engagement today?

May God guide and strengthen each of us to this end, this Fourth of July and always.


Rob Schwarzwalder

Senior Vice President

Family Research Council

P.S. Here are some other recent free FRC resources on issues important to our country’s future:

Watch for the next edition of the Social Conservative Review on July 14, 2011.

FRC Denounces Decision by New York State Legislature to Redefine Marriage

by FRC Media Office

June 25, 2011


WASHINGTON, D.C.- Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins reacted to the vote by the New York State Senate, releasing the following statement:

Enormous political coercion has resulted in a profound failure of moral courage in the New York Senate. A clear majority of the people of New York oppose counterfeit ‘marriage,’ but Gov. Cuomo and anti-family lawmakers have shown that their allegiance is to a small but vocal minority seeking to redefine marriage and family.

The so-called religious protections that were tacked on to the bill will ultimately do nothing to protect the religious rights of New York citizens. As we go forward there is little doubt that the “incentives,” some taxpayer funded, used to sway votes, especially Republican ones, will be exposed.

While it was the Democrats who were pushing this agenda, it is the Republicans in the NY Senate who ultimately allowed this to happen, especially Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. Sadly, the families of New York are not represented well by either of the state’s major parties on this issue. This battle however, is not without its heroes. State Senator Ruben Diaz, Rev. Duane Motley, Jason McGuire and the National Organization for Marriage worked tirelessly for the families of New York in this battle, and they should be praised for their work - it is not all for naught.

The New York state legislature’s denial of its citizens a chance to vote on the issue of marriage shows it is long overdue that the U.S. Congress begin taking these threats to marriage seriously. They should move to allow the people of the U.S. the right to vote on an issue they clearly understand, as evidenced each time the issue of marriage is put to a direct vote of the people,” concluded Perkins.


Supplemental Briefs Filed in Embryonic Stem Cell Lawsuit

by David Prentice

June 24, 2011

Adult stem cell researchers James Sherley and Theresa Deisher have filed their brief asking federal court to grant their pending motion for summary judgment and finally ban federal funding of illegal, unnecessary, and unethical research in which human embryos are knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death in violation of federal law.

Both sides in the lawsuit agreed to supplemental briefs after a U.S. Appeals Court panel overturned the preliminary injunction in the case.

Brief filed by attorneys for the plaintiffs, adult stem cell researchers James Sherley and Theresa Deisher.

Dr. Sherley has also filed a supporting declaration demonstrating that the NIH Guidelines are creating a virtual certainty that more human embryos.

Brief filed by attorneys for the defendants, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, NIH Director Francis Collins, HHS and NIH.

Nature describes the federal lawsuit over US government funding for human embryonic stem cell research as the “landmark lawsuit challenging the legality of government support for the controversial research.”

New Survey of International Evangelical Leaders Shows Conviction and Concern

by Rob Schwarzwalder

June 24, 2011

A new survey produced by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life provides insight into the perspectives of 2,200 Evangelical Christian leaders around the world. Although the headlines the survey is receiving have to do with the rather gloomy cultural outlook of North American and European Evangelicals (in contrast to those in the Global South, who say Evangelical influence is growing), buried within it are two findings that should make those who are hoping for a wedding of theological and cultural erosion within Evangelicalism distinctly uncomfortable.

First, the survey finds that 96 percent of those surveyed believe “abortion is usually or always wrong.” While I wish it were 100 percent, nonetheless it is clear that international Evangelical leaders of all kinds believe abortion is the taking of a life of a person, a tiny image-bearer of God. Of course, this is consistent with the facts of science and reason, but it shows, too, that Evangelical leaders remain committed to the biblical teaching that God wove us in our mothers’ wombs (Psalm 139).

Second, the survey notes that 84 percent of Evangelical leaders believe that “society should discourage homosexuality.” Again, 100 percent would be better, but the fact remains that despite decades of aggressive homosexual activism, the large majority of Evangelical leaders understand that homosexuality is a moral wrong and is socially destructive.

Of further note is that a startling 71 percent - and remember, these are Evangelical leaders from nations as diverse as South Africa and Canada - believe “the influence of secularism” is a profound threat to Evangelical Christian faith, followed by 67 percent who cite “consumerism.” Militant Islam, government restrictions on religion and other perceived threats rank further down.

This is surprising because secularism is not a religious or political movement (such as Islamicism) nor generally recognized as the source of anti-Christian persecution. Rather, secularism is the (active or passive) rejection of theism as a force in personal, cultural and civic life. Under the secularist rubric, things are not wrong but “inappropriate.” Christian faith is diluted to the point it becomes only a vague belief in a self-reflective, undemanding, and distant deity. Consensus trumps truth, popular will crests over principle, the lowest forms of culture become accepted or at least are viewed as ethically optional.

As with society at large, believers in Jesus Christ have been adversely affected by secularism. Instead of radical allegiance to their King, they too often are susceptible to the cult of narcistic secularism. Radical autonomy and a blurred understanding of the God of the Bible lead to divorce, various forms of interpersonal or substance abuse, sexual sin, or a bland apathy toward the things of the Savior: Why study the Gospels when you can shop? And isn’t Christianity just a code of ethics with some religious language thrown-in?

When Christian faith is reduced to the “moralistic therapeutic deism” described by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton in their valuable book, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (2005), the Jesus of the Bible becomes the innocuous and thus uncompelling figure the secular Left would render Him.

He is more than that, though, much more - “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:15-17). Which is why, regardless of the threats imposed upon His work on earth by various religious, social and political movements , He wins in the end. The challenge for those who love Him is to remain faithful, no matter what. And He is always with them to give the strength needed to that end.

No Religious Exemptions Can Redeem Homosexual Marriage

by Peter Sprigg

June 24, 2011

Efforts to legalize homosexual marriage in New York remain stalled, at this writing, with the supporters of redefining marriage needing one more Republican vote in the states Senate.

Reports indicate that efforts are underway to draft expanded religious exemptions that could protect the liberty of religious organizations that disapprove of homosexual conduct or of homosexual marriage.

It is true that pro-family groups (including FRC) have argued that legalizing homosexual marriage would create a threat to religious liberty. The most often cited example is how Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia after those jurisdictions legalized homosexual marriage, because the group was unwilling to compromise its principles by placing adoptive children with homosexual couples.

But even if religious non-profits like Catholic Charities were to be protected, what about Christians in business, like the wedding photographer in New Mexico who was sued for declining to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony?

The only kind of religious exemption broad enough to completely protect rights of conscienceone saying, basically, Any person, organization, or business that does not approve of same-sex marriage will not be required to recognize homosexual relationships as marriageswould be completely unacceptable to the advocates of homosexual marriage. Forcing the rest of society to affirm and celebrate homosexual relationships is precisely the goal of their movement.

However, even such an absolute religious and conscientious exemption to a homosexual marriage bill would not make the redefinition of marriage acceptable, or even tolerable, for one simple reasonthe principal objection to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with religion. This is something that people on both sides of this debate need to be constantly reminded of.

We are not just fighting for the right of religions to define marriage for themselves, apart from the definition of civil marriage. This is because, at its heart, marriage is neither a civil institution nor a religious institution.

Instead, marriage is a natural institutionrooted in the order of nature itself.

The reason marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to create a new human life. Marriage is treated as a public institution because it is in the public interest (not just in the private interest of particular couples) for the human race to reproduce and continue into future generations.

It is also in the public interest for society to work at bonding each child to the mother and father whose sexual union produced them. This was evident even to the ancients, but modern social science has confirmedbeyond a shadow of a doubtthat children raised by their own married mother and father are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children raised in any other living situation.

I wrote a pamphlet earlier this year listing The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage. The threat to religious liberty was only one out of the ten. Even if that harm could be thoroughly forestalleda grade of 10% is still a failing grade.

The core message of the opposition to homosexual marriage is not just, Dont make us perform same-sex weddings in our church. Instead, it is: Society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad.

Thats true whether you are a Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist.

Dont Know Much about History

by Chris Gacek

June 23, 2011

Dont Know Much About History is the title of yesterdays Washington Times article by Suzanne Fields that borrows from a line in a famous song by the singer Sam Cooke (Wonderful World). It captures the essence of the poor test results that were released this week in the Nations Report Card: U.S. History 2010 as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Fields, Pat Buchanan, and Jeff Jacoby have commented on the results. Jacoby notes:

the bottom line was depressingly predictable: Not even a quarter of American students is proficient in US history, and the percentage declines as students grow older. Only 20 percent of 6th graders, 17 percent of 8th graders, and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrate a solid grasp on their nations history. In fact, American kids are weaker in history than in any of the other subjects tested by the NAEP math, reading, science, writing, civics, geography, and economics.

Furthermore, there really hasnt been much improvement in the history scores in the last twenty years. Maybe history needs to be tested like math and English. It seems that important to me.

I heard a caller to a radio talk show make this interesting point: he said there is a much greater emphasis on the teaching of world history these days much less on pure American history. If so, that is something that needs to be addressed and could prove highly beneficial.

PS - I wonder if students today - back to Sam Cooke - have ever seen a slide rule, let alone have any clue as to what they are for.

2011 State Efforts to Defund Planned Parenthood

by Family Research Council

June 23, 2011

Yesterday New Hampshire joined the growing number of states seeking to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood. The trend seemed to start last year when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie passed a budget which eliminated about 7.5 million dollars worth of family planning funding.

As reported by Kevin Smith, the Executive Director of Cornerstone, the Granite states leading family policy organization:

This has truly been a banner day for the babies here in the Granite State… in a completely unexpected and under the radar move today, the NH Executive Council (which is like our lieutenant Governor, but it’s made up of 5 elected officials from across the state), which along with the Governor has to approve all state contracts above $2499 (yes, you read the correct) voted to REJECT the state contract for Planned Parenthood worth $1.8 million over the next two years!! This is simply amazing news! The vote was 3-2 and it is the first time that a state contract with PP has ever been rejected!”

The story can be found here.

Here is a list (with the legislation in question as well as the state organizations that led the way) of some of the successful efforts this year, as well as three valiant efforts that did not pass.

Successful Efforts (IN, KS, NH, NC, TX, TNWI):


Family policy organization: Indiana Family Institute

Leading the cause to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, Indiana passed a monumental piece of legislation, HB1210, earlier this year. It has subsequently been challenged in court and U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt is expected to make a ruling by July 1st whether to grant injunction while the court case continues.

The actual text in question can be read below:

An agency of the state may not:

(1) enter into a contract with; or

(2) make a grant to; any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed that involves the expenditure of state funds or federal funds administered by the state.

(c) Any appropriation by the state:

(1) in a budget bill;

(2) under IC 5-19-1-3.5; or

(3) in any other law of the state;

to pay for a contract with or grant made to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed is canceled, and the money appropriated is not available for payment of any contract with or grant made to the entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.

(d) For any contract with or grant made to an entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed covered under subsection (b), the budget agency shall make a determination that funds are not available, and the contract or grant shall be terminated under section 5 of this chapter.”

Full text of the bill can be found here.


Family policy organization: Kansas Family Policy Council

In contrast to the legislative method of Indiana, Kansas effectively defunded Planned Parenthood through their state budget. This was accomplished by prioritizing the means of distributing family planning funds: first to public entities and secondly to private entities which provided comprehensive health care in addition to family planning services (something which Planned Parenthood is not equipped to do). The new budget strips about $334,000 in federal Title X funding for the organization, according to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.

Relevant text can be read below:

Senate substitute for HB2014 Sec. 57:

(a) During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, subject to any applicable requirements of federal statutes, rules, regulations or guidelines, any expenditures or grants of money by any state agency for family planning services financed in whole or in part from federal title X moneys shall be made subject to the following two priorities: First priority to public entities (state, county, local health departments and health clinics) and if any moneys remain then; second priority to non-public entities which are hospitals or federally qualified health centers that provide comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning services.

(page 85) (l)

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, subject to any applicable requirements of federal statutes, rules, regulations or guidelines, any expenditures or grants of money by the department of health and environment—division of health for family planning services financed in whole or in part from federal title X moneys shall be made subject to the following

two priorities: First priority to public entities (state, county, local health departments and health clinics) and, if any moneys remain, then, Second priority to non-public entities which are hospitals or federally qualified health centers that provide comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning services: Provided, That, as used in this sub-

section “hospitals” shall have the same meaning as defined in K.S.A. 65-425, and amendments thereto, and “federally qualified health center” shall have the same meaning as defined in K.S.A. 65-1669, and amendments thereto.


Family policy organization: Cornerstone Action

The Executive Council, a body of five elected councilors, is responsible for approving the expenditure of state and federal funds within New Hampshire. They work with ther Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services and the Attorney General to manage the business of the state. On Wednesday, June 22nd, the Council voted 3 -2 against funding a contract in the amount of 1.8 million dollars with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

According to Union, Councilor Dan St. Hilaire said the Planned Parenthood contract “differed (from other health provider contracts) in that the organization directly provides abortions, it’s CEO earns in excess of $250,000 a year, and most of its services and administration are located out of state in Williston, Vt.”

For more information about the Executive Council go here


Family policy organization: North Carolina Family Policy Council

Similar to Kansas, the North Carolina legislature successfully voted to defund Planned Parenthood through their budget, overriding the governors veto. According to a Reuters article, Planned Parenthood said it received just over $434,000 a year through state grants and programs, about 4 percent of the group’s budget for operating nine health centers in North Carolina. The funding for Planned Parenthoods participation in public health programs will end on July 1.

Find out more information here.

The actual bill text states:


SECTION 10.19. For fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, the Department of Health and Human Services may not provide State funds or other funds administered by the Department for contracts or grants to Planned Parenthood, Inc., and affiliated organizations.


Family policy organization: Family Action Council of Tennessee

The path to defund Planned Parenthood in TN was long and not without mishaps. Initially legislators sought to defund through an amendment to the budget (Section 78) which read that funds allocated for womens health services shall be used fully by government-run health agencies and none shall be paid to third-party providers or private organizations or entities. However, at the last moment a mystery amendment was snuck in to the budget which stated: Section 78 of this act shall not be construed to supersede applicable provisions of federal and state law. Due to the complicated nature of the various provisions of law referenced, there was legal doubt over the validity of the defunding amendment.

In effort to try and reduce some of the dismay and confusion among lawmakers, the Lt Governors office released the following statement:

The confusion surrounding the language in the budget regarding Planned Parenthood has been unfortunate. The Office of Legal Services advised House and Senate leadership that it is unconstitutional to amend general law through the appropriations bill (Article II, Section 17), an interpretation which would have put the entire budget document in jeopardy. It was not our intent to allow funding for Planned Parenthood. Our majority in the General Assembly clearly meant to defund them. We are currently working with pro-life activists to resolve this issue with legislation and we will put it to rest immediately upon the legislatures return in January.

Many citizen urged Governor Haslam to use his executive power to fix the mistake in the recently passed budget. Finally, on June 11th the Lieutenant Governor, Ron Ramsey, announced that Governor Haslam had asked the State Health Department to pressure the states two largest counties, Davidson and Shelby Counties, to provide family planning services through their respective county health departments (as the other 93 counties in TN currently do) instead of contracting with Planned Parenthood and granting them state funds to provide family planning services on behalf of those two counties.

We are at long last moving towards the final stages of the Planned Parenthood shell game, said Lt. Gov. Ramsey. It has always been the ambition of Republicans in the legislature to defund this organization. I was proud to lead the charge to turn over family planning services to the county health departments effectively defunding the organization in 93 out of 95 counties. Id like to praise the Governor for working to completely turn off the spigot of taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood.



Family policy organization: Liberty Institute

Texas, similar to Kansas used a funding prioritization method in their recently passed 2012-2013 budget:

The Department of State Health Services shall allocate funds appropriated above in Strategy B.1.3, Family Planning Services using a methodology that prioritizes distribution and reallocation to first award public entities that provide family planning services, including state, county, local community health clinics, Federally Qualified Health Centers, and clinics under the Baylor College of Medicine; secondly, non-public entities that provide comprehensive primary and preventative care as a part of their family planning services; and thirdly, non-public entities that provide family planning services but do not provide comprehensive primary and preventative care.

My San Antonio reports: “Now that the dust has settled on the recently passed 2012-13 budget, the state’s family planning money now hovers at $38 million $73 million less than the $111 million allocated in the current biennium.

Click here to read the article in its entirety.

Another bill currently under consideration, SB 7, would further increase funding prioritization and prohibit public hospitals and facilities who receive public funds from performing abortions.


Family policy organization: Wisconsin Family Council

According to a Huffpost Politics article, Governor Scott Walker (R) is expected to sign a budget bill that eliminates state and federal funding from nine of the state’s Planned Parenthood health centers. It directs federal Title V family planning dollars to public health agencies and prohibits them from giving the funds to organizations or its affiliates that provide abortions or abortion referrals.

The article states the new budget would eliminate $1 million a year in funding for nine of Wisconsin’s 25 Planned Parenthood clinics.

Unsuccessful Efforts (MN, MT, NH ):


Family policy organization: Minnesota Family Institute

A bill (SF1224) was introduced that would have prohibited all state family planning funds from going to any organization that performs abortions or is associated with an organization that performs abortions. Unfortunately it did not pass the chamber of origin. The actual text states:

Family planning grant funds” means funds distributed through the maternal and child health block grant program under sections 145.881 to 145.883, the family planning special projects grant program under section 145.925, the program to eliminate health disparities under section 145.928, or any other state grant program whose funds are or may be used to fund family planning services.

Subd. 2. Uses of family planning grant funds. No family planning grant funds may be:

(1) expended to directly or indirectly subsidize abortion services or administrative expenses;

(2) paid or granted to an organization or an affiliate of an organization that provides abortion services, unless the affiliate is independent as provided in subdivision 4; or

(3) paid or granted to an organization that has adopted or maintains a policy in writing or through oral public statements that abortion is considered part of a continuum of family planning services, reproductive health services, or both.

Subd. 3. Organizations receiving family planning grant funds. An organization that receives family planning grant funds:

(1) may provide nondirective counseling relating to pregnancy but may not directly refer patients who seek abortion services to any organization that provides abortion services, including an independent affiliate of the organization receiving family planning grant funds. For purposes of this clause, an affiliate is independent if it satisfies the criteria in subdivision 4, paragraph (a);

(2) may not display or distribute marketing materials about abortion services to patients;

(3) may not engage in public advocacy promoting the legality or accessibility of abortion; and

(4) must be separately incorporated from any affiliated organization that provides abortion services.

Subd. 4. Independent affiliates that provide abortion services. (a) To ensure that the state does not lend its imprimatur to abortion services and to ensure that an organization that provides abortion services does not receive a direct or indirect economic or marketing benefit from family planning grant funds, an organization that receives family planning grant funds may not be affiliated with an organization that provides abortion services unless the organizations are independent from each other. To be independent, the organizations may not share any of the following:

(1) the same or a similar name;

(2) medical facilities or nonmedical facilities, including, but not limited to, business offices, treatment rooms, consultation rooms, examination rooms, and waiting rooms;

(3) expenses;

(4) employee wages or salaries; or

(5) equipment or supplies, including, but not limited to, computers, telephone systems, telecommunications equipment, and office supplies.

(b) An organization that receives family planning grant funds and that is affiliated with an organization that provides abortion services must maintain financial records that demonstrate strict compliance with this subdivision and that demonstrate that its independent affiliate that provides abortion services receives no direct or indirect economic or marketing benefit from the family planning grant funds.


Family policy organization: Minnesota Family Foundation

The Montana Legislature passed a two year budget rejecting federal family-planning funds in the amount of about $4.7 million.

According to an article in the Missoulian, House and Senate Republicans had also voted to remove $1 million in state funding for family planning clinics and rejected a Schweitzer administration proposal to spend another $1.2 million in state and federal funds for higher access to birth control.

The article states that Planned Parenthood, the most prominent abortion provider in Montana, receives about half of the $5.7 million in state and federal family-planning money, for use at its health clinics in Billings, Missoula, Helena and Great Falls.

Rejection of the federal money was a bold statement by lawmakers that they did not want to subsidize the abortion giant Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform abortions with taxpayer money. Unfortunately when the budget was presented to democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer, he used his amendment power to restore funding to Planned Parenthood and pressured the legislature to approve his amendments.


NOTE: NH was ultimately successful in defunding PP through the Executive Council. The following refers to their legislative attempt.

Family policy organization: Cornerstone Action

House Bill 228 specifically named Planned Parenthood and forbid the state from entering into any grants or contracts with that organization or other abortion providers. It also forbid the use of public funds for abortions or to pay any health insurance costs for policies that cover abortions.

This section does not prohibit the state from complying with the requirements of federal law relative to Title XIX and Title XXI of the Social Security Act.

The methodology of the bill states: The Department of Health and Human Services states this bill prevents the Department from contracting with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The Department stated the current contract with Planned Parenthood is in the amount $794,370 of which $428,960 is federal Title X funds and $365,410 is state general funds. Under the contract, Planned Parenthood provides family planning services, reproductive healthcare, HIV testing, STD testing and treatment, and health education. The Department states federal law prohibits these funds from being used to fund abortions. The Department assumes that, without this contract, the federal funds would be returned to the federal government and the general funds would be returned to the general fund.

The Social Conservative Review: The Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News—June 23, 2011

by Krystle Gabele

June 23, 2011

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review.

Dear Friends:

The voice of Love seemed to call me,” wrote British humorist P.G. Wodehouse, “but it was a wrong number.”1

This is the lament of many a young man whose ardent hopes have been dashed by an indifferent young woman. Such laments usually are short-lived, as one crush almost invariably leads to another.

Real love does not disappoint. The enduring love of a husband and wife, of a parent and child, of loyal friends for one another and of patriots for their country: Such loves are always true, even if they sometimes can be hard.

Of course, there is one love that surpasses all others - the love of God, most profoundly demonstrated in the redeeming death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s a love that never misdials.


Rob Schwarzwalder

Senior Vice President

Family Research Council

1 From “The Spot of Art” in Very Good Jeeves!

P.S. Tonight, watch FRC Action’s Webcast, “Cut, Cap, and Balance: Why Congress must Cut the deficit, Cap the spending, and Balance the budget.” Co-hosts FRC Action president Tony Perkins and “Let Freedom Ring” president Colin Hanna will be joined by Senators Jim DeMint and Orrin Hatch, House Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and other leaders.

Educational Freedom and Reform


Legislation and Policy Proposals

Government Reform



Health Care


Conscience Protection

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts


Human Life and Bioethics


Bioethics and Biotechnology

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

Stem Cell Research

Marriage and Family


Family Economics

Family Structure




Religion and Public Policy

Religious Liberty

Religion in America




International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

The Courts

Constitutional Issues

Judicial Activism

Other News of Note

Book reviews

22 June 1941: Operation Barbarossa

by Robert Morrison

June 22, 2011

Its too early for trivial pursuit, said one of our brightest young staffers at our 8:30 meeting in Washington today. She had come in as I was quizzing a summer intern on the significance of the date. The intern got the answer right: Hitler invaded the Soviet Union seventy years ago this day. I had to chuckle over that line, trivial pursuit. In those stern days long ago, no one would have thought Hitlers pursuit of conquest and domination was in the least trivial. It is, however, a great tribute to the heroes of those days that we can look back on 22 June 1941 as a date simply for quizzes.

President Roosevelt warned the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that Hitler was going to attack him. So did British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. Stalin, brooding in the Kremlin, waved away all such warnings. They were merely the provocations of Western imperialists, trying to get him to turn on his Non-Aggression Pact partner, Adolf Hitler.

Stalin ordered that grain shipments from Soviet Ukraine to Germany be stepped up.

Hundreds of Soviet trains were still speeding west, passing Hitlers panzer tanks were driving rapidly east, deeper and deeper into the USSR.

Stalin ordered his border defense units not to resist the Nazi invaders. Surely, he said, there has been some mistake. He did not want to give Hitler the slightest pretext for invading. Those orders soon left Russia prostrate before three million Germans in feldgrau, their distinctive gray-green uniform color.

That figure of three million German troops was the largest invading army in human history. By way of comparison, half a century later, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush assembled a coalition of 34 countries and deployed 540,000 troops to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

In London, Winston Churchill, famously anti-Communist, nonetheless pledged aid to the USSR. Rhetorically, he would always say he was aiding the brave Russian people. If Hitler invaded hell, Churchill joked, I would at least make favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. Hell seemed be the only place Hitler had not invaded. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium,

Luxembourg, France, Greece, and Yugoslavia had all fallen under Nazi domination by the time Hitler turned on Stalin.

The United States was not yet in the war. But the minute Hitler invaded Soviet Russia, American Communists dropped their opposition to U.S. involvement in the Imperialist war and began immediately to agitate for us to open up a Second Front.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been elected to an unprecedented third term just seven months before Hitler attacked Russia. Although we were not yet a belligerent, Roosevelt made it clear the U.S. was willing to give material support to anyone who was the victim of Nazi aggression, even to the Communists in the USSR.

And what powerful support that was. During World War II, British industrial output tripled. That of Germany and the USSR doubled. Japans increased fourfold. But the United States of America expanded its production twenty-five times. Even in the 1960s, in the depths of the Cold War, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev had grudgingly to admit that the Soviet people had been kept alive by American Spam. My father narrowly missed shipping out on one of the thousands of merchant ships destined for the hazardous sea passage known as the Murmansk Run. American supply vessels headed for that Russian city were devastated by German air strikes and U-boat sinkings off Norway.

Twenty million in the Soviet Union died as a result of Hitlers decision this day seventy years ago. Among them were millions of Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Baltic Jews.

One Russian who escaped Hitlers Drang nach osten, his drive to the East, was Oleg. He is a Christian who addressed us pro-family delegates in 1999 at the Geneva meeting of the World Congress on Families.

Oleg described how he had been born in those early days of the 1941 German invasion of his country. His mother went into labor early on a train speeding East. As the train passed through village after village, she saw they were all on fire. The retreating Red Army was

practicing the time-honored Russian tactic of scorched earth. The train had to have water and coal. There was little thought of food for the passengers. Olegs mother told him tales of the German aircraft that strafed the escaping train.

Oleg lived to tell the story. In the midst of all that death and destruction, a little child came into the world. Too many liberal intellectuals, it seems to me, can find compelling reasons to abort unborn children. Oh, the shocking circumstances of their mothers lives. Poverty. Drug addiction. Or some other excuse. They may grow up fatherless. They may be unwanted. (Doesnt this unwanted pretext say more about the unwanters than about their innocent children?) Pro-Child/Pro-Choice was the bumper sticker on the car in front of me during my commute home last night. We have to kill them for their own good, it argues. It was driven by a Hillary supporter.

Against all this stands the story of Oleg. Born in the midst of the greatest battle in the history of the world, Oleg will turn 70 this week. God bless you, my friend. And as you Russians say: Sto lyetMay you live a hundred.

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

May 2011 «

» July 2011