Search This Blog

Friday, May 23, 2014

New Obama administration grant policy: We will not tolerate dissension, diversity on same-sex marriage

Although the President himself recently did not endorse same-sex marriage, stressing that good people on both sides disagree, a new grant requirement indicates that his administration now is moving to eradicate any dissension or diversity of views on the subject.
The huge Health and Human Resources Services Administration (HRSA) has issued the following requirements of all grant recipients, regardless of their faith or convictions:
Federal Recognition of Same-sex Spouses/Marriages
The following policy applies to:
all grants except block grants governed by 45 CFR part 96, part 98, and grant awards made under titles IV -A, XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act.
• programs which base eligibility or otherwise make distinctions in program participation or content on such terms as "marriage," "spouse," "family," "household member," or similar references to familial relationship.
A standard term and condition of award will be included in the final Notice of Award (NOA); all grant recipients will be subject to a term and condition that instructs grantees to recognize any same-sex marriage legally entered into in a U.S. jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage, including one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia or a U.S. territory, or in a foreign country so long as that marriage would also be recognized by a U.S. jurisdiction, when applying the terms of the Federal statute(s) governing their awards. This applies regardless of whether or not the couple resides in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage. However, this does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under the law of the jurisdiction of celebration as something other than a marriage. Accordingly, recipients must review and revise, as needed, any policies and procedures which interpret or apply Federal statutory or regulatory references to such terms as "marriage," "spouse," "family," "household member," or similar references to familial relationship to reflect inclusion of same-sex spouses and marriages. Any similar familial terminology references in HHS statutes, regulations, or policy transmittals will be interpreted to include same-sex spouses and marriages legally entered into as described herein.
This is how the self-proclaimed agents of tolerance and diversity enforce their ideology.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Memo to Gov. McAuliffe re: abortion clinic regs: Virginia is not a kingdom


Trying to clarify that "the governor is not a king," the spokesman for Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe unwittingly highlights the autocratic nature of the governor's scheme to skirt state law on abortion clinic health and safety.
The law brings abortion clinics in line with reasonable health and safety requirements of similar facilities. But Governor McAuliffe is plotting to put abortion ideology over the rule of law, seeking end-runs around the people's representatives and meanwhile stacking the state health board with abortion partisans.
A year ago May 13, Philadelphia abortion clinic doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder. Gosnell had openly operated a squalid abortion clinic, let a patient die and butchered babies born alive.
The Grand Jury report cited testimony revealing that when pro-abortion governor Tom Ridge took office, "high-level government officials" decided to discontinue abortion clinic inspections. "There was a concern that if they did routine inspections, that they may find a lot of these facilities didn’t meet [health and safety standards] and then there would be less abortion facilities…."
When abortion politics trumps health and safety, "back alley abortion clinics" and their accompanying horrors thrive. Governor McAuliffe, Virginia is not a kingdom but a commonwealth; enforce our laws.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Sen. Kelly Ayotte explains bill to protect developing babies

Pro-life Senator Kelly Ayotte, who along with Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio led a monthly strategy meeting I had the privilege of participating in during the last session of the Senate, has encouraged her colleagues in the Senate to support a bill to protect developing babies. Her "Dear Colleague" letter below [emphases added] summarizes the case for the bill:
We write to bring to your attention a comprehensive and alarming new study which found that the United States is one of just seven countries worldwide that permits elective abortion more than halfway through pregnancy (beyond 20 weeks). The study, commissioned by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (the education arm of the Susan B. Anthony List) researched  abortion laws in 198 countries and semi-autonomous regions with a population exceeding one million.

Joining the United States in allowing abortions past 20 weeks are China, North Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands.  Ranked by population size, the United States places second , beaten only by China.

It is time that we in Congress act to bring the United States out of the fringe and closer to international norms on late abortions.  An August 2013 poll conducted by Quinnipiac showed that by a 55% to 30% margin , Americans prefer a 20-week limit to a 24-week limit. Women support this limit by an even larger 60% to 25% margin.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S.1670) -- introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and co-sponsored by 40 senators --would protect unborn children beginning at 20 weeks. Scientific evidence tells us that these developing babies are capable of feeling excruciating pain from abortion procedures, and studies also show that abortions this late in pregnancy are dangerous to a mother 's health.

At 20 weeks, an unborn baby girl can yawn, stretch, and make faces. Mothers receive medical advice to sing to their child at this point in pregnancy, as the unborn girl can hear her mother's voice and begin to establish connections that foster emotional and psychological attachment that confers lifelong benefits for both mother and child.

The U.S. House has already taken action to protect these unborn children and their mothers, approving the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in June 2013 with bipartisan support. Similar legislation has been enacted by over a dozen states and several more are considering it. Our nation's traditional devotion to human rights also calls out for this humane and compassionate response.

We urge you to read the attached study carefully , and we ask that you join us in calling on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670) up for an immediate floor vote.

Action:

Use the easy form at Freedom2Care's legislative action site to encourage your senators to support this important bill.