[Active-seattle-l] [Active-l] (NEWS) Today's Cultural Warfare Update

[Dara (R'ykandar Korra'ti)]

||| SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS MUST BE DELETED BEFORE FORWARDING, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE. Given that, all messages are forwardable unless otherwise stated. BUT THE SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE SENDING. |||

---- actual message starts here ----
Canadians need to pay particular attention to one starred articles; the  
first battle in the American-export war against abortion rights in  
Canada is starting, disguised as an expenditure issue. This is how it  
starts. Also, Americans (and Canadians, too, no doubt) need to be very  
much aware that the fundamentalists have decided that the marketing  
term for stem-cell research bans is "banning Human Cloning." Whenever  
you hear this term come up, it's about stopping important research on  
religious grounds.

And now, today's news.

A rather long but reasonably worthwhile defense of academic freedom  
from political interference;

Mississippi house committee votes to ban all abortions except to save  
the life of the other; NO health exemption, so if the woman is going to  
go blind, too damn bad for her; similarly, no rape or incest  
exemptions;

The founder of Domino's Pizza is planning a "new town in Southwest  
Florida that will be governed by Roman Catholic principles" - birth  
control will be banned, and so on;

Andrew Sullivan, continuing to catch on, runs a longish piece of email  
from a reader who knows some of the leading theoconservatives in the  
Republican party personally, who talks about their goals and agenda -  
he's finally, really taking all this seriously and giving it more  
coverage than I can, which is good;

Andrew Sullivan also discovers the Family Research Council, which i've  
been monitoring for some time, and starts talking about how the  
theoconservative movement has been redefining what is and isn't  
religion;

Focus on the Family opposes New York State's move to allow pharmacists  
to prescribe emergency contraception; they call it an abortion pill  
again, which I must continue to stress _it is most emphatically NOT_;  
quotes theocons they agree with as saying it is "the taking of a life";  
proxy-quotes calling for a ban on it entirely;

FotF cranky that Utah "intelligent design" bill, which is to say  
repackaged-creationism bill, fails;

***** Anybody who said that the theoconservatives wouldn't go after  
cable and satellite TV can shut the fuck up now: they've got a Michigan  
Supreme Court ruling saying that indecency on cable isn't any different  
than public exposure. It goes to the Federal courts now, but they're  
putting together an action plan to prosecute television content  
producers based on state indecent-exposure laws;

FotF plugs their "ex-gay" ministry bullshit;

Lawsuit against stem-cell-research initiative goes to court in  
California;

Pope Benedict proclaims that zygotes are also fully human life; this is  
consistent with the Catholic ban on contraception, and also with the  
fundamentalist theocratic attempt to redefine pregnancy further and  
further back in the process - all as part of the long-term goal of  
banning most (if not all) forms of birth control;

Family Research Council upset that Mississippi has _not_ moved to ban  
"human cloning," which is to say, to ban many hugely important areas of  
medical research involving stem cells;

Agape Press; Roe v. Wade "collapsing";

***** American Family Association ACTION ITEM: they want one million  
signatures on a petition to get South Dakota governor Mike Rounds to  
sign their abortion ban; he's already said he probably will, so this  
seems rather pointless, but nothing succeeds like excess; According to  
the AFA, the bill declares that a _zygote_ has an inalienable right to  
life; this _would_ set a precedent to ban many forms of contraception;

Catholic Online: "Feticide goes to the Supreme Court" and "South Dakota  
Becomes First Free State" by banning abortion;

Bayfield High School (Colorado) student wants "Winter Break" changed to  
"Christmas Break" on the grounds that the US is "an essentially  
Christian nation" and Bayfield "is a Christian community";

Catholic News Service: marriage rights for queers is a "risk to  
children";

Theoconservatives hold "War on Christians" conference in DC, continue  
to portray themselves as being powerless victims because they don't  
have absolute total control over all of America and can't ban fags or  
demand religious obedience from everybody else;

***** Focus on the Family Canada ACTION ITEM - they're starting their  
long war on abortion rights in Canada; Make no mistake, this _is_ the  
start of a long war;

Stanley Kurtz continues railing against queers and marriage rights in  
National Review Online;

***** LiveNews pushes opposition to Missouri stem-cell research  
initiative; they're casting it again as "human cloning"; <B>everyone  
paying attention to this fight needs to know that "human cloning" is  
the new marketing technique to fight stem-cell research</b>; the  
theoconservatives do a very good job of picking terms. The  
theoconservative agenda was not gaining much traction when it was  
"Christian values," but then they came up with "Family values" and it  
took off; _this is the same thing_;

Agape Press worries that the Republican Party isn't being hard-core  
enough against civil unions, demands more action; also, a brief  
memorial to the "founder of the modern creationist movement";

Agape Press's Mark Creech condemns pro-science/pro-evolutionary-theory  
religious leaders;

Washington Post article on state fights over Plan B;

"Faith and Freedom Network"'s head addresses Seattle City Club; I don't  
see any articles on this, unfortunately.

<lj-cut text="Articles and excerpts">
----- 1 -----
Testimony by Robert M. O'Neil
before the
Pennsylvania General Assembly's
House Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
January 9, 2006

[Email only; no URL]

My name is Robert O'Neil. I am currently a professor of law at the  
University of Virginia and director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for  
the Protection of Free Expression, a nonprofit, non-partisan  
organization in Charlottesville, Virginia, which is devoted to the  
cause of free speech and free press. I previously served as president  
of the University of Virginia, and earlier as president of the  
University of Wisconsin System. I have been  chairman of the National  
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, twice  
General Counsel of the American Association of University Professors  
and for seven years chaired AAUP's Committee on Academic Freedom and  
Tenure.

I welcome the opportunity to meet with you this afternoon, and am  
deeply honored by your invitation. I applaud your commitment to the  
central issue of student academic freedom; we university professors too  
often act or sound as though we valued academic freedom only for  
ourselves as scholars, overlooking the fact that we enjoy such  
protection mainly because we engage in the process of teaching and  
learning. It is most reassuring that you have made the campus  
experience of Pennsylvania students your central concern.

The challenge comes in defining what we mean by student academic  
freedom. We all believe that students should enjoy a broad range of  
learning opportunities and experiences, including a diversity of  
viewpoints among those with whom they study. No student should be  
disparaged, or suffer any academic penalty, because of his or her  
political views or affiliations -- any more than we would condone  
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nationality or gender.  
Policies of the AAUP, as well as those of most universities, recognize  
and protect such essential elements of the student experience.

It is easy to move beyond these readily acceptable principles into far  
less familiar terrain. So I should like to take the opening portion of  
my time to identify three possible expectations I would not include  
within student academic freedom, though some might argue to the  
contrary.

First, students should not expect their views and values to go  
unchallenged as part of the university experience. Indeed, if the son  
or daughter of a friend had such an expectation, I would urge that he  
or she either not go to college, or at the very least find that rare  
campus where nearly everyone shared the same views. Having one's  
beliefs and values tested in a college classroom -- and outside class  
for that matter -- is of the very essence of higher education. So when  
I read of students who object to such challenges, or who feel that  
professors holding views very different from their own are somehow  
unfit to teach them, I fear that the most basic value of higher  
education has been misunderstood. If anything, we fail as college  
teachers if we do not force our students constantly to reflect upon the  
views they bring to campus.

This point was well made at an earlier hearing of this Committee by  
David French, whose views Professor Joan Scott invoked, and which I  
might invoke again. Student rights, said Mr. French, "do not include a  
right to be taught what they want to hear. Their broad rights do not  
include a right not to be offended. Their rights do include a right to  
have a teacher tell all sides of the story as they see all sides of the  
story."

The distinction is basic and central to the mission of this committee;  
to say that students may not be penalized for holding views different  
from those of the professor is a far cry from saying that students  
should not be exposed to, and required to study, even highly  
uncongenial and offensive views as part of the learning process.

Let me invoke a personal experience. For the past several decades I  
have taught constitutional law of Church and State. One semester I  
happened to have two students with diametrically opposed views on such  
issues as the origins of human life, abortion and others. Each came  
into my class fully convinced of the soundness of her views, and  
equally certain of the error of her classmate's beliefs. I happened to  
have a conversation with the two of them after the course ended. What  
they reported was just what I had hoped would occur through the  
challenges I posed to each; while neither had abandoned her inherited  
views or values, each recognized how and why others might differ, and  
sensed possible limits on her own views.

Indeed, I believe in the end the conservative Christian was better able  
to defend her views than before, as was her non-believing classmate,  
simply because each had been challenged -- quite possibly for the first  
time in her life. Had either of them during the course contested my  
right to challenge and unsettle them, I would have insisted that they  
were missing the whole point of higher education, which is precisely to  
make students uncomfortable with views and values.

Second, students should not expect to be free of all institutional  
values, even though the official declaration of such values may make  
them uncomfortable. Here I have in mind the perilous topic of speech  
codes, and of policies that are sometimes mistaken for speech codes. I  
would yield to few in my opposition to genuinely restrictive speech  
codes; the first year our Center conferred its Jefferson Muzzles on a  
dozen or so enemies of free expression, we targeted two campus speech  
codes that seemed to us dangerously inhibiting to student expression,  
thus setting a terrible example for that place in our society where all  
ideas should be tolerated. Along with the federal judges who have  
struck down every genuine speech code that has been brought to court, I  
never met a campus ban I could embrace.

At the same time, I am deeply troubled by the claim that any campus  
policy remotely affecting student expression is effectively a speech  
code and should be struck down on that basis. Here I have especially in  
mind the controversy several years ago at Shippensburg State  
University. The campus policies that were challenged, and eventually  
invalidated by a federal district judge, were not by any stretch of the  
imagination a speech code. Rather, those policies were declarations of  
an ideal of campus civility, a template aimed at creating a more  
tolerant and understanding academic community. No student had ever been  
sanctioned for any claimed violation of these policies -- nor did the  
policies contemplate sanctions or penalties. The claims that several  
students feared reprisal for errant speech seemed to me wholly  
implausible.

Yet the effect of the federal judge's ruling was to discourage  
conscientious efforts by university administrators and governing boards  
to enhance campus civility -- a goal that ought to be capable of  
pursuit by hortatory statements and benign policies. Genuine speech  
codes are inimical to academic freedom and should be barred. But we  
disserve the learning environment, and the quest within it for civility  
and tolerance, if we treat every official statement or policy as a  
code. This for me is a lesson that goes far beyond Shippensburg,  
although it was most vividly played out there.

Third, and finally, students should never expect to impose their views  
and values on the institutions at which they study -- nor should they  
expect government to give them tools by which to impose those views.  
Earlier I stated my firm belief that students should find on every  
college campus a wide variety of diverse views and values. For some who  
share my belief, the next logical step is that where such diversity  
does not exist -- or is perceived not to exist -- it should be imposed  
by external authority. This is where we part company, and quite  
dramatically. Questions of who shall teach, and what shall be taught,  
are properly left to the faculties and academic administrators, of our  
colleges and universities. Even where others might strongly disagree  
with the curricular and personnel choices that have been made on the  
campus, the Supreme Court has time and again insisted that external  
authority should defer to internal professional judgments -- until and  
unless there is clear evidence of a total abdication of such judgment.

Appropriately, the pertinent policies of the AAUP and of most  
universities are firm and clear in defining a process that merits such  
deference by courts and agencies. The AAUP's Standards for The Ethics  
of Recruitment and Faculty Appointments, adopted in the early 1990s,  
declare what is a nearly universal understanding within the academic  
community. Not only is a rigorous and transparent process required for  
the filling of any vacant faculty position. That process, at the  
departmental or professional school level where initial hiring  
decisions are made, must be designed to ensure objectivity and emphasis  
upon a candidate's teaching and scholarly potential. Any intrusion of  
political bias or affiliation into that process would be sharply at  
variance with the most basic of scholarly values and traditions.  
Consistently, my own experience in appraising and interviewing  
prospective junior colleagues over more than four decades reflects just  
such criteria.

There are reasons, both practical and principled, why such deference is  
appropriate. On the practical side, there simply are no generally  
accepted standards by which such authority could be implemented; one  
person's "imbalanced" curriculum or faculty almost certainly seems  
"balanced" to others. Change the equation to suit the objector, and  
concerns will now immediately arise on the other side. Equally  
problematic is the impossibility of even the largest and most  
comprehensive university being able to offer all options to all  
students. And even if all of us could agree on what constitutes an  
appropriate curricular "balance," it is far from clear who should be  
empowered to enforce such standards -- unless it is the faculty and  
academic administrators who are charged with that task. Finally, such  
intrusions could hardly be limited to a single sector, or one type of  
institution, or one set of objections; once the door had been opened to  
such intervention, there would be no logical place at which to stop or  
draw lines beyond which to resist further invasions. The practical  
problems posed by external supervision of such matters are therefore  
legion and daunting.

The concerns of principle are even more serious. Central to academic  
freedom is the premise that the outside community relies upon internal  
faculty governance -- one of the most refined forms of self-regulation  
to be found anywhere in our society -- to resolve doubts and disputes.  
The notion that external authority might validly determine such matters  
as "balance" or "fairness" or "objectivity" in hiring, in shaping the  
curriculum, or in the individual classroom, would severely undermine  
the process that ensures a quality of higher education to which  
students are entitled. Thus in the end, the superficial appeal of  
external intervention turns out to be as illusory as it would be  
pernicious to the core of higher education.

Let me conclude with a few thoughts about what those of you who govern  
reasonably expect from those of us who teach. You expect, and we  
insist, that faculty members are not hired, promoted, tenured or fired  
on the basis of their beliefs or political affiliation or ideology. If  
there is evidence of departure from such objectivity, the academy takes  
appropriate notice. An actual case that played out several months ago  
illustrates this commitment. Professor Robert Natelson of the  
University of Montana (who had once been a Republican candidate for  
governor) claimed that his persistent plea to teach constitutional law  
had been rebuffed because he was viewed as overly conservative. An  
outside review committee of law teachers was appointed and asked to  
review the case. They concluded that, despite Natelson's conservative  
views, he was fully qualified to teach constitutional law. The dean and  
the president of the university accepted that conclusion. Within the  
next week or two Professor Natelson will for the first time be offering  
constitutional law. Unusual though this experience surely is, it  
illustrates well the commitment that we in the academy make to fairness  
and objectivity.

Here let me add that recent reports of ideological "bias" in the  
classroom are greatly exaggerated. Having taught at universities like  
California that might be identified as "liberal" and others like  
Virginia that are viewed as "conservative" I would insist that  
variations among professors and their politics are far fewer than the  
media might lead you to believe. Even more critical, any notion that a  
professor who regularly votes Republican will invariably take a  
"conservative" view in class is simply outlandish, despite its  
currency. As one who might be deemed "liberal," I derive the greatest  
satisfaction from twice-yearly team teaching with a colleague whose  
views on most political issues differ dramatically from mine -- but he  
and I would challenge the students to tell which of us is which without  
a scorecard.

You who govern also expect that we will take positive steps to protect  
the academic freedom of students, and so we do. National AAUP policies,  
and those of most universities, not only declare that students are to  
be judged on the basis of performance and not politics, but also  
provide recourse for the occasional student who may feel aggrieved by a  
biased assessment. I mentioned earlier that I have taught Church and  
State for some years. One cannot teach this subject without taking note  
of unusual religious beliefs and practices, which may even seem bizarre  
to mainstream students. There are always risks that in such a sensitive  
area the instructor may inadvertently discourage one student's faith.  
Yet I take great pains to avoid such risks -- not only because they  
would adversely affect the learning environment, but because any  
student whose faith I disparaged in class could appeal to my dean who,  
in turn, would call me to account for my transgression.

This is precisely what I meant earlier by invoking self-regulation. We  
take very seriously our responsibility to treat students fairly and  
objectively. We are prepared to rebuke our colleagues who do not share  
that commitment. In the end, what we who teach ask of you who govern is  
to continue to trust us as you have done throughout American history,  
as we work together to make the learning experience even better and  
more rewarding. I welcome the opportunity to respond in any area in  
which I could be helpful to the Committee.


----- 2 -----
Posted on Tue, Feb. 28, 2006
Miss. House committee votes to ban most abortions
Associated Press

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/state/13984316.htm

JACKSON, Miss. - A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban  
most abortions in the state.

The only exception would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in  
danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy  
caused by rape or incest.

House Public Health Chairman Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, says he  
brought up the proposal because he's tired of piecemeal attempts to add  
new abortion restrictions year after year.

[More at URL]


----- 3 -----
Domino's Pizza Boss Plans Catholic-Only Town
WCVB-TV 5, Boston
POSTED: 3:43 pm EST February 28, 2006
UPDATED: 4:31 pm EST February 28, 2006

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/7548805/detail.html? 
rss=bos&psp=money

NAPLES, Fla. -- The founder of the Domino's Pizza chain is pouring  
millions of dollars into a new town in Southwest Florida that will be  
governed by Roman Catholic principles.

Thomas Monaghan's project is called "Ave Maria." It's a place where  
contraceptives won't be sold in stores, and where the cable system  
won't carry X-rated programming. It's being built around the new Ave  
Maria University, the first Catholic university in decades.

[More at URL]


----- 4 -----
The Theocon Agenda
Andrew Sullivan | The Daily Dish
28 Feb 2006 06:58 pm

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/the_mayor_of_lo.html

A reader writes a long email, but it's so smart and insightful I'm  
running all of it. If you're tired of this debate, by all means skip  
it. But if you care about the future of individual freedom in America,  
read on:

[More at URL]


----- 5 -----
The Catholic Right
Andrew Sullivan | The Daily Dish
01 Mar 2006 01:30 pm

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/the_catholic_ri.html

Every now and again, they blurt out the truth. Here's Tom McClusky, a  
Catholic who is acting vice president for government affairs at the  
Family Research Counci:

"While other issues are important -- such as helping the poor, the  
death penalty, views on war -- these are things that aren't tenets of  
the Catholic Church."

It is not a tenet of the Catholic faith that we should help the poor?  
Or that we should only support a just war? Or oppose the conscious  
killing of human beings when other options are available that protect  
society just as well? Catholicism is now solely determined by the most  
extreme position on the abortion issue?

[More at URL]


----- 6 -----
New York Considers Pharmacist-Prescribed Morning-After Pill
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
February 28, 2006

[Received in email; no URL]

New York's Legislature is considering a bill that would
allow pharmacists to dispense the so-called morning-after
pill to women without a doctor's prescription.

The Associated Press reported that the latest bill meets
most of Gov. George Pataki's objections that led him to
veto an earlier version. Pataki has long been an abortion
supporter, but wanted the bill to contain certain
restrictions on dispensing the pill to adolescents.

Pro-life groups have opposed the morning-after pill
because it can sometimes cause an early abortion.

"Powerful medication without a prescription is just bad
policy generally, but on a further level it would be the
taking of a life," Hamilton College associate history
professor Douglas Ambrose said. "That's an act that we
should not be promoting and should not be making available
with or without a doctor's prescription."


----- 7 -----
Lawmakers Say "No" to Critical Science
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
February 28, 2006

[Received in email; no URL]

A bill in Utah that would have directed high-school
science classes to address the challenges to the theory of
evolution was defeated Monday, The New York Times
reported.

The Origins of Life bill did not mention an alternative
theory to Darwinism, but said the state board of education
"shall establish curriculum requirements relating to
scientific instruction."

Both supporters and opponents saw it as a way to add to
school science lessons the teaching of intelligent design
-- the theory that life is far too complex to have evolved
without an architect.

Casey Luskin, spokesman for the Discovery Institute, said
the vote is "a loss for scientific education" in the state
of Utah.


----- 9 -----
MICHIGAN COURT: TV INDECENCY THE SAME AS INDECENT EXPOSURE
Judges affirm new way to prosecute indecent material on cable  
television.
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Pete Winn, associate editor
February 27, 2006

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039672.cfm

Michigan's Supreme Court has established that the state's
indecent-exposure law includes the prosecution of indecent
programming on cable television.

Through this law, the Michigan attorney general can
prosecute national broadcasters that put indecent material
on cable TV, according to Pat Trueman, senior counsel for
the Alliance Defense Fund.

"This may be of questionable legality, and of limited use
in other states," he said, "but the Michigan Supreme Court
has upheld it, and the end result is a state law can be
used to reach national broadcasters on cable TV who put
out indecent material."

He said cable companies will likely take note of the
decision, but it's hard to say what impact that might
have.

Last May, a Michigan court of appeals found the
indecent-exposure law could be applied to a television
program which involved "performing" genitals. The
appellate judges held that nudity on a TV screen "could be
even more offensive" than live nudity.

The state Supreme Court let stand that decision.

Trueman said the question now is, "What will the federal
courts do?"

"The United States Supreme Court would ultimately look at
this, and decide if there's a prosecution," he said,
"whether it is an appropriate reach for each individual
state to have differing laws enforcing indecency law on
cable."

In the past, the nation's highest court would have said
no, Trueman said.

"Congress has given that authority, through federal law,
to the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S.
Department of Justice," he added. "They did not intend for
states to have that right."

Still, it's not clear how the Court led by new Chief
Justice John Roberts might decide on this issue.

Meanwhile, Michigan can apparently go after cable TV shows
under its indecent-exposure law.

When it comes to media -- what's on TV and cable -- the
nation's regulators have a problem. Broadcast TV can be
prosecuted for carrying either indecency or obscenity.
Cable is only prohibited from carrying obscene material --
which experts said is tougher to prosecute.

Indecency, generally speaking, is "soft-core" pornography.
The material in Michigan involved nudity only -- which
would be indecency.

Obscenity is "hard-core" porn -- and is illegal under
federal law, unless it can be demonstrated that it has a
literary, artistic, philosophical or scientific purpose,
which makes for the tougher road in the courts.

Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality for
Focus on the Family Action, said Michigan's action
presents a novel approach, at least.

"There are laws against indecent exposure in just about
every community and state," he said. "It does seem to have
common sense going for it. If it's against the law to walk
naked down Main Street, it would stand to reason that it
should be indecent exposure to be naked on TV."

FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn more about the issues
surrounding indecency and obscenity, visit the Focus on
Social Issues Web site.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/pornography/ljaei/


----- 10 -----
Record Crowd for St. Louis Love Won Out Event
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
February 27, 2006

SUMMARY: More than 1,700 hear about hope for those
struggling with same-sex attraction.

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039675.cfm

In its eighth year, Focus on the Family's Love Won Out
conference drew its largest crowd ever at First
Evangelical Free Church of St. Louis County (First Free)
on Saturday.

The event shares the message that there is hope for those
who want to leave homosexuality.

[More at URL]


----- 11 -----
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Institute Goes on Trial
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
February 27, 2006

[Received in email; no URL]

A trial began today in California over the
constitutionality of Proposition 71 -- a $3 billion
embryonic stem-cell research institute approved by voters
in 2004, The Los Angeles Times reported.

Pro-life challengers say the state has not been given
adequate oversight as to how the money would be spent by
the California Institute for Regenerative Science.

The research is controversial because the process of
harvesting embryonic stem cells always requires the
destruction of human life.

Supporters of the research claim Prop 71 amended the state
constitution so that the Citizen's Oversight Committee --
responsible for grant disbursement and other oversight
duties -- can shoulder the responsibility.

James Harrison, attorney for the institute, said all the
public scrutiny has given researchers a chance to prove
they are legitimate.

"This agency has been under a microscope for the last year
and been subject to a fair degree of criticism," he said.
"In some sense, this trial gives us a chance to prove what
this agency has accomplished and how accountable it has
been."

Ted Costa, CEO of the taxpayer organization People's
Advocate -- one of the litigants in the case -- said lack
of supervision is not fair to taxpayers.

"There is one major big wrong with this thing," he said.
"There is absolutely no oversight from the Legislature."

The trial and the expected appeal by the losing side could
keep the bond money from being dispersed until 2007.


----- 12 -----
Pontiff Says Embryos Are Sacred From the Beginning
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
February 27, 2006

[Received in email; no URL]

Pope Benedict XVI told an international congress on
bioethics that embryos are "sacred and inviolable" from
the moment of conception, Reuters reported.

The Pontifical Academy for Life held the congress, titled
"The Human Embryo Before Implantation," to discuss, in
part, in-vitro fertilization and experimentation such as
occurs in controversial embryonic stem-cell research.

The Church has always proclaimed the "sacred and
inviolable character of every human life, from its
conception to its natural death," Benedict said. "This
moral judgment is valid from the start of the life of an
embryo, even before it is implanted in the maternal womb."

He also reaffirmed the Church's position that a fertilized
egg should be valued and that no scientific research
trumps the sanctity of life.


----- 13 ----
Mississippi Senate fails to protect human life
by: Tom McClusky
Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WL06B81

...[Dr. David A. Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family  
Research Council] has informed me that the Mississippi state Senate's  
Public Health and Welfare Committee wimped out and failed to pass the  
human cloning ban.  This puts the Republican controlled Senate to the  
left of the Democrat controlled House (who passed the same ban 108-4)  
and the always left United Nations.  This is a conservative state that  
should be setting the example for other states.  The Senate has some  
serious esplainin' to do (as Ricky Ricardo might say.)

[More at URL]


----- 14 -----
Christian Leader Sees Roe v. Wade Collapsing, But Pro-Lifer Urges  
Patience
By Bill Fancher
February 28, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/afa/282006a.asp

(AgapePress) - A pro-life activist believes the momentum has finally  
shifted in the battle to end legalized abortion in America. He is  
describing a decision last week by South Dakota lawmakers just one more  
indication that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made  
abortion on demand legal in the U.S., is starting to crumble.

Christian Defense Coalition director Pat Mahoney believes the judicial  
basis for so-called "abortion rights" is falling apart as a wave of  
increasing pro-life sentiment continues to pound away at it. The latest  
blow came, he notes, when South Dakota's legislature passed a bill  
banning all abortions.

"What we are witnessing is literally a crack in the foundations of Roe  
v. Wade," Mahoney asserts. South Dakota's Governor Mike Rounds has said  
he will sign the bill into law as soon as it goes through a standard  
review.

[More at URL]


----- 15 ----
A State Legislature Passes Sweeping Abortion Ban
American Family Association
March 1, 2006

http://www.afa.net/abortionban.asp

Help us get 1,000,000 Names on the Petition to Governor Rounds!

A bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and spark a  
challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is heading  
to Governor Mike Rounds for his signature. Planned Parenthood, which  
operates the only clinic performing abortions in South Dakota, has  
pledged to challenge the measure in court if Gov. Rounds signs it into  
law.

Gov. Rounds' signature would mark the first time since the 1973 Roe v.  
Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide that a state legislature  
has passed such a sweeping ban. The bill, known as H.B. 1215, makes  
abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother.

The bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. Roger Hunt, a Republican,  
and in the Senate by Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat. The bill states  
that "life begins at the time of conception ..." and that "under the  
Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child  
...each possess a natural and inalienable right to life."

[More at URL]


----- 16 -----
Feticide Goes to the Supreme Court and South Dakota Becomes First Free  
State
2/26/2006 - 9:39 AM PST

Advertisment
Deacon Keith Fournier
© Third Millennium, LLC
Catholic Online

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3035

[...]

The eyes of life - loving people turn to Washington, D.C. where the  
United States Supreme Court has granted review to one of several cases  
that were used to prevent the Federal ban on “partial birth abortion”  
from being implemented. Thwarting the expressed will of the American  
people, three Courts of Appeals, invited into action by pro-abortion  
zealots, took it upon themselves to prevent the implementation of  
Federal legislation that banned this horrid act of feticide. It is time  
to be as brutally honest in our language as the procedure itself is  
brutally repugnant. It is feticide; plain and simple. The baby is  
pulled by her head to the end of the birth canal so that her brains can  
be drained and her skull collapsed causing her death. That is what the  
forces of abortion on demand are now fighting to protect. That is what  
they have the audacity to refer to as a “reproductive right!” There is  
certainly nothing “reproductive” about feticide- and that which is  
intrinsically evil can never be right.

[...]

South Dakota to Become the First Free State

The acceptance of the so called “partial birth” abortion appeal pales  
in comparison to the events that occurred in South Dakota this past  
week. There, a bi-partisan legislature passed “House Bill 1215”. Here  
are a few excerpts from this excellent piece of legislation:

[More at URL]


----- 17 -----
Student request poses dilemma
Bayfield teen asks school board to change name of Winter Break to  
Christmas Break
February 26, 2006
By Chuck Slothower | Herald Staff Writer

http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp? 
article_type=news&article_path=/news/06/news060226_3.htm

BAYFIELD - A Bayfield High School student asked the school board to  
change the name of Winter Break to Christmas Break last week,  
potentially plunging the district into a touchy cultural issue.

"I'm very concerned about the traditional aspect of this holiday not  
being represented on the school calendar," Janice McClain, a junior at  
Bayfield High, told the Bayfield School District board on Tuesday.

McClain, 17, argued that the United States is an essentially Christian  
nation founded on Christian precepts and doctrine.

"Mostly, the Bayfield School District is a Christian community,"  
McClain said.

[More at URL]


----- 18 -----
Participants at Rome seminar warn gay marriage poses risk to children
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
February 24, 2006

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601120.htm

ROME (CNS) -- Gay marriage and gay adoption would undermine society's  
traditional configuration and pose risks to the children raised by  
same-sex couples, warned participants at a Rome seminar.

Participants at the Feb. 20-24 seminar, offered for course credit by  
the Pontifical Lateran University, studied the topic: "The Homosexual  
Question: Psychology, Rights and the Truth of Love."

In a public conference Feb. 23, professors teaching the seminar spoke  
at length about the threats posed by the gay rights movement and said  
current legislative proposals around the world could have far-reaching  
effects on how society is structured.

[More at URL]


----- 19 -----
Conference tackles 'War on Christians'
D.C. event on 'values voters' features Brownback, DeLay, Schlafly, Keyes
Posted: March 1, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49044

A first-of-its-kind conference on "The War on Christians" will be held  
in Washington, D.C., this month to examine attacks from the news media,  
Hollywood, courts and activist groups.

Conference convener Vision America says "The War On Christians And The  
Values Voter in 2006" will be the first "to consider the savage and  
accelerating" attacks by groups such as the ACLU and Anti-Defamation  
League.

Speakers at the March 27-28 event will include Sen. Sam Brownback,  
R-Kan.; Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas;  
conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly; radio host Janet Parshall; and  
former Republican presidential candidates Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes.

[More at URL]


----- 20 -----
Pro-lifers claim abortion funding fraud

March 1, 2006

New Brunswick pro-lifers claim that the six provinces that pay for  
abortions performed in private clinics are practicing Medicare fraud,  
and they want the new federal health minister, Tony Clement, to  
investigate.

In a news release, New Brunswick Right to Life accuses Newfoundland,  
Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia of violating  
the Medicare provisions of the Canada Health Act when they cite  
“medical necessity” as the basis for providing this funding.

Executive director Peter Ryan says abortion clinics provide their  
services solely “on demand” – and without any “assessment or  
demonstration of medical necessity. An unwanted pregnancy is not an  
automatic criterion of medical necessity. I know of no medical body in  
this country that would say it is.”

Ryan says they are urging Clement to order an official investigation as  
allowed for under the Act, adding that a government which came to power  
in part on a pledge “to end corruption should not stand for it.”

[...]

Take Action - Contact Canada’s federal health minister Tony Clement and  
request that he investigate whether your tax dollars are funding  
private, for-profit, abortion clinics without any proof of medical  
necessity. Click here for contact information for your provincial  
government, if you are interesting in expressing your concerns to your  
provincial health minister about where your healthcare money is going.

[More at URL]


----- 21 -----
No Nordic Bliss
There’s no refuting the claim that same-sex partnerships harm marriage.
February 28, 2006, 8:10 a.m.
National Review Online
Stanley Kurtz

https://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

Now that we've learned about the Swedish drive to abolish marriage and  
recognize polyamory (see "Fanatical Swedish Feminists"), and about the  
demise of marriage in the Netherlands (see "Standing Out"), let's take  
a look at an important attempt to refute my arguments on Scandinavian  
marriage. In 2004, Yale Law Professor William Eskridge, Attorney Darren  
Spedale, and Sweden's Ombudsman for Sexual Orientation Discrimination,  
Hans Ytterberg, published "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered  
Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate." (For brevity, I'll  
refer only to first-author Eskridge.) Understanding Eskridge's  
criticisms will tell us much about the meaning of same-sex marriage.

[More at URL]


----- 22 -----
Missouri Pro-Life, Religious Groups Kick Off Campaign Against Human  
Cloning
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 27, 2006

http://www.lifenews.com/bio1349.html

[Image of five identical babies - this is important, because they need  
to pretend this is about babies, and not single cells, to get people to  
buy into their theological arguments]

Jefferson City, MO (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-life and religious groups,  
joined by state lawmakers, have kicked off their campaign against a  
ballot initiative this fall that would promote embryonic stem cell  
research and some forms of human cloning.
Officials with the ad-hoc group Missourians Against Human Cloning  
conducted a fly around on Monday to appear at numerous rallies and  
press conference spreading the message that the practices are morally  
and ethically wrong.

Rep. Jim Lembke, a Republican lawmaker, is one of the leaders of the  
group opposing the November ballot proposal.

"I don't think we should be creating jobs on the backs of human  
embryos," he said, according to a St. Louis Post Dispatch report.

[More at URL]


----- 23 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
Agape Press
February 28, 2006
Compiled by Jody Brown

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/282006h.asp

...What many see as a compromising trend among Republican Party leaders  
has one pro-marriage defender concerned. High-profile Republicans have  
recently angered many advocates of a constitutional marriage amendment  
by suggesting that granting marriage rights to "domestic partnerships"  
might be a workable compromise. Peter LaBarbera of the Illinois Family  
Institute says such a step could spell trouble. "When you start  
asserting domestic partnerships, you are eroding marriage," says the  
IFI spokesman. "I think the grassroots of the Republican Party has to  
take notice of what's going on." LaBarbera says "selling out"  
traditional marriage in an effort to win the votes of the homosexual  
community has no place in a pro-family political party. [Bill Fancher]

[...]

...The founder of the modern creationist movement is now with his  
Creator. Dr. Henry M. Morris, 87, died in San Diego on Saturday  
(February 25) after a brief illness. Morris founded the Institute for  
Creation Research and co-founded, along with Dr. Tim LaHaye, San Diego  
Christian College (Christian Heritage College) in El Cajon, California.  
A press statement from ICR notes that Morris is best known for his work  
"challenging the credibility of the naturalistic and evolutionary  
theories of origins" and was considered "the person most responsible  
for the rise of the modern creation-science movement." Beverly LaHaye,  
wife of Dr. LaHaye and founder of Concerned Women for America, says  
Morris left a legacy of faithfulness, intellect, diligence, and  
servanthood. "He used the many gifts God gave him to contribute greatly  
to the kingdom of God," she says. Morris wrote more than 60 books in  
the fields of science and theology, among them The Genesis Flood and  
The Bible and Modern Science. He appeared in several documentaries and  
on many national television programs -- and also wrote a graduate  
textbook, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, that is still in use  
around the world today. "[His] life shows each one of us how much God  
will use us if only we will let Him," adds Mrs. LaHaye. Morris leaves  
behind his wife of 66 years, Mary Louise, five children, 17  
grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren. [Jody Brown]

[More at URL]


----- 24 -----
The Right Frame of Mind
Rebuking the 'Clergy Letter Project'
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
February 24, 2006

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/242006mc.asp

(AgapePress) - Recently, AgapePress reported that over 10,000 members  
of the clergy from mainline churches had signed a letter stating they  
rejected a literal interpretation of the creation story. (See related  
story) The "Clergy Letter Project," the brainchild of University of  
Wisconsin-Oshkosh administrator Michael Zimmerman, advocates that "the  
timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may  
comfortably coexist." The purpose of the letter is to urge school board  
members to reject such teachings as Scientific Creationism and  
Intelligent Design and "preserve the integrity of the science  
curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a  
core component of human knowledge."

It is most unfortunate so many Christian leaders have concluded that  
evolution is scientific, whereas creationism and intelligent design are  
simply religious -- when, in fact, evolution is incapable of being  
scientifically proven.

[...]

There can essentially only be one reason for favoring evolution, and  
that reason has nothing to do with science. It has to do with something  
outstanding British biologist D.M.S. Watson said in Nature back in  
1929: "[T]he theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted  
not because it can be proved logically coherent evidence to be true but  
because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

[More at URL]


----- 25 -----
Plan B Battles Embroil States
Proposals Mirror Red-Blue Divide
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 27, 2006; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/ 
AR2006022601380.html

Filling a void left by the Food and Drug Administration's inability to  
decide whether to make the "morning-after" pill available without a  
prescription, nearly every state is or soon will be wrestling with  
legislation that would expand or restrict access to the drug.

More than 60 bills have been filed in state legislatures already this  
year, and that follows an already busy 2005 session on emergency  
contraception. The resulting tug of war is creating an availability map  
for the pill that looks increasingly similar to the map of "red states"  
and "blue states" in the past two presidential elections -- with  
increased access in the blue states and greater restrictions in the red  
ones.

[More at URL]


----- 26 -----
Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten Addresses Seattle City Club Today
Faith and Freedom Network
February 28, 2006

[Received in email; no URL]

Dr. Joe Fuiten, Chairman of Faith & Freedom, will be one of two  
featured speakers today at the Seattle City Club luncheon.

The other speaker will be well-known liberal religious leader and  
author, Rabbi Lerner.

The topic is, "The Struggle for God's Voters: The Growing Influence of  
Religion in U.S. Politics."

Rabbi Lerner's new book, "The Left Hand of God" will also be featured.

Please remember Joe in prayer today as he makes the case for people of  
faith and traditional, biblical values.

Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom


_______________________________________________
||| REMOVE THE SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS BEFORE FORWARDING!!!
||| DO NOT POST THE SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS TO ANY PUBLIC FORUM!!!
Given those two things, all action items of all types are forwardable unless stated otherwise.
||| REMOVE THE SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS BEFORE FORWARDING!!!
||| DO NOT POST THE SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS TO ANY PUBLIC FORUM!!!
Active-l mailing list
Active-l at murkworks.net
http://murkworks.net/mailman/listinfo/active-l