|To AFA-Michigan supporters…
This letter from American Family Association of Indiana is so good on several points that I want to share it with you. Thanks as always for your support!
Dozens of Congressmen
This week, 41 members of Congress signed on to a federal appeals court brief that defends Indiana state law preventing Hoosier tax dollars from going to subsidize the abortion industry.
The friend of the court brief from the American Center for Law and Justice follows an earlier brief from the Thomas Moore Law Center in which 60 state legislators signed on to defend the new law. The legal briefs are part of the stateâ€™s appeal of a lower court ruling by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, which put the new law on hold and restored tax funding to Planned Parenthood.
The ACLJ brief argues for Indianaâ€™s right to set parameters for Medicaid recipients. They note, â€œFederal Medicaid statutes and regulations give States broad discretion to craft the rules applicable to their Medicaid programs. Congress left intact the Statesâ€™ authority to determine what makes an entity qualified to provide Medicaid services, 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1396a(p)(1), while ensuring that Medicaid recipients may utilize any practitioner deemed to be qualified under State law, 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1396a(a)(23). Since HEA 1210 does not limit a beneficiaryâ€™s ability to choose among providers that are deemed to be qualified, it is consistent with federal Medicaid law.â€
This stateâ€™s rights argument has been mentioned in many news reports. Perhaps more interesting is another argument in the ACLJ brief that urges the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court decision. It attacks Planned Parenthood and the ACLUâ€™s â€œnovel claim that abortion providers have a constitutional right to perform abortions and receive public funds; if accepted, this argument would unduly restrict the policy discretion that Congress and state and local governments have to decide how to spend public funds.â€ Calling the abortion industryâ€™s audacious claim to a constitutional right to our tax dollars â€œnovelâ€ is kind to say the least.
The ACLJ brief is signed by the following members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
The Term â€œPro-Choiceâ€ May
Speaking of abortion, a new poll from Gallup has some very interesting findings. The proponents of abortion often claim that most Americans are â€œpro-choiceâ€ when it comes to abortion. There are recent surveys challenging this assertion in terms of the self-identification between being pro-life or pro-choice. Even if most Americans are â€œpro-choice,â€ it probably doesnâ€™t mean what you think or what abortion advocates imply.
The Gallup survey of â€œpro-choiceâ€ Americans actually finds that most of these people agree with pro-life Americans on nine significant areas. For example, 86% of â€œpro-choiceâ€ individuals favor informed consent legislation which gives women information about abortion and alternatives beforehand. Two-thirds (63%) of â€œpro-choiceâ€ Americans favor banning the grisly partial birth abortion procedure. Sixty-percent support parental consent laws for minors seeking an abortion. Half (52%) of â€œpro-choiceâ€ Americans want abortions to be made illegal after the second trimester and 79% want third trimester abortions outlawed. One major difference is that most (64%) â€œpro-choiceâ€ Americans support abortion as a means of birth control in the first trimester.
As noted in previous surveys, Gallup has also reconfirmed that those who attend regular religious services (â€œchurchgoersâ€) are twice as likely to be pro-life compared to those who rarely or never attend church services.
The Tail Wagging the Dog
I had a media interview late last week in regard to new US Census Bureau data showing numbers homosexual households in Indiana. When asked if I was surprised at the numbers, I said yes, not at their large size, but at how that minority are given the disproportional political and cultural influence homosexuals wield.
I have similar numbers from the year prior to those the reporter cited, and they are revealing. (Keep in mind that a recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans mistakenly believe that 25% of the US population is homosexual or bi-sexual. In reality that number is less than 3%.)
In Indiana, based upon Census Bureau data released in April 2010, there were only 10,200 same-sex couples living together in Indiana. Contrast this with 1,251,500 married Hoosier couples and same-sex couples account for just three-tenths of one percent of the household population in Indiana. In state after state, this percentage is nearly the same. Nationally the percentage of same-sex couples compared to married households is only 0.4%.
Some would argue that if homosexuals currently living together and therefore most likely to marry are so few, what is the harm of un-defining marriage. (For all of their claims of needing to redefine marriage when given the chance to â€œmarryâ€ in Europe or in states like Massachusetts, relatively few homosexuals actually do so. Most reject marriage, raising questions about their claims of disadvantage, denied rights, property sharing difficulties and marriage inequality.)
The real question is if the numbers are so small, why disrupt society by further devaluing marriage, rewriting school curricula, limiting religious speech, closing faith-based charities and other problems associated with same-sex marriage just to appease a very vocal, yet small 0.3% of cohabiting population? What of other behaviors and lifestyle choices? Must marriage be redefined to accommodate them too?
Given the societal importance of marriage and the traditional family, discarding the logical time-tested boundaries of marriage to appease a vocal, and tiny special interest group when poll after poll shows most Americans want marriage to remain as it always has been truly is a radical notion.
One Reason Why the Tail
In light of the data above, a logical question one may ask is why is American culture so pro-gay and morally decadent in virtually every way imaginable? May I suggest that the one-in-four of Americans who identify themselves as evangelical Christians are not following the Biblical directive to be â€œsalt and light.â€ A staggering majority, betwene 76% and 78%, of Americans still identify themselves a Christians.
Why, given such large demographic numbers, is the culture so hostile to basic traditional values, parents, children, faith, etc? There are several reasons for this problem. One of them was found in a survey of pastors from Your Church Magazine that I mentioned in a recent weekly AFA-IN e-mail. The survey found that more than half of the ministers (55%) surveyed admitted that they would not preach at all or only sparingly on certain subjects. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) listed politics as the top subject they would avoid. One-in-four said that they would not mention homosexuality. When it came to the issue of abortion, 18% said that they would not mention this subject from the pulpit. Nearly one-in-ten said that they would not mention the subject or doctrine of Hell.
It is not as though God does not have things to say about these subjects and the issues of the day as revealed in His Word. The primary reason cited for avoiding certain subjects was that it might negatively impact church attendance. Yet, if the pulpits of our nation are silent on the issues its congregants confront daily in news headlines and the culture, how can we expect folks to live counter-culturally rather than mirroring everything around them?
(By the way, I am very excited about a new book coming out in a few weeks from Hoosier talk show host, Peter Heck, precisely about this issue of being salt and light in the world and taking back the culture. You can learn more about his book here: http://www.peterheck.com/78)
The church serves a role as the conscience of a nation, and unlike most government programs, faith changes lives from the inside out. Still, cultural change does not rest solely at the feet of the church. This is where groups like AFA of Indiana play a vital part. Your financial and prayer support of AFA-IN is always welcome and helpful. If you would like to stand with us, you can make a tax-deductible donation online or mail one to us at: PO Box 40307, Indianapolis, IN 46240.
|What is referenced in this story as a “radio commercial” is in fact our AFA-Michigan News Minute, a daily audio news feed we provide to Christian and other radio stations across the state, which air them free of charge. The “news minute” addressing Gov. Snyder and the Right to Work issue, illustrated by the campaign for Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment, is attached.
“(Gov. Rick Snyder, R-Michigan) told everyone he was all about getting a new budget and business tax in place and would not be diverted by ‘other’ issues. Well the budget is in place, as is the business tax, and here comes Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan. Letâ€™s just say Mr. G.G. is not a liberal…not by any stretch. And heâ€™s got an agenda as long as your arm of 15 issues that he wants the governor and GOP legislature to tackle.
…Mr. Glenn even launched some radio commercials sticking the Right to Work issue right in the governorâ€™s relentless positive action face. Recall Mr. Snyder thinks Right to Work is divisive and would pit business against labor in what could well be a nasty political bloodbath. Mr. Glenn and company appear to be saying, bring on the blood.”
FOX 2 DETROIT
Gary Glenn’s agenda for Rick Snyder
by Tim Skubick / FOX 2 Political Consultant
LANSING — Oh my, this could get mucho messy.
The ultra-conservative wing of the state GOP has been patiently marking time since January when the Rick Snyder juggernaut rolled into town.
The new governor told everyone he was all about getting a new budget and business tax in place and would not be diverted by â€œotherâ€ issues.
Well the budget is in place, as is the business tax, and here comes Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan. Letâ€™s just say Mr. G.G. is not a liberal…not by any stretch.
And heâ€™s got an agenda as long as your arm of 15 issues that he wants the governor and GOP legislature to tackle.
Try this on for size:
(1) prohibit state funding of any sex changes for prison inmates.
(2) prohibit use of classroom dollars to â€œpromote any form of sexual activity outside of marriage.”
(3) Halt any show of nudity during â€œdrama productionsâ€ at state universities.
(4) Cut off support to Planned Parenthood
(5) Make sure homosexual couples canâ€™t adopt children.
One could go on to list the other 10, but you generally get the idea here, right? By the way, none of those items were in the Snyder campaign blueprint to reinvent Michigan.
Obviously, thereâ€™s been a pent up demand to address some of those social wedge issues which the current governor has demonstrated little stomach to stomach.
Mr. Glenn even launched some radio commercials sticking the Right to Work issue right in the governorâ€™s relentless positive action face. Recall Mr. Snyder thinks Right to Work is divisive and would pit business against labor in what could well be a nasty political bloodbath.
Mr. Glenn and company appear to be saying, bring on the blood.
Wonder what blood-type the governor is?
|What are described in this article as “radio ads” are in fact just one issue of our AFA-Michigan News Minute, which is run daily, free of charge, by Christian and other radio stations across the state. The audio of this particular day’s version is attached.
“Gary Glenn says it is wrong for Christians and other employees to continue to be forced, under threat of being fired, to financially support labor unions such as the National Education Association and the AFL-CIO that support abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, homosexual marriage, and transgender rights.”
Radio ads take on governor
Gov. Rick Snyder said the Right to Work issue is divisive and a new radio ad suggests, “it is not on his to-do list.” But the commercial goes on saying that Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan (AFAM) said “it should be.”
The ad is the first mass media effort to move the issue in the legislature despite the Governor’s stance.
The spot is sponsored by Glenn’s group and will air on radio stations in Lansing, Flint, Zeeland and Grand Rapids.
“Gary Glenn says it is wrong for Christians and other employees to continue to be forced, under threat of being fired, to financially support labor unions” such as the National Education Association and the AFL-CIO that support “abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, homosexual marriage and transgender rights.”
The commercial points out that two-thirds of labor households in 2004 supported the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment,” yet their union contributions were used by the labor groups to fight the amendment the workers wanted.
The radio spot concludes, “The Right to Work law would protect Christians from being told to pay up or be fired.”
Glenn, by the way, is scheduled to appear on the Off the Record broadcast — http://wkar.org/offtherecord — this week.
Listen to the Radio Ad here.
|Please read the article below, then contact Gov. Snyder and legislative
leadership and tell them to keep pro-family protections in Michigan’s
higher education budget.
Gov. Rick Snyder: Rick.Snyder@michigan.gov
Senate Leader Randy Richardville: SenRichardville@senate.michigan.gov
House Speaker Jase Bolger: JaseBolger@house.mi.gov
Universities fighting social amendments
The state’s universities are hoping to see their budget come out of conference a bit lighter than it entered, at least in verbiage.
Michael Boulus, executive director of the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan, said the institutions are trying to have removed from the budgets language that penalizes those schools with domestic partner benefits for their employees. They also want struck language requiring reports on embryonic stem cell research and protecting religious rights of counseling students.
“It’s a historic cut at 15 percent,” Mr. Boulus said. “Then to couple it with extremely intrusive and questionably flawed social and religious beliefs … It’s a troublesome trend among many Republicans to micromanage universities.”
Mr. Boulus told Gongwer News on Friday that he was already working with legislative leadership to have the provisions removed from the final budget package, but he is also exploring other options.
“It’s not enforceable if we want to take it to court,” Mr. Boulus said of the boilerplate.
There was discussion overnight of seeking Governor Rick Snyder’s veto of the language. While Mr. Snyder has said he is still reviewing the language in the budgets, he has also said he does not approve of non-budgetary items in the budget bills.
But Mr. Boulus said he is being cautious about discussing the veto option both because he does not know where Mr. Snyder stands on the provisions and because he is not sure if vetoing the domestic partner benefits language would mean a cut to universities. The provision sets aside 5 percent of the funding for each university and gives that money to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System if the university has a health benefits plan that covers non-married domestic partners and their dependents.
Vetoing the provision could simply remove the instructions for how to spend that 5 percent or it could remove that 5 percent from the appropriation.
|In today’s economy, especially in Michigan, it may be hard to find the money to support causes you believe in. But now, thanks to Real Estate for Life, you can financially support the work of the American Family Association of Michigan, and it won’t cost you anything at all. Please take a few minutes to watch the video, which explains the Real Estate for Life program.
Real Estate For Life is a proven program that can handle any kind of real estate â€“ residential, commercial, home or business. No matter what sort of real estate transaction you may have, now or in the future â€“ buying a factory or selling a log cabin â€“ you can financially support AFA-Michigan at no cost simply by calling Real Estate For Life.
Please watch the video, and please pass it on to family, friends, and fellow church members who are buying or selling real estate and might also be interested in supporting AFA-Michigan’s work.
We deeply appreciate your support, and God bless and keep you strong.
The ‘gay’ deathstyle
Exclusive: J. Matt Barber argues homosexuality cannot be called ‘healthy’
Posted: September 28, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
One has to wonder if Reuters reporter Julie Steenhuysen will soon be joining the millions of other Americans relegated to Obama’s swelling unemployment lines. She evidently didn’t get the media memo last week and violated the goose-stepping left’s Orwellian requirement that we all adhere to obtuse notions of political correctness.Having contracted a rare case of journalistic objectivity, Ms. Steenhuysen penned a story that dared to detail a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on homosexuality.
The study exposed the jaw-dropping fact that one-in-five “gay” and “bisexual” men in American cities have been infected with HIV/Aids. Needless to say, this scandalous revelation completely blows out of the water, the left’s morally relative, propagandist line that homosexuality is “normal, natural and good.”
To believers, it’s never surprising when modern science serves to validate the transcendent truths found in Scripture (not that God’s truth needs validating.)
James 1:15 warns: “Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.”
Indeed, it seems the common moniker “homosexual lifestyle” has it exactly backwards. As opponents of the extremist “gay” lobby have long illustrated, homosexuality falls dead center within our nation’s burgeoning culture of death.
First, take that feminist rite of passage: abortion. Due to a national lack of sexual self-governance, in 2010 we find that â€“ post Roe v. Wade â€“ 50 million of God’s precious children have been slaughtered at Satan’s altar of euphemistic “choice.”
Moreover, millions of self-styled “gay” men have â€“ as a direct result of homosexual conduct â€“ died from AIDS, Syphilis, Hepatitis and all other forms of homosexually transmitted disease.
Romans 1:26-27, which Obama once comically called an “obscure passage in Romans,” addresses the homosexual deathstyle: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
It’s tragic when people yield to disordered sexual temptations that can literally kill them spiritually, emotionally and physically. Nobody with any compassion enjoys watching others “[receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” But a corollary to free will is living â€“ or dying â€“ with the choices we’ve made.
Another problem lies in the fact that far too many Christians have contributed to the dilemma by failing to speak truth, in love, on the issue of homosexuality (pastors with “gay” congregants and family members, I’m talking to you). Nobody likes to be unfairly labeled a hater, “homophobe” or bigot, but fear of such attacks offers no justification for failing to speak truth in love. There are even self-professed Christians today who inexcusably join in with the secular-left in affirming homosexual sin as a good thing. There’s a word for these types: apostate.
There’s no wiggle room here. If you defend or seek to justify homosexual conduct, you defy God. Not good. As I recall, He’s got a little something to say about “causing one of these little ones” to sin.
But even if you choose not to acknowledge biblical truth, you’re still left without excuse. As the CDC has once again verified, if you affirm or defend homosexual behavior as “normal, natural and good,” you also defy science. You’re on the wrong side of history, let alone reality.
What is it about this particular PC-protected practice that causes so many otherwise intelligent people to become blinded blathering buffoons?
Let’s say we had a group of people who defined their identity based upon a penchant for running headlong into brick walls. Oh, we’ll call them, “Wallies.” (Wally pride, baby!)
As significant percentages of Wallies began to drop dead, or suffer irreversible brain damage, do you suppose the left would demand tolerance for such behavior? Do you think they’d begin handing out bicycle helmets in elementary schools, telling kids to practice safe walling? With liberals, anything’s possible, but I’m more inclined to think that even the moonbat left might agree that people tending toward such behavior would be best served to simply avoid running headlong into walls altogether.
I don’t mean to be flip (okay, maybe a little flip) but can someone please tell me why on earth the left insists that we “tolerate” homosexual behavior while â€“ as the CDC has once again confirmed â€“ it continues to have results similar to brick walling?
We throw paper-thin latex condoms at kids who struggle with same-sex attraction and tell them: “You’re gay! Embrace who you are. Gay pride, baby!”
We push them out onto a paper-thin latex tightrope with a one-in-five chance they’ll plummet to their death.
What in the name of all things sacred are we doing? One-in-five with AIDS? Seriously? If five people got into a car and were told that one of them wasn’t going to survive the drive, how quickly do you suppose they’d scatter?
Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. Scripture admonishes: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23.
Do you consider yourself “gay” or lesbian? As untold thousands of ex-gays will tell you, you don’t have to be. It’s my most sincere prayer that going forward you’ll choose Christ over sin: Life over death.
You think sexual “freedom” makes you happy? You should experience the true freedom that comes through abiding in He who is “the way, the truth and the life.”
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook â€“ From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel.
|THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW
New York, New York
March 22, 2010
RUSH LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot of anger at Bart Stupak today. Bart Stupak was always going to vote for this. The thing that Bart Stupak needs to be hounded out of office for is for misleading an entire nation and giving an entire nation a big, fake feint job that he and his cohorts were somehow going to do something to stop this on the basis of a false premise, anyway.
I want you to hear a piece of audio from Stupak. This is October 24th in Cheboygan, Michigan. He held a town hall meeting. This is Internet quality, here. He held a town hall meeting, and he told a questioner, one of his voters, that if he liked everything but the abortion funding he would vote for it. He said this last October.
STUPAK: “If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion — and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. Okay, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district. Could I vote for health care? Yes, I still could.” (Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E)
|PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN MICHIGAN…
“(Congressman Bart) Stupak has been touted by the national media as a leading combatant against using tax dollars for abortion. But when the bill was finally put to a vote and Stupak voted in favor, many of his constituents were not surprised. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan explains why. ‘We issued a news release months ago calling Bart Stupak a fraud, because what happened at the last minute from a national perspective was no surprise at all to those of us actually here in Michigan,’ says Glenn.”
WATCH VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E
ONE NEWS NOW
Stupak’s U-turn no surprise
Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak did an about-face Sunday night and voted for the healthcare reform bill — and at least one pro-life Michigander isn’t surprised.
Stupak has been touted by the national media as a leading combatant against using tax dollars for abortion. But when the bill was finally put to a vote and Stupak voted in favor, many of his constituents were not surprised. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan explains why.
“We issued a news release months ago calling Bart Stupak a fraud, because what happened at the last minute from a national perspective was no surprise at all to those of us actually here in Michigan,” says Glenn.
The AFA-Michigan spokesman explains that reaction is because of a town hall meeting last fall in Cheboygan with Stupak facing his constituents on the issue.
“[Let’s say] I offered an amendment that says no public funding for abortion — that’s been the law of the land for many, many decades — and [let’s say] we lose that vote: would I vote against healthcare?” Stupak asked rhetorically. “If I had a chance to vote my conscience on it, I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the healthcare bill at the end of the day.” (Watch YouTube video)
The meeting continued as some in attendance sought a clarification from the congressman. “And finally when he had persuaded them that that’s what he really meant, the crowd booed him,” Glenn recalls. As depicted on the YouTube video, they booed him more than once.
Glenn said pro-life Democrats in his state will take note of the vote because Michigan is a pro-life state. Experts say the fact that President Obama issued an executive order banning use of federal dollars for abortion means nothing because it can be rescinded.
February 28, 2008
New stem cell controversy: Harvest
sperm from woman, eggs from man
by Ed Brayton
“Gary Glenn, director of the American Family Association of Michigan, told the Michigan Messenger: ‘The ideal that’s in every child’s best interests is to have both a mother and a father. Selfishly denying a child one or the other on purpose, by whatever means, is obviously not in the child’s best interest. Obviously, being able to harvest male sperm cells from a woman’s bone marrow doesn’t make her a father, which every boy needs and deserves, any more than harvesting unfertilized eggs from a man’s bone marrow will make him the mother that every little girl needs.'”