Media Ignoring Gosnell Trial Because It Puts Abortion Issue ‘Starkly Into Relief’

Family Security Matters posted this video of Charles Krauthammer stating that the media is ignoring the Dr. Kermit Gosnell (pictured above) trial because it puts the abortion issue ‘Starkly Into Relief’.

PHILADELPHIA (TheBlaze/AP) — An unlicensed doctor fled out the back the night the FBI raided a Philadelphia medical clinic in 2010, a witness testified Thursday as a murder trial centered on the unorthodox facility. It is just the latest horrific revelation to surface in the trial.”

Abortion provider Kermit Gosnell, 72, is charged with killing a woman patient and seven babies allegedly born alive, and with performing illegal, late-term abortions at his thriving inner-city clinic. Co-defendant Eileen O’Neill, 56, of Phoenixville, is charged with billing as a doctor and participating in a corrupt organization.”

Eight former employees have pleaded guilty, some to third-degree murder, and have testified this month about nightmarish, often-chaotic practices at the clinic.”

Ashley Baldwin spoke Thursday of starting there at age 15 through a high school training program, and soon assisting with abortions and administering intravenous drugs. Baldwin, now 22, said she worked nearly 50-hour weeks, often well past midnight, when abortions were routinely performed.”

At least twice, she saw aborted babies move after the procedure, only to have Gosnell explain that it an involuntary response. In one case, she said, “the chest was moving.””>At least twice, she saw aborted babies move after the procedure, only to have Gosnell explain that it an involuntary response. In one case, she said, “the chest was moving.”

Her mother, Tina Baldwin, had started at the clinic in 2002, referred by a business school where she had studied to be a medical assistant. She mostly worked at the front desk, where her duties included giving patients medicine to start their contractions.”

Her mother, Tina Baldwin, had started at the clinic in 2002, referred by a business school where she had studied to be a medical assistant. She mostly worked at the front desk, where her duties included giving patients medicine to start their contractions.”

Read more.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED COLUMNS:

Pay Attention to the Gosnell Trial – The Daily Beast

Four Reasons Why Media Isn’t Covering Gosnell Mass Murder Trial …

NBC Won’t Cover Gosnell Trial, Tweets News From Another Source …

Kermit Gosnell Trial

Why Is the Media Not Reporting on the Philly Abortion Clinic Doctor Trial?

Infants Born Alive Bill passes unanimously out of Florida Senate Health Policy Committee

Today, Gov. Rick Scott released the following statement regarding the Infants Born Alive Bill (SB1636) passing unanimously out of Florida Senate Health Policy Committee:

“The Infants Born Alive bill, SB 1636 – and its House companion, HB 1129 – ensure common sense measures to help care for the babies who survive abortion procedures. It is essential that we protect the weakest among us, and I am grateful for the Senators and Representatives in both parties who are supporting care for these babies.”

There is a growing trend among states to restrict abortions.

According to Remapping Debate, “Though the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade affirming a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion remains the law of the land, states enacted more restrictions on abortion in 2011 and 2012 than in any other years since Roe was decided four decades ago.” This trend appears to be continuing with the advancement of SB1636.

Elizabeth Nash from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group in Washington, D.C. and New York, stated, “What we’ve seen over time is a wholesale change in the abortion landscape. Particularly in the last two years, we have just seen a tidal wave of restrictions rolling across the country.”

According to Nash, 92 new restrictions were enacted in 2011 and 43 were enacted in 2012, the highest and second-highest number of annual restrictions ever.

Nash said, many states have recently passed laws requiring physicians to be in the physical presence of the patient when prescribing mifespristone — a pharmaceutical drug that induces an abortion at a very early stage of pregnancy — effectively prohibiting doctors from prescribing the medication over the telephone and reducing access to abortion in rural areas. Onerous regulatory restrictions placed specifically on abortion providers (TRAP laws), bans on the coverage of abortion by health insurance policies that will be offered through state exchanges beginning next year as part of the Affordable Care Act, and laws requiring abortion providers to perform ultrasounds and show the image of the fetus to their patients before the procedure have also been common in the last two years.”

To view a chart showing the extent of your states efforts to restrict abortion click here.

RELATED COLUMN: 

Planned Parenthood calls for killing babies born after botched abortion (+ video)

Analysis of the Prop 8 and DOMA “gay marriages” cases before US Supreme Court — what’s going on and what could happen.

The following comprehensive analysis is provided by MassResistance.org:

As most people know, this is a terribly critical time regarding the imposition of “gay marriage” on America.

On Tuesday, March 26, the United States Supreme Court in Washington heard arguments on the lawsuit to overturn the Proposition 8 Constitutional Amendment vote in California. The following day, the Court heard arguments on the lawsuit to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Either of these would be huge wins for the homosexual movement and could change the country similar to the way that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” changed the military.

Christian-bashing. Homosexual activist taunts Christians gathered near US
Supreme Court building during “gay marriage” arguments. Expect to see
more of this if any of these cases wins.

Both of these cases were strategically targeted and crafted for maximum success. And they were filed in carefully chosen venues to get the most gay-friendly federal judges. All of that worked out stunningly for the homosexual legal teams. Both cases sailed through the federal courts with barely a hitch. And both, as we shall see, were further aided by less than stellar representation by their opposition.

Both cases have generated mountains of paperwork in their filings, amicus briefs, and rulings, along with the myriad of groups and individuals that have been involved on each side,. It can be quite overwhelming. Our aim here is to explain all this in reasonably simple terms.

Most important to understand is that both of these cases have used the “equal protection under the law” clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment as their primary argument. And in our opinion, this what the pro-family side has largely failed to effectively defend.

The Proposition 8 Case

Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex “marriage.” An additional state, Hawaii, passed an amendment to allow the legislature to decide. Nine states currently allow same-sex “marriage.”

The homosexual movement calculated that it could undo all of this by getting a federal court to declare such an amendment unconstitutional. They decided to target the California amendment, known as “Proposition 8”, which was passed in 2008.

Tolerance? During Proposition 8 campaign in California, two lesbians parked this car in front of home of parents and 5 children who supported Proposition 8.

There were good reasons for this choice. California is in the very liberal 9th Circuit federal court district. But in addition, they were able to arrange for Judge Vaughn Walker to preside over the case. Walker, who later publicly acknowledged he was homosexual, struck down the amendment. (However, he did order a stay of enforcement until it worked its way through the legal system. This stay was challenged in court by the homosexual legal team but in this they were not successful.)

The gist of the case, as mentioned above, is that under the “equal protection under the law” clause of the US Constitution, homosexuals who want to marry were being treated differently from heterosexuals who want to marry. Instead, California allows them to enter into civil unions. Such discrimination is unconstitutional, they argue. Homosexual couples should have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals, because they as citizens have the same basic civil rights. The federal judge and the appeals judges all agreed with that reasoning.

The counter-argument was that the same laws on marriage apply to everybody — i.e., everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex — therefore, there’s no “equal protection” problem. But that was rejected by the judges. The fact that the lawyers on our side accepted California’s civil union law as a legitimate compromise made that argument difficult to defend. (That was another strategic reason for choosing California as the target.)

But beyond that, the pro-family handling of that case was widely criticized as a “perfect storm” of incompetence and non-aggression. See the MassResistance report from 2010 on this.

It’s always appeared to us that the only effective way to discredit the “equal protection” argument would be to discredit homosexual behavior itself. It should be easy. There’s certainly an enormous amount of material to do that. But the pro-family lawyers have almost completely avoided that approach.

Thus, during the US Supreme Court arguments, when the right made a brief foray into some stronger points, it didn’t go well. Here’s how (the far-left pro-gay) Mother Jones magazine reported on pro-family lawyer Charles J. Cooper’s interchange with the justices:

When Cooper argued that California was justified in enacting the ban because of “society’s interest in responsible procreation,” Justice Elena Kagan asked if it would be constitutional to ban marriages between infertile couples. When Cooper argued that it’s possible that same-sex marriage harms children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that there were already more than 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California. Asked by Kennedy and Kagan how same-sex marriage could have a negative effect on “traditional” marriages, Cooper couldn’t offer any examples.

According to reports, throughout all the court hearings the pro-family lawyers were trying craft arguments that would fit the predicted the temperament of Justice Kennedy, the assumed “swing vote,” rather than on the strict legal aspects of the case. It’s an interesting type of calculated risk.

If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the lower courts, what does that mean? The answer: It’s devastating. 

It would effectively strike down all laws and state constitutional amendments in the US against same-sex “marriage.” This is the holy grail of the entire homosexual movement. It will basically undo all the work that’s been done in defending marriage, and in one stroke will completely redefine the family unit for the entire country. Like the 1973 abortion ruling, it would be a sweeping mandate by judicial fiat with no possibility of fighting back by the citizens.

The Defense of Marriage (DOMA) case

DOMA was passed in 1996 by huge majorities in Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law (1) bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” in any of its laws, programs, benefits, etc. It also (2) gives individual states the legal option not to recognize them, even if other states allow them.

The homosexual movement’s strategy here was to file several cases and hope that at least one was successful. In 2009 and 2010 four separate federal lawsuits seeking to overturn DOMA were filed: two in Massachusetts, one in Connecticut, and one in New York. All four were filed in “pro-gay” federal court venues with relatively gay-friendly judges presiding.
July 9, 2010: The DOMA ruling in Boston Federal Court was celebrated in the mainstream press as a great civil rights victory.

July 9, 2010: The DOMA ruling in Boston Federal Court was celebrated in the mainstream press as a great civil rights victory.

But the “equal protection” clause was the primary argument they used, but one of the Massachusetts lawsuits also invoked the 10th Amendment “states’ rights” argument. (Ironically, the “states’ rights” argument has also been used — more persuasively — by lawyers on our side of this case. They argue on the rights of states NOT to recognize “gay marriage” on a federal level.)

MassResistance had followed the two lawsuits in Massachusetts, one filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) legal group, as they went through the federal court in Boston. Read our analysis published in 2010.

VIDEO: Telling it like it is. After the Boston Federal Court ruling, Brian Camenker of MassResistance was interviewed by CNN.(Also see video of local TV interview.)

All four anti-DOMA lawsuits won in the federal courts. A contributing factor was the weak-kneed defense of DOMA by the Obama Administration’s justice department. The DOJ’s reluctance to be aggressive was admitted to in a statement in February, 2011.

From these, the US Supreme Court selected the New York case, Windsor v United States, to hear. But after seeing how poorly the Obama Administration defended the DOMA case in the lower courts, the House of Representatives sued and won the right to hire its own legal counsel to defend it before the Supreme Court. They hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

After Clement accepted case, his high-profile firm, King and Spaulding in Atlanta, caved in to pressure from homosexual activists and withdrew the firm it! So Clement resigned from the firm and has continued defending DOMA.

The DOMA lawsuit targets particular part of the law (Section 3 in the statute) which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’

The plaintiffs have argued that the federal government must treat “gay marriages” the same as regular marriages throughout all its laws, regulations, etc., because “gay people” have the same rights as everyone else and “gay marriages” are still marriages. Otherwise, “gay people” are not being treated equally under the law. And it’s the right of the states to determine that.

Unfortunately, in our opinion, Clement’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court and in his briefs were only moderately better than the pro-family Proposition 8 lawyers. He didn’t aggressively take on the heart of the matter regarding “equal protection” — the issue of homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Instead, he mostly stuck to the states’ rights argument and the traditional purposes and reasons for the institution of marriage.

Interestingly, it was Justice Kagan who brought out the fact that DOMA was originally passed because of the widespread disgust over homosexuality in America. As Politico reported:

Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA which described the statute as a way to resist the immorality of homosexuality. “I’m going to quote from the House report here….’Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,'” she said.

How important are these points? No one can really tell.

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling and overturns the key Section 3 of DOMA, the homosexual movement can accomplish the following:

  • It would require the federal government (funded by taxpayers in all 50 states) to include homosexual “marriages” in all federal benefits. This includes Social Security, federal pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran’s benefits, and everything else involving marriage, including filing jointly on Federal income taxes.
  • It also includes access to federal programs and other things run or controlled by the federal government, such as housing, federal loans, passports, health insurance, military housing, burial in military cemeteries, etc. Thus, the federal government would recognize homosexual behavior as equal to regular marriage throughout the range of all its activities.

  • But even more frightening: Given the wording of the decision it would also likely extend to any activities that receive federal funding, such as state programs, college programs, and virtually anything else involving federal money, such as federal contracts. We believe that the Obama administration would use this as a lever to accelerate the forced equalization of homosexuality with heterosexuality in all federal activities or anything connected to federal money — similar to the way it did in the military with the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Also going on: Massive nationwide PR assault

The two Supreme Court cases are the homosexual movement’s “ground war.” There is also the “air war” going on.

Most people, even pro-family activists, don’t realize that for the last few months America has been under what’s likely the largest and most expensive public relations campaign in the history of the homosexual movement.

All of those politicians (including some Republicans) who are suddenly very publicly “coming around” on the “gay marriage” issue isn’t a coincidence but clearly the result of a very intense lobbying effort — targeted for the time when the Supreme Court would be considering the “gay marriage” cases.

The same goes for the huge news generated when Sen. Portman’s “gay” son conveniently persuaded them to change his mind at just the right time. And how does it happen to get into all the right media in the right way? It goes on and on. There are the full-page ads in major newspapers listing the major corporations supporting “gay marriage.” The influx of gay-marriage and gay-relationship issues on this season’s TV shows. The magazine stories, including TIME with the homosexual kisses. Even the flood of Internet ads (even on conservative sites) on gay marriage. And of course, the phony polls on major networks showing a huge national support for gay marriage. We’ve even seen “gay rights” sidewalk canvassers in some cities.

“Gay” ads flood the Internet. And we meaneverywhere! Actual screenshot of National Review Online website, Feb. 13, 2013 with two prominent ads for Human Rights Campaign, radical homosexual group. Ads say: “Take a stand against fear, hate-mongering, and bigotry. Make a monthly gift.”

Most of the money for this seems to be flowing from established groups like Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. But there are obviously other vehicles that are less visible at work.

It a D-Day-like effort to persuade the nation — and especially the Supreme Court — that “gay marriage” is inevitable and that trying to fight it is fruitless.

A tale of two marriage rallies: DC and Boston

The two “gay marriage” rallies that took place the first day of the first Supreme Court “gay marriage” oral arguments said a lot about the nature of this battle.

On Tuesday, March 26, thousands of regular pro-family people made the trip to Washington DC and marched outside the Supreme Court building, easily outnumbering the homosexual activists gathered there. The speakers were various pro-family activists, group leaders, and a few politicians.

That same day in downtown Boston it was the elites: The homosexual lobby and the liberal establishment held its own rally celebrating the DOMA lawsuit which was first filed in Boston. It attracted a few hundred activists and press. But the speakers were an impressive gathering of at least a dozen prominent city, state, and federal politicians, including the Mayor of Boston, Congressman Ed Markey, along with major homosexual activist leaders. (There was one Republican, US Senate candidate and current state rep. Dan Winslow, who gave a rousing pro-gay speech.)

VIDEO: What it was like. Scenes from the two marriage rallies: Washington DC the Boston.

How will the Supreme Court rule?

As the battle continues across the country, over the next few months the Justices and their staffs will digest the oral arguments and the large number of amicus briefs submitted by both sides, and also discuss the cases among themselves. It’s generally predicted that they will release their decision in the latter part of June, just before this year’s session ends at the end of June.

If this were decided strictly on the rule of law, we think that both cases would lose. Applying “equal protection under the law” to homosexual behavior is absurd by any rational application. And the states’ rights argument is far-fetched, despite the liberal Boston judge’s ruling; DOMA was written to protect states’ rights. But unfortunately, there’s a long history of the courts ignoring the obvious constitutional law.

The conventional wisdom is that Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote on this. So most of the national focus has been on him. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are considered safe traditionalists expected to decide against both cases, and Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are seen as left-wing on just about everything and will support both. (The fact that Sotomayor and Kagan, the Obama nominees with documented radical pasts, are even on the Supreme Court is a testament to the cowardice of the Republican Party for not blocking them when they should have.)

Many commentators have also read in their tea leaves that Kennedy is not eager to have the courts mandate national “gay marriage” by fiat the way the court did with the much-maligned and contentions 1972 abortion ruling. But it’s hard to believe that they would leave the homosexual movement with nothing at all.

Our prediction is that Kennedy will not overturn Proposition 8 and mandate gay marriage everywhere. But he’s likely to strike down DOMA to at least some degree, and force it throughout the federal government.

But who knows? Whatever side of the bed Kennedy gets up on that day could determine the fate of the family structure and morality in America. It’s a terrible situation. The Founding Fathers never intended courts to have this kind of despotic power over the country. But our politicians (and ultimately the citizens) and have allowed it to happen.

On the other hand, there’s still two months to go. Anything can happen. If anything the fight needs to be stepped up.

International Topless Jihad Day: ‘Our boobs stronger than their stones’

19-year-old Tunisian activist Amina Tyler

Michael Dorstewitz from BizPac Review reports:

Topless activists across Europe appeared at mosques and Tunisian embassies on Thursday in the first-ever “International Topless Jihad Day.”

The event was organized by Femen, a Kiev-based feminist organization known for staging similar topless, anti-sexism protests throughout Europe.

Thursday’s protest was held in support of 19-year-old Tunisian activist Amina Tyler, who posted two topless photographs of herself on her Facebook page.

The following clip shows one of the demonstrations held in front of a mosque.

Read more.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) Pledges Support for Gay Marriage

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida

In a statement to the Tampa Bay Times, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, has pledged to support gay marriage.

Nelson said he intends to sign a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn the prohibition of same-sex marriage.

Nelson, a 70-year-old Democrat, said in the statement:

“It is generally accepted in American law and U.S. society today ‘. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ I believe that. The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all.”

Nelson’s statements represent a flip-flop in his position on gay marriage. Six Democrat Senators still support marriage as between one man and one woman.

Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the Constitution of Florida in 2008. It added Article I, Section 27 to the constitution, which defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, and thus bans the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions or same-sex marriage. Floridians by a margin of 62% to 38% voted in favor of Amendment 2.

Miles Collier at CPN America reports:

Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), who has a gay child, feels that the social institution of traditional marriage is what is best for American society as a whole.

PFOX maintains that the push for same-sex marriage also comes with unintended consequences such as the denial of rights for heterosexual couples.

“The homosexual push for ‘equal marriage,’ otherwise known as genderless marriage, can only lead to a ban on heterosexual rights. With a president in power who endorses gay causes and readily misuses executive orders, and emboldened by their numerous wins for gay rights at the legislative and judicial level, homosexuals have now moved beyond equal rights to the ‘more equal than you’ level,” Greg Quinlan, president of PFOX, said in a statement last year before the November General Elections.

Read more.

The following is his full statement to the editorial board:

“It is generally accepted in American law and U.S. society today “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

I believe that. The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all.

Thus, to discriminate against one class and not another is wrong for me.

If we are endowed by our Creator with rights, then why shouldn’t those be attainable by gays and lesbians?

Simply put, if the Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn’t, and I won’t.

So I will add my name to the petition of senators asking the Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional.”

Planned Parenthood calls for killing babies born after botched abortion (+ video)

According to Breitbart, “Alisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified before Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion.” Snow was testifying against HB/SB 1129 the Infants Born Alive Act.

HB/SB 1129 states:

Provides that infant born alive during or immediately after attempted abortion is entitled to same rights, powers, & privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth; requires health care practitioners to preserve life & health of such infant born alive, if possible; provides for transport & admittance of infant to hospital; provides certain services for infant; requires health care practitioner or employees who have knowledge of any violations with respect to infants born alive after attempted abortion to report those violations to DOH; provides penalty; provides for construction; revises reporting requirements.

Snow stated the decision to allow an infant to live or die following an abortion gone awry should be “left to the mother and her abortionist”.

Here is a short video of the exchange:

Committee members where shocked by this position. Rep. Jim Boyd (R-FL 61) said, “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”

BizPac Review reports:

Rep. Jose Oliva [R-FL 110]  pressed Snow further when she repeated that the decision “should be between the patient and the health care provider,” asking: “I think that at that point, the patient would be the child struggling on the table. Wouldn’t you agree?”

“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said. “I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Dr. Kermit Gosnel is currently on trial in a Philadelphia courtroom for murder — for killing babies born alive after late-term abortions.

Happy Easter from the Watchdog Wire – Florida team

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. – John 3:16

Happy Easter to all from the Watchdog Wire – Florida team.

Governor Scott slams Florida Atlantic University for punishing student who refused to desecrate the name of Jesus

Governor Rick Scott released the following statement about Florida Atlantic University (FAU) punishing a student for refusing to desecrate the name of Jesus:

“I just spoke to Ryan Rotela and applauded him for having the courage to stand up for his faith. I told him that it took great conviction and bravery to stand up and say what he was asked to do was wrong, and went against what he believed in.”

In a letter to FAU Chancellor Frank T. Brogan, Governor Scott states, “I am deeply disappointed in the recent actions 0f Florida Atlantic University (FAU) faculty that raises significant questions over students rights and the lessons being taught in our classrooms.”

“As we enter the week memorializing the events of Christ’s passion, this incident gave me great concern over the lessons we are teaching our students. Initial news reports said Ryan Rotela, a student at the school, was suspended from class because he refused to participate in the activity. I am told that these reports are disputed by the university and that FAU has apologized for the activity, ” notes Governor Scott.

Governor Scott in the letter stated, “Whether the student was reprimanded or whether an apology was given is in many ways inconsequentional to the larger issue of a professor’s poor judgement. The professor’s lesson was offensive, and even intolerant, to Christians and those of all faiths who deserve to be respected as Americans entitled to religious freedom.”

Governor Scott ended the letter with, “l am requesting a report of the incident, how it was handled and a statement of the university’s policies to ensure this type of “lesson” will not occur again.”

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek, from BizPac Review reports, “Following a public reprimand from Gov. Rick Scott for the incident referred to as the ‘stomp Jesus’ assignment, Florida Atlantic University has released a video apology. . .Dr. Charles Brown, Senior Vice President for Student Affairs at FAU, emailed the following on Tuesday afternoon:

UPDATE: Letter of reply to Governor Scott from Chancellor Brogan

The Marriage Debate Through a Child’s Eyes

This column is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

Earlier this month, 11-year-old Grace Evans appeared before a panel of Minnesota lawmakers considering a redefinition of marriage in that state. She testified to the significance of her mother and father and the different contributions each makes to her life.

Then she ended with a simple question: “Which parent do I not need, my mom, or my dad?

It’s a question proponents of same-sex marriage cannot answer.

This week, attorneys will echo Grace when they appear before the Supreme Court to defend two marriage laws defining the institution as the union of one man and one woman. The Court hears arguments Tuesday on California’s Proposition 8 and Wednesday on the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Americans are free to live and to love as we choose. And we’ve learned to make do in many circumstances when, for one reason or another, a mother and father cannot permanently be together with the children they’ve brought into this world.

But we have continued to give unique status in law to the union of a man and a woman—the only relationship that produces children—as a permanent, monogamous, and exclusive relationship. We uphold this ideal in the interest of children, of limited, constitutional government, and of America’s future.

That’s a message Heritage will convey at an event today featuring Ryan Anderson, Kellie Fiedorek of the Alliance Defending Freedom, and tea party activist Doug Mainwaring, a gay man committed to maintaining the definition of marriage because of its importance for children. Tomorrow, we’ll be joining many other Americans gathering on the National Mall for the March for Marriage.

Marriage Matters for Children

Decades of social science, including the most recent and robust studies, confirm that children tend to do best when raised by their married mother and father. So it surprised many last Thursday when the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorsed same-sex marriage, challenging the ideal that children should have a mom and a dad.

“Based on ‘extensive research,’ this statement from a scientific organization may seem authoritative,” writes Heritage senior analyst Jason Richwine, Ph.D. “In reality, however, the AAP’s position is based on ideology, not science.”

As Dr. Richwine observes, “the bottom line is that the literature on same-sex parenting is not conclusive enough to generate any policy prescriptions from social science alone. We just don’t know nearly as much as the AAP claims that we know.”

He notes that “the AAP has a long track record of using its air of scientific authority to make pronouncements on ideological issues” like gun control and Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

“These are perfectly legitimate political positions, but they are not scientific positions. We should never confuse the two, especially not when dealing with an issue as important as the definition of marriage.”

Marriage Matters for Limited, Constitutional Government

Policy rightly recognizes marriage, respecting it as one of the institutions that mediates between government and the individual. This protects individual liberty, particularly the liberty of dependent children. Marriage helps limit the state.

Some have argued, however, that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the principle of federalism. That argument gets it backward, explains Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Heritage’s vice president for American Studies. DOMA “was an attempt to preserve in place the ability of the federal government and the states to address marriage appropriate to their respective spheres of authority.”

“[I]f we want to prevent the federal government from redefining marriage for all the states…and launching a massive expansion of the federal government,” Dr. Spalding continues, “then we should strenuously defend DOMA and uphold the ability of states to define marriage in their state constitutions. That’s not just federalism; it’s constitutional self-government.”

Marriage Matters for America’s Future

Liberal media coverage has wrapped the movement to redefine marriage in a mantle of inevitability. It has highlighted shifting polls and support among young people.

But last week, The New York Times profiled young people standing up for the age-old institution of marriage, including two of Heritage’s ownWilliam E. Simon Fellow Ryan Anderson and Andrew Walker, policy analyst in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society.

As Walker pointed out to the Times, Supreme Court action this year will not end the American people’s debate over marriage:

If you take the longer view of history—I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years—I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time.

Similarly, Anderson explained last week in a CNN.com piece:

It’s important to future generations that Americans understand what marriage is, why it matters, and the consequences of redefining it. The Supreme Court shouldn’t truncate the debate and redefine marriage by judicial decree to include same-sex relationships.

This week is only the beginning of a great national conversation about our most fundamental institution. Heritage and its allies have produced a new booklet to help you engage in this conversation. Join us in the effort to restore a strong culture of marriage in America, for today’s children, and for generations yet to be born.

For more information:

Make Your Voice Heard for Marriage (VIDEO), Heritage Foundation President-elect Jim DeMint

Marriage: Children, Freedom, and a Crucial Debate (VIDEO), Ryan T. Anderson at the National Press Club, March 19, 2013

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It, by Ryan T. Anderson

The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage, by John Eastman

What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, by Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis

Read the Morning Bell and more en Español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Florida college student suspended for refusing to stomp Jesus

FAU Professor Deandre Poole

When a Florida Atlantic University (FAU) student refused a professor’s direct order to stomp on the name of Jesus during an Intercultural Communications class, he was suspended.

“I’m not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated,” said student Ryan Rotela.

The assignment required Rotela and other classmates to write the name of Jesus on a piece of paper, place it on the floor, and then stomp on it.

A synopsis of the lesson plan in question, obtained by Fox News, states:

“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

Rotela told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment was insulting and offensive.

Rotela told television station WPEC, “I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate. I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.'”

Photo courtesy of CBS – WPEC Channel 12

When Rotela went to Poole’s supervisor, he was immediately barred from returning to the class.

The Florida taxpayer-funded university is defending the assignment and the professor’s directive to demand that students violate their religious principles – or face suspension.

The American Family Association in an email is asking its members to, “Urge Florida Governor Rick Scott and your state legislators to demand immediate and corrective action be taken against Professor Poole and involved FAU staff.”

FAU recently hosted Israel Apartheid week run by the Muslim Students Association, which is siding with Arab Palestinians and demanding the end to the state of Israel. Watch the video here.

UPDATE:

It turns out, the “stomp-on-Jesus” professor, Poole, also has a prominent position in local politics. As BizPac Review reports, Poole is vice-chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.

Moreover, this isn’t the local party’s first brush with negative publicity.

The former chairman of the county Democratic Party was forced to resign in September after comments he made at the Democratic National Convention last year in Charlotte, N.C.

As WND reported, Mark Siegel reportedly told an interviewer Christians who support Israel want to see Jews “slaughtered.”

Siegel was quoted as saying, “Oh no, the Christians just want us to be there so we can all be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ.”

FAU apologizes:

Tom Tillison from BizPac Review reports:’

Public outrage over the controversial “Stomp Jesus” classroom assignment has forced Florida Atlantic University to issue an apology.

“We sincerely apologize for any offense this has caused,” the university said in a prepared statement to Fox News. “Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs.”

RELATED COLUMN: Dem official to students: ‘Stomp on Jesus’

Florida Atlantic University Continues to Invite Campus Hate

In response to a new online video documenting the anti-Semitic messaging and extreme anti-Israel activism of a campus hate group at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is again demanding that FAU publicly condemn anti-Semitic bigotry on campus and take other steps to remedy the hostile environment. The video can be seen at www.exposingfau.com.

Less than a year ago, FAU was the site of a highly publicized incident, where the campus’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) organization posted hundreds of anti-Semitic fake eviction notices on student dorms. The fake notices made false and demonizing allegations against Israel.

Simulated bloody infant body bags at FAU – Feb. 7, 2013

At that time, ZOA warned that the FAU Administration’s improper handling of the incident would invite SJP to continue promoting anti-Semitic messages on campus. As expected, in one of several recent incidents, FAU’s SJP chapter set up a display of bloody infant body bags on campus that were intended to promote the falsehood that Israel massacres innocent babies. As the online video points out, such rhetoric constitutes a blood libel – a classic anti-Semitic tactic that is intended to demonize Israel and Jewish people. Nevertheless, FAU’s Administration has continued its refusal to condemn SJP’s anti-Semitic actions.

Joseph M. Sabag, Director of ZOA’s Florida Regional Office, stated: “We again reiterate that the situation at FAU has nothing to do with the SJP’s right to free speech. This is about the FAU administration’s right to free speech, and its obligation to exercise that right by forcefully and publicly condemning bigotry on campus. Whether intended or not, FAU is sending the message to naive and unsuspecting students that the SJP’s promotion of hateful lies about Israel is acceptable and not even worth mentioning.”

The ZOA reiterates its demand that Florida Atlantic University take several steps to safeguard against an anti-Semitic environment on campus, including:  (1) immediately speaking out and publicly condemning the anti-Semitic acts of Students for Justice in Palestine, which occur both on and off campus; (2) applying strict scrutiny to all of SJP’s activities; and enforcing appropriate disciplinary measures against the SJP under the University’s code; (3) implementing all necessary protocol and procedures to prevent any apparent endorsement by FAU of any of SJP’s hateful activities; and (4) providing education to administration officials and staff about the University’s obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to ensure a campus environment that is physically and emotionally safe and conducive to learning for Jewish students.

About FAU’s Legal and Moral Responsibilities

In November 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognized that anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment can cross the line into anti-Semitism, and in the Commission’s words, “should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy.” The Commission clearly stated: “Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.” The Commission specifically called on university administrations to publicly speak out and “set a moral example by denouncing anti-Semitic and other hate speech, while safeguarding all rights protected under the First Amendment and under basic principles of academic freedom.” The U.S. Department of Education’s Office on Civil Rights has made the same recommendation to university administrations.

About the ZOA

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest and one of the largest pro-Israel organizations in the United States. With offices around the country and in Israel, the ZOA educates the public, elected officials, the media, and college/high school students about the truth of the ongoing Arab war against Israel. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations through educational activities, public affairs programs and our work on Capitol Hill, and to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias in the media, in textbooks, in schools and on college campuses. Under the leadership of such presidents as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbis Abba Hillel Silver and Stephen Wise, and current President Morton A. Klein, the ZOA has been – and continues to be – on the front lines of Jewish activism.  www.zoa.org.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

Ryan T. Anderson from The Heritage Foundation has released a comprehensive report on marriage. Here is the abstract:

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

The report addresses three important questions: At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementary?

To read the full report click here.

RELATED COLUMN: The Well of Lonliness by Mary Kay Ruppel

Rubio: We don’t need a new idea. There is an idea. The idea is called America, and it still works. (+ video)

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) visited Sarasota, FL on March 15, 2013. He was greeted by over 50 donors at a private event hosted by Jesse Biter, a local entrepreneur. During his remarks at the Sarasota event Senator Rubio restated his belief that “We don’t need a new idea. There is an idea. That idea is called America, and it still works.” This was what he said at CPAC 2013.

Watch Senator Rubio’s CPAC 2013 remarks:

Senator Rubio was introduced at the Sarasota event by Representative Vern Buchanan (FL-13). Rep. Buchanan noted that he has traveled across the globe looking at what other countries are doing to promote economic growth. Rep. Buchanan noted that China is doing better at growing its economy than the United States, noting that China is on track to create 20 million jobs annually.

Senator Rubio during his remarks spoke about the $1 trillion in outstanding student loans, half of which will be in default. He said that this student loan burden impacts the middle class and our youth most of all. He also raised the specter of a rising China and its impact on the global economy. Rubio warned of not having enough workers skilled to fill 3 million of today’s jobs. He touched on the national debt, Congressional spending and an intransigent White House.

Those in attendance at the Sarasota event and those at CPAC 2013 were impressed by Senator Rubio’s “the American idea” comments. However, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey does not agree with Senator Rubio’s outlook.

Rabbi Pruzansky states in an email, “The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.”

Rabbi Pruzansky notes, “Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.”

“During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: ‘Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!’ Stevenson called back: ‘That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!’ Truer words were never spoken,” states Rabbi Pruzansky.

Will there ever be a majority of thinking persons?

Rabbi Pruzansky does not think so. He closed his email with, “If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.”

Are “retirement migrants” bad for Florida? The birth dearth and a dying older America

The census bureau reports that one of three counties in the United States are dying, defined as counties where there are more deaths than births.

The US Census projects nearly 17% of the global population will be 65 and older in 2050, up from 8 percent today. In 2005, Europe became the first major world region where the population 65 and older outnumbered those younger than 15. By 2050, it would be joined by Northern America (which includes Canada and the United States), Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and Oceania (which includes Australia and New Zealand).

The US Census Bureau reports that 17.6 percent of Florida’s population was 65 and older in 2011 — which led all states.

Kenneth M. Johnson, Senior Demographer at the University of New Hampshire

According to a Fact Sheet issued by Kenneth M. Johnson, Senior Demographer at the University of New Hampshire, “Natural decrease occurs when more deaths than births occur in an area in a given year. The growing incidence of natural decrease in America has gone largely unnoticed, but new data released on March 14th demonstrate that natural decrease is no longer an isolated phenomenon. Last year, 36 percent of all U.S. counties experienced natural decrease.” [My emphasis]

Johnson found, “Deaths exceeded births in 1,135 counties, the most in U.S. history. As recently as 2009, natural decrease occurred in just 880 counties. So the recent rise reflects sharply higher levels of natural decrease.”

“Natural decrease is also regionally concentrated . . . It also occurred early in Florida counties that were among the first to receive retirement migrants,” reports Johnson.

Johnson notes that in the US, “Natural decrease is more prevalent because births are diminishing. There were only 3,954,000 births last year, compared to a record 4,316,000 in 2006–2007. This represents a decline of 8.3 percent in just five years.”

Some like the AP’s Hope Yen are promoting an increase in immigration to offset this birth dearth. Yen states, “The findings also reflect the increasing economic importance of foreign-born residents as the U.S. ponders an overhaul of a major 1965 federal immigration law.”

Others point to the 2008 recession as the cause of the decline in births. Johnson states, “The recession was closely associated with this fertility decline. Recent National Center for Health Statistics data show that both the number of births and fertility rates dropped sharply over the last several years. Young women are having fewer babies. Fertility rates have declined sharply for them, but they remained relatively stable for older women. The fertility rate for women 20–34 declined 12 percent in just three years. Hispanic fertility declined the most, especially among younger Hispanic women. Taken together, these data suggest that the impact of the recession has been particularly pronounced on younger women, who are likely delaying fertility.”

One factor coming under increased scrutiny is the rate of abortions in the US and China.

Simon Rabinovitch from The Economist reports, “Chinese doctors have performed more than 330 million abortions since the government implemented a controversial family planning policy 40 years ago, according to official data from the health ministry. China’s one-child policy has been the subject of a heated debate about its economic consequences as the population ages.”

“Forced abortions and sterilizations have also been criticized by human rights campaigners such as Chen Guangcheng, the blind legal activist who sought refuge at the US embassy in Beijing last year,” Rabinovitch reports.

Rabinovitch notes, “As China’s working-age population begins to decline, economists have warned that the family planning rules will pose an increasing drag on economic growth. China’s dependency ratio – which compares the potential workforce with the number of children and retirees – rose last year for the first time in 40 years.”

Rabinovitch notes, “In the US, where the population is 315 million or about one-quarter the size of China’s, an estimated 50 million abortions have been performed since the landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in 1973.”

In effect the US has killed 50 million workers. Can any nation long survive economically with the demographic future of more deaths, fewer births and the killing (abortion) of its native population?

Johnson warns, “Demography is not destiny, but one ignores it at their peril.”

VIDEO: Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Schumer (D-NY) equate lawful gun owners to pornographers

Responding to Senator Cruz’s question on whether Congress should restrict books the same way that Congress wants to control guns, Senator Feinstein states, “The answer is no”. However, after consulting with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Feinstein equates gun control to control of, “certain kinds of pornographic material”.

Senators Schumer and Feinstein equate their efforts to restrict lawful gun ownership as equal to restricting child pornography. The implication is lawful owners of a 30 round magazine and certain types of rifles equal ownership of child pornography.

Watch the video, the comments about pornography come at 3:30 minutes into the exchange between Senators Cruz and Feinstein:

Daniel Horowitz of RedState states, “If Ted Cruz keeps this up in the Senate, Democrats might try to impose gun control on his Cruz missile strikes. Earlier today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, Ted Cruz directly challenges Dianne Feinstein to answer how her gun bans are constitutional if the same language protecting the right to bear arms (“the right of the people”) is used for the First and Fourth Amendments, which presumably, nobody would try to limit in the same way. Of course, she had no answer, except to act like a pugnacious school child.”