Former Abortion Clinic Owner Speaks Out About Planned Parenthood

 

Carol Everett knows exactly why young girls have abortions.

When Everett operated abortion clinics in the Dallas area in the 1970s, sex-ed was an important part of cultivating and maintaining business among younger clientele.  Sex-ed was calculated, she said, “to separate the children from their values and their parents,” adding that, at one point, her business’ goal “was to assure every girl between the ages of 13 and 18 have three to five abortions.”

When Alaska State Senator Mike Dunleavy’s bill, SB 89, was killed earlier this month by the Republican-controlled Alaska House’s Health and Social Services Committee, Everett spoke out.  The bill, if passed, would have prohibited abortion-providing entities from teaching sexual education in Alaska’s public schools.

Everett explained that the way Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers create demand for their abortion services is through sex education in schools.  “We started in kindergarten,” Everett said, and the aim was to erode children’s “natural modesty.”  By third grade, children were shown explicit, “how to” diagrams of intercourse, she continued.  By fourth grade, children were encouraged to masturbate, either alone or in groups.

Finally, in junior high, Everett said, “My goal was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on. How do you do that? You give them a low dose birth control pill that has to be taken accurately at the same time every single day. And you know and I know, there’s not a teen in the world who does everything the same time every day.”

There will undoubtedly be more opportunities to block groups like Planned Parenthood from profiting off our school-aged children by teaching sexually risky activities in schools. We can’t afford to let this happen in Washington.  Support FPIW as we work to promote healthy sexual education in schools.

Thanks to Alaska Family Council and Senator Mike Dunleavy for their hard work to make this bill a reality, and thanks to LifeSiteNews for the solid reporting.

Progressive Media Now Promoting Polygamy and Pedophilia

 

For years, pro-marriage advocates argued that redefining marriage would be a slippery slope that would lead to the acceptance of other behavioral and societal deviations.  “Bigots! Homophobes! Fearmongers!” their opponents screamed in chorus, dismissing the concerns without so much as a rational conversation.

Today, those concerns seem quasi-prophetic.

“Once marriage is unhinged from the biological roots that have been there for a millennium, marriage isn’t redefined, it is undefined,” said David Fowler, president of FACT, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. “Any relationship that people want to have and call a marriage will be entitled to become a marriage.”

Fowler was right — this ‘undefinition’ has given birth to a plethora of calls for tolerance, acceptance, and equality for other groups — even groups whose activity has always been seen as a perversion and danger to society.  And who is leading this charge?  Progressive media.

Marriage, for thousands of years, was defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.  That definition has recently been changed to mean a relationship between two consenting adults, irregardless of gender.  But why stop there?  I mean, if we are really for equality, we can’t leave anyone out.  Let’s at least be consistent in our logic.

The Huffington Post recently wrote about a campaign that has been launched to remove the “stigma” associated with polyamorous relationships, and to normalize those intimate, consenting, marital relationships involving more than two people. In fact, HuffPo has devoted an entire section of their website to the exploration, promotion, and acceptance of polyamory.

But the Huffington Post is right.  If society is really into equality, and if the ‘love is love’ mantra is really the cornerstone of international public policy as it relates to marriage and intimacy, what reason would any court have to block polygamous relationships from becoming the next law-of-the-land?  Why can a woman not marry her cat, or her grandson, or a man marry his computer, or himself?  If they’re in love, and consent is achieved by all parties, what’s wrong with it?

Progressive media is absolutely obsessed with driving societal change, regardless of how damaging it is. Meanwhile, everyone else is too afraid to speak up on issues of sexuality because they don’t want to be put on the eternal bigot blacklist.

Take this article from Salon.com, imploring people not to judge pedophiles too harshly because they can’t control their feelings about wanting to be intimate with children. As if some sort of congratulations are in order for those ‘heroes’ who resist their sexually deviant urges, Salon is now promoting tolerance for individuals who desire to have intercourse with children.  Keep in mind that Salon.com is read by over 322 million people per year.  

Are we so afraid to speak up that we can’t just call out evil when we see it?

The London Times ran this article from an anonymous female ‘academic’ who says that having intercourse with your biological brother shouldn’t be illegal, or even looked down upon.  While essentially calling us to ignore the biological realities of sexual relationships between close family members, the London Times borrows the same talking point that pro-gay rights activists have used for decades now: if it’s love, who are you to judge?

By calling us ignorant and bigoted, the sexual revolutions warriors in the progressive media have almost entirely avoided answering tough questions about the realities they’d prefer not exist.  By definition, they are being both ignorant and bigoted.

In 1975, an overwhelming 75 percent of the U.S. population felt that homosexuality was always wrong, and in 1988, 89 percent of Americans still opposed same-sex marriage.  But it took less than 20 years for Americans to turn 180 degrees and radically change opinions on those issues.

This dramatic and quick change was driven by the premise that it is both improper and illegal to deny people what they desire if their motivation is love.

Perhaps not many people in our society today would openly admit openness to the normalization and legalization of pedophilia, incest, or marriage to inanimate objects.  But advocates for those lifestyles are using the same arguments to make their case that the gay rights movement has made for decades:

a.) You can’t discriminate against me because my sexual preference doesn’t conform to an accepted societal norm;

b.) I was born with this preference, making it therefore unchangeable;

c.) To deny me that which I desire is a violation of my human rights.

People need to stop accepting these as legitimate and valid excuses.  Otherwise, we’ll meet back here in 2035 to have a talk about how it became legal for pedophiles to take children home with them to enjoy some hedonistic pleasure.

The U.S. Supreme Court made a major mistake.  By demonstrating to the public that it retains the authority to change historically significant institutions with the issuance of a legal opinion, it broadcasted to the public that it retains the authority to change that definition again.

Enter, fifty other sexual interest groups wanting their behaviors normalized and accepted.

Through it all, the progressive media is promoting the very deviancies the gay lobby said would never enter the discussion, and they’re doing it openly.  And it all started with the ‘un-defining’ of marriage.

If feelings of love — now the basis for all legitimate relationships — are truly just ingrained biological programs involving no choice or discernment, then marriage no longer exists and we should all move on.

Zachary Freeman is the Director of Communications for the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and is the publisher of TheCollegeConservative.com.  Share your thoughts on Twitter with @ZacharyGFreeman.

New Study Finds Porn Damaging Teens At Alarming Rate

 

More young adults now believe that not recycling is morally worse than watching pornography.

A new study conducted by the Barna Research Institute has found that an alarming rate of Americans are consuming a vast and ever-increasing quantity of pornography.

With the ease of access granted by the evolution of smart phones and tablets, over ten percent of teens (aged 12-17 years) and young adults (aged 18-24 years) are accessing porn daily.

But the reignited debate over pornography isn’t purely a matter or religious vs. non-religious this time around.  Secular organizations like Fight the New Drug, have put together an incredible database of information on the negative physiological effects of porn on the brain, effects on relationships, and effects on behavior.  Celebrities like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Terry Crews, and Russell Brand have taken on the pornography industry, and actress Rashida Jones produced Hot Girls Wanted, a documentary about the objectification and violence shown towards women in the amateur porn industry.

With an estimated 76% of young adults between the ages of 18-24 intentionally viewing pornography, the understanding of porn as “immoral” or “wrong” is shifting.  While 88% of adults say that having a romantic relationship outside of your spouse if wrong, only 54% of adults say that watching pornography is wrong.

“There appears to be a momentous generational shift underway in how pornography is perceived, morally speaking, within our culture,” says Roxanne Stone, Editor-in-Chief at Barna Group and one of the lead designers and analysts on the study. “This shift is particularly notable when it comes to personal choice regarding pornography use. But these attitudes and preferences toward porn among the younger generations need to take into account the broader social and cultural context that American young people inhabit.”

Anti-pornography activists at Fight the New Drug, have similar concerns about society’s acceptance of pornography and its correlation to violent sexual behaviors.  “In a 2012 survey of 1,500 guys, 56% said their tastes in porn had become ‘increasingly extreme or deviant.’  Because consistent porn users’ brains quickly become accustomed to the porn they’ve already seen, they typically have to constantly be moving on to more extreme forms of pornography to get aroused by it.  And once they start watching extreme and dangerous sex acts, these types of porn users are being taught that those behaviors are more normal and common than they are.  And when people believe a behavior is normal, they’re more likely to try it.”

Even the left-leaning Huffington Post opined that there is an undeniable link between sex trafficking and pornography, noting that much of the consumable pornography on the internet is, in fact, not between consenting adults, but rather an exploitation of women who are being held and traded against their will.

Pornography is dangerous on every level, regardless of whether or not its protected by Constitutional free speech rights.  So why is it so prevalent today?  Simple.  Because a lot of people stand to gain a lot of money from the success of the pornography industry.

Our men, women, and children are losing themselves behind a computer screen for hours at a time, addicted to false feelings of love and intimacy with a person that will never see or know them.  FPIW is proud to stand with millions of Americans in opposition to the growing influence of pornography on our culture.  Will you stand with us?

If you’d like to learn more about the dangers of pornography, visit Fight the New Drug.

New Bathroom Rule: It’s Worse Than We Thought

 

Last week, news broke about a new rule passed by the Washington State Human Rights Commission creating a statewide mandate that businesses must allow men into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms if they say they are a woman.

But as details have become available, it appears the final version of the rule is actually worse than the proposed rule. Here are some of the “highlights”:

  1. Mandate on Schools as Well as Businesses

While the draft rule imposed a mandate on every business in the state, it provided discretion for schools to deal with each case on a case-by-case basis.

However, the final rule removed any discretion for school officials and mandates that all schools must allow boys into the girl’s locker room if they claim to be a girl.

  1. Women will be removed from the women’s restroom. Naked men will not.

The rule states that it is illegal to ask someone who is confused about their gender to use a separate facility for the benefit of women and children who might be uncomfortable.

However, once a man begins to undress in the women’s locker room a person who “expresses concern or discomfort…should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility.”

So, all you women who are uncomfortable with the naked guy over there, “Please come with me and leave him alone.”

  1. The rule bans lots of speech

In addition to prohibiting reasonable accommodations that recognize the public’s right to privacy along with the bathroom needs of the transgendered, this rule targets a wide range of speech.

It is illegal to ask “unwelcome personal questions about an individual’s sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, or transgender status.”

The commission provides no guidance to the public about how they are supposed to know which questions are unwelcome before they ask them.

It is also illegal for a business to deliberately “misuse” someone’s preferred pronoun. If a man believes he is a woman, but you refer to him as a “he” anyway, he can sue you.

However, you should be careful not to ask questions about which pronoun he prefers. Remember, if that’s an “unwelcome question” he can sue you for that.

It is also now illegal to use “offensive names, slurs, jokes, or terminology regarding an individual’s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity.”

The fact that “offensive” is an undefined and completely subjective term that provides no guidance to the public about what they can and cannot do is apparently lost on the commission.

The best advice may be to just stop speaking. As we all know, someone is offended by everything.


WATCH: Joseph Backholm answers some FAQ’s on the new bathroom policy

Video

Frequently Asked Questions

As the public wrestles with how to respond to this, here are some of the most frequent questions we have been asked in the last few days.

1.  Is this really true?

Very few other media outlets have covered this story. That has led a lot of people to wonder if there isn’t some kind of mistake. Sadly, there is no mistake. Other news outlets have began to cover the story here, here, and here.

2. What will happen if I violate this rule?

The Human Rights Commission has the authority to issue fines and create a range of orders intended to “eliminate the effects of an unfair practice and prevent the recurrence of the unfair practice.”

The rule specifically states that businesses and schools open themselves up to civil liability for violations of any of their new rules.

3. Who made this rule anyway?

The Washington State Human Rights Commission was created to help enforce the Washington State Law Against Discrimination. There are five members who are appointed by the Governor and are not subject to election. You can find them here.

While rule-making authority is frequently delegated to agencies for the purpose of enforcing laws the legislature passes, the concern is that a policy of this magnitude and scope far exceeds what the legislature intended or the public expected when the non-discrimination law was passed.

4.  What can I do?

While the Human Rights Commission has authority delegated to it by the legislature, the legislature has the authority and responsibility to correct mistakes made by agencies or commissions.

You can contact your legislators through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or email them all at one time by clicking here.  If we know your address, this tool allow you to email them all at once.

5.  Isn’t this outrage just much ado about nothing?

If you believe a rule of this kind would never be exploited by people with bad intentions, simply search for Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler on the search engine of your choice.

Burnes exposed himself to children in a Walmart restroom in 2010 while Pomares dressed as a woman and snuck into a Macy’s bathroom to videotape women in 2013.  Buehler wore a bra and wig and slipped into a bathroom and locker room in 2012 to watch women at Everett Community College. All three men were arrested.

In addition, Christopher Hambrook sexually assaulted multiple women in a Toronto women’s shelter while “identifying” as a woman.

Sexual predators look for opportunity. This provides it.

UPDATE: Click here to see Governor Jay Inslee’s response to the Human Rights Commission’s bathroom rule.

Everything we do is made possible by friends like you.  If you can chip in $5 or more to help restore rational bathroom policies, we’d be grateful.

WA Human Rights Commission: All businesses must let men in women’s bathroom

If a man says he is a woman and walks into the women’s restroom, it is illegal for a business owner to intervene.  That is the result of a new rule created by the Washington State Human Rights Commission that went into effect on December 26th.

This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to “equality”. So far, the public hasn’t been buying it.

In November, the City of Houston, which has a lesbian mayor, voted against a city-wide, non-discrimimation ordinance that would have allowed men into women’s restrooms provided they claim to be a woman by a 22 point margin.  Voters in Springfield, Missouri and Fayetteville, Arkansas have also repealed laws that would have opened up bathrooms in this way.

This issue has been heating up in Washington for a while now.  School boards throughout Washington State have been wrestling with it.  The YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap County recently made headlines when they created a policy allowing transgender men to use the women’s locker room under any and all circumstances.

However, this is the first statewide mandate that forces businesses to cooperate with a customer’s confusion about his or her gender.

In 2012, a 45 year-old student at Evergreen State College who identified as female despite being anatomically male, undressed in the women’s locker room while girls from nearby Olympia High School and a local swim club were changing.  Evergreen chose to do nothing to protect the privacy of the girls but offered them a private accommodation if they wished not to dress in the presence of a naked man.

This new rule mandates that outcome in all cases.

While we sympathize with individuals who struggle with gender dysphoria, it isn’t appropriate to deny all women and girls their right to privacy in response.

The new rule specifically prohibits businesses and schools from creating a separate, gender neutral facility for use by those who prefer not to use the bathroom for their gender.

The entire text can be found here.

Concern over this policy does not imply that people with gender dysphoria are more likely to be sexual predators but acknowledges the reality that sexual predators are always looking for opportunities to gain access to victims.  This policy creates undeniable and obvious opportunities.

If you believe this could never happen, simply search for Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler on the search engine of your choice.

Burnes exposed himself to children in a Walmart restroom in 2010 while Pomares dressed as a woman and snuck into a Macy’s bathroom to videotape women in 2013.  Buehler wore a bra and wig and slipped into a bathroom and locker room in 2012 to watch woman at Everett Community College. All three men were arrested.

The safety and security of every woman in Washington should not be placed at risk in an attempt to be politically correct.  We should be compassionate for the real challenges people face, but we shouldn’t be stupid.

The rule also affects schools.  Unlike businesses, schools are allowed to assess bathroom situations on a case-by-case basis. However, “In most cases, transgender students should have access to the locker room that corresponds to their gender identity consistently asserted at school.”

This arguably creates a conflict with the state’s indecent exposure law as well, which otherwise prohibits exposing yourself to others while “knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.”  Or maybe women no longer have the right to be alarmed at the sight of a naked man in the women’s locker room.

While this rule was created through rule making authority delegated to the Human Rights Commission, the legislature has every right to fix this.  And they should.

Contact your legislators through the legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or send them an email by clicking here.

If this is the first you’ve heard of this, your tax-deductible contribution of $5 or more will make it possible for us to keep you informed about things that matter to you that no one else will tell you about.

Thank you for being with us all year.