Tag Archives: ADF: Alliance Alert Commentary

A federal decision issued this week illustrates the danger of believing that the President’s executive order on health reform will prevent federal funds from being used on abortion.

“The Department of Health and Human Services could use President Obama’s $11 Billion to give away, for free, every abortion performed in America, and they would still have $10.4 Billion dollars left over.”

“Last week the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) assured the public that its centers don’t intend to perform abortions. NACHC’s intentions, however, should be viewed with scrutiny.”

Though Saletan’s criticism is less shrill than NARAL’s, he makes the same basic attempt to draw the square peg of “pro-choice” beliefs through the round hole of pro-life mothers who highlight the personhood of their preborn children.

On closer scrutiny, Prof. Kaveny’s melodramatic analogy falls apart. Opposing government funding of abortion is not like opposing government funding of Christian social service agencies and churches. And the difference isn’t just that abortion is wrong and Christian social service is right. These apples and oranges are actually not the same.

“. . . There is no requirement for government assistance in support of abortion, while there is no constitutional ban on government assistance to religious groups. Abortion advocates have it completely backwards . . . ”

“. . . the pro-life movement leads America in putting women first, and that putting women first is precisely why pro-lifers seek to make abortion illegal.”

” . . . the days of FCC indecency enforcement may be limited. (They may be limited anyway under Pres. Obama.) Are there five justices left on the court who will maintain Pacifica when this case (or a similar one) is returned to the high court? Breyer has been good on some related issues but I would not count on him. I count four justices–but that number includes Kennedy and who wouldn’t be concerned about him?”

Patrick A. Trueman: OneNewsNow has posted this report quoting me on the problem of “sexting.” The latest on the issue is that the Vermont legislature is considering legalizing sexting for under-18 kids. Think about it: they want to legalize the production of child pornography by children!

But today the abortion movement is getting governments to compel killing of the preborn rather than to prevent it or allow it, and to pursue their compulsion while accepting federal funds. Pro-abortion legal theory has no limit on its willingness to force abortion participation in order to guarantee “access.” (For that matter, pro-abortion views also lead to a woman’s “duty to abort.” This duty will start with disabled babies, multiple pregnancies, and will progress to teenage pregnancy “vaccinations” and beyond)

It looks like the vote in the full U.S. Senate for pornography attorney David Ogden is going to be tomorrow, Wednesday.

Contrary to media reports, President Obama is not proposing to narrowly tailor the regulations or better define them . . . He is proposing to rescind the current regulations altogether . . .

The euthanasia movement assumes that people with disabilities are less valuable than you and me (well, maybe less than you, I am not sure what they think of me). Lauren Richardson’s family, and Lauren herself, have come to experience the value of a human life even in the midst of struggle. No political special interest should be allowed to use the law to kill people it thinks are subhuman.

By Matt Bowman, Esq. Today, major news outlets are reporting that newly-sworn-in President Barack Obama is set to issue an executive order to give federal funds international groups that advocate or perform abortion. If the executive order occurs as reported, …

“Drugs known as “emergency contraception” have three possible functions: inhibiting sperm migration to the ovum, preventing ovulation by preventing the surge of luteinizing hormone, and preventing implantation of the newly formed human embryo into the uterine wall.

Overall this is a helpful document with several important updates and clarifications. It should be read by all pro-lifers who pay close attention to bioethical abuses and quandaries, or who want to learn.

Judicial activism lives. Last Friday a state trial judge in Montana imposed assisted suicide on the entire state against the will of the people.

Congress recognized in 1973 what the abortion movement is implementing in state laws today: once abortion is a “right,” access to it becomes a right, and participating in it becomes an enforceable duty.

Patrick A. Trueman: “I have observed over my 22 years of work against pornography that nearly every obscenity case is won, whether the case is brought on the state or federal level. The only problem is getting prosecutors to indict.”

. . . 125,000 children (added to the existing 1.3 million abortions) . . . will be killed . . . every year after FOCA is passed. FOCA is indeed a staggering expansion of abortion, both in principle and in actual lives lost.

Common sense tells us that a mother and child are in a loving rather than adversarial relationship, that the child did not attack or invade anyone, and that, as mentioned, pregnancy is not a “risk” of sex but its natural goal.

Law professor Sherry Colb posts another abortion apologetic in her regular column at Findlaw.com, but this time her research is woefully inadequate. Colb attempts to defend Senator Barack Obama for opposing Illinois bills that would have protected babies born alive …

William Saletan fails to see the difference between taking a pill that is designed to stop pregnancy by any means necessary—including killing—and engaging in activities that are good or neutral in themselves and have nothing to do with targeting children.

Here is the deep analytic flaw in the court’s assertion: behavior (ethics) is being confused with status (metaphysics) . . .

They call it harassment to respectfully express a Christian viewpoint, which is all the more ironic in schools that give diplomatic immunity to pro-homosexual speech that claims to be all about “tolerance.”

For courts to proceed with litigation and appeals all the way to a final decision under such a lack of a robust adversarial process undermines the legitimacy of the final decision and of the judiciary itself.

. . . the Court is left, on the one hand, with a California Constitution that does not explicitly address the issues of same-sex “marriage” and, on the other hand, with a clear pronouncement from the people affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today, from 9 AM to 12 PM Pacific, the California Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on the coordinated Marriage Cases. Unlike the previous California Supreme Court arguments that resulted in the Lockyer decision, today’s arguments will focus squarely on …

The origin of the California Marriage Cases extends all the way back to February 2004, when Gavin Newsome, mayor of San Francisco, authorized county clerks to begin issuing “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples.

ADF attorneys Chris Stovall and Jim Campbell will be live blogging during tomorrow’s Cal. Supreme Court marriage hearing from 9 am through 12 pm (PST).

“. . . an expanded contemporary version of the classical liberal education best achieves that worthy purpose, because it includes robust discussion regarding (rather than indoctrination in) the religious beliefs and systems that give the context necessary for accurate understanding of many of the great ideas and works of literature, politics, philosophy, the arts, and more . . . ”

Beckwith argues forcefully that pro-choice advocates who offer such suggestions are practicing a subtle and patronizing intolerance that expects pro-lifers to act as if their “fundamental view of human life is false.”

No one really knows why the justices are bypassing all of these types of cases. All we can do is stay tuned.

ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence appeared on the Lars Larson radio show to discuss the case pending in New Mexico where state authorities are investigating a photographer for refusing to photograph same-sex “marriage” ceremonies. The mp3 audio file (9:35 minutes) can …

Additionally, the definition of marriage becomes key in implementing numerous programs of the modern federal welfare state. In such a welfare state, a national definition of marriage is unavoidable.

In spite of the corruptive and misleading mantra, “separation of church and state,” some theologians and legal commentators are setting the record straight.

The stories illustrate a frustrating problem: many, and perhaps most, states have not understood the serious threat of child pornography or pornography in general. It is vital that state laws be updated.