Posts

Opinion: ‘Knock Someone Up in Texas’ Tweet Displays Left’s Logical Fallacies

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on abortion clinics on the basis that it would create an “undue burden for women seeking an abortion.”  With that ruling, Texas’ HB2 was overturned.

Had this not been the outcome, opponents had said that Texas’ law would have shut down abortion clinics all over the state. Justice Ginsburg even insinuated that the law was intended to close options for abortion to women rather than provide them with safe and accessible facilities.

Since the ruling, numerous reproductive rights activists have expressed their delight and support of the ruling, calling it a “win” for women. Regardless of your perspective, it can be said that the ruling is one of the most significant and most progressive for the pro-choice movement since the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

Hillary Clinton and President Obama voiced their support of the SCOTUS decision immediately.

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah tweeted out its own distasteful expression of support:

The left’s previous shouts of joy and tweets of approval were short-lived as the torrent of angry and agitated tweets began in response to The Daily Show’s joke. “Irresponsible” and “embracing rape culture” were some of the descriptors used among the countless tweets in response.

But the seemingly contradictory ideology of the pro-choice movement should be noticed.

If the upset pro-choicers were questioned whether or not The Daily Show was treating the SCOTUS ruling and sex with flippancy, their answer would most likely be a resounding “yes.”  Yet the people who are aggravated and upset about the flippancy with which The Daily Show is treating pregnancy or sexual intercourse are the same people who are themselves demeaning the sanctity of life.

Proponents of abortion might respond, “Sanctity of life? There’s no life in that womb. That’s not a person.” But studies show that as much as 20-35% of babies born at 23 weeks and even some at 20-22 weeks survive without major medical impairments. The idea that “there’s no life in that womb” isn’t feasible.

The question needs to be asked of those on the left: if pregnancy doesn’t matter, if abortion is a legitimate option for the sake of convenience and should be readily accessible, if biological consequences of sex are avoidable, then why does it matter if someone goes and “knock[s] someone up in Texas”?

Logically, it is unwise and hypocritical to use a particular line of reasoning in an argument and then become upset when someone else takes up the same reasoning – a logical fallacy known as ad hominem tu quoque.

Let’s be consistent.

Megan Gentleman is a student at Liberty University and serves as a summer intern at the Family Policy Institute of Washington.  

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear WA Religious Freedom Case

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has made major news for two consecutive days, and not in a good way.

Stormans’ Pharmacy in Olympia had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state ordered it to dispense Plan B, morning-after, and week-after pills.  The family-owned pharmacy had previously declined to dispense the drugs, citing the owners’ personal and religious convictions, and likening the use of such pills to abortion.

The Supreme Court decided in a 5-3 vote not to hear the case, with Justices Alito, Thomas, and Roberts dissenting.  “If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Justice John Roberts wrote.

Justice Alito’s strong dissent was simple. The government is now prepared, he said, to tell you: “Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.”

The pharmacy had proposed that it would accommodate any customers seeking the drugs by sending them to one of over 30 other pharmacies within a five-mile radius.  But the state rejected this proposal, stating that the pharmacy’s obligation to dispense the drugs was more important than a pharmacist’s religious objections.

The case now heads back to the lower courts for further review.

Follow this story and others by following FPIW on Twitter, @FPIW.

 

Conzatti: Supreme Court Disregards Own Standards in Abortion Ruling

 

In a devastating 5-3 loss for pro-life advocates, the Supreme Court just overturned two provisions of Texas’ HB 2 law that placed restrictions on abortion providers. The law was designed to improve the safety of women by requiring abortion providers to meet surgical center health and safety standards and maintain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt struck down both of the law’s provisions, saying they placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the “decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue,’” quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Texas legislators had been careful to ensure that their law conformed to the ‘undue burden standard’ proposed by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). According to a summary by Public Discourse, the undue burden standard allows legislators to “regulate pre-viability abortions for the health and safety of the woman, provided the regulation does not create a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”

In its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court has now disregarded its own undue burden standard. According to Justice Thomas, the scrutiny applied by the majority to the Texas law “bears little resemblance to the undue-burden test the Court articulated” in Casey.

Since Texas law requires physicians performing surgical births like caesarean sections to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals, applying this standard to physicians that perform abortions should not be controversial. Even the prochoice National Abortion Federation (NAF) recommends that “[i]n the case of emergency, the doctor [performing the abortion] should be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital (no more than 20 minutes away).” HB2 mandated doctors to have hospital admitting privileges at hospitals no more than 30 minutes away – a standard even lower than the one advocated by NAF.

By overturning the health and operating standards required by HB2, the Supreme Court has not only overruled the will of the Texas legislature, but it has also made abortion less safe for women.

An estimated 3,180 women were hospitalized for complications resulting from an abortion in 2011. Requiring abortion clinics to comply with the same medical standards for other forms of surgeries ensures that women will receive necessary medical care when complications arise.

“Our main concern is the safety of Texas women. We will continue to stand for women to keep them safe so they are not maimed or die in abortion clinics,” Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values, said in a statement.

The plaintiff in the case, abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, had repeatedly been cited for safety and health violations in its clinics. In its yearly inspections of Whole Woman’s Health clinics, the Texas Department of State Health Services noted reoccurring safety violations, including the staff’s failure to maintain sterile surgical instruments, expired supplies and medication, rusty machines used on patients, dilapidated facilities, and concerns of rodents. It concluded that “the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment,” remarking that the staff, which had not been trained in CPR, “did not know what a sterilization indicator was” and did not know how to properly use equipment.

Whole Woman’s Health’s terrible record of unsanitary and unsafe conditions demonstrates the importance of laws like HB2. Unfortunately, by siding with unscrupulous abortion providers, the Supreme Court disregarded the best interests of women.

Women deserve better.

U.S. Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Women’s Health and Safety

 

In a devastating loss for pro-life advocates, the Supreme Court overturned two provisions of Texas’ HB 2 law that placed restrictions on abortion providers by a vote of 5-3.  The law was designed to improve the safety of women by requiring abortion providers to meet surgical center health and safety standards and maintain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

The Supreme Court struck down both of these provisions in its decision, finding that they placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion.

“HB2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue,’” quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The legislation received national attention during a filibuster by Texas Senator Wendy Davis.

“Our main concern is the safety of Texas women.  We will continue to stand for women to keep them safe so they are not maimed or die in abortion clinics,” Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values, said in a statement following the ruling.

You can read Joseph Backholm’s press statement here.

Joseph Backholm Statement on SCOTUS Decision

 

 

For Immediate Release

June 27, 2016 (LYNNWOOD) — Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down Texas’ law providing basic care standards in abortion clinics, FPIW Executive Director Joseph Backholm released the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court should serve as a reminder that the abortion industry will stop at nothing to keep the money flowing — even if that means sacrificing the health of women.

Texas’ law was not an attack on women’s health — it was an effort to ensure that women seeking an abortion could reasonably expect a basic level of care in case of an emergency.  Making abortion facilities safer for women is not a burden – it’s just common sense.

Today the Supreme Court has forced states like Texas to subsidize inferior care in order to make it easier for abortion sellers to stay in business.

Women deserve better than today’s ruling. All abortionists and abortion facilities should be held to the same basic standards of care we expect in all other surgical centers in our country.”

MEDIA AVAILABILITY:

To schedule an interview with Joseph Backholm, please contact FPIW Communications Director Zach Freeman at zach@fpiw.org or by phone at 425-608-0242.

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.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Abortion Case

Just two weeks after the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on the biggest abortion challenge in 25 years.

The case tests the Constitutionality of Texas’ common-sense regulations on clinics that provide abortions within their state.  In 2013, Texas moved to ensure that clinics had admitting privileges at hospitals, in the event that something went wrong during the procedure.  They reasoned, correctly, that abortion providers shouldn’t get a pass on basic state health standards simply to keep them in the market.

While deliberations in this case were likely to take months anyway, the complications arising from Justice Scalia’s death are undeniable.  Until a successor to Scalia is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Court is likely to be split on many issues, though this isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has had to operate with an even number of justices.

Still, states, including Washington, shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing inferior care in order to make it easier for abortionists to enter & stay in the market.

We stand with Texas in their fight to protect women from dangerous and negligent practices, and urge Washington’s lawmakers to take similar steps.

Follow @FPIW on Twitter for updates.

Supreme Court to Hear Major Abortion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will officially hear arguments on the appeal of H.B. 2, the law passed by the Texas legislature that requires abortion clinics meet the same health standards and regulations as other outpatient surgery centers, as well as require abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Sign the petition to Investigate Planned Parenthood in Washington!

After the law passed in Texas, abortion clinics in the state appealed to the Supreme Court claiming the law unconstitutionally burdens women’s access to abortion because it may result in the closure of a number of abortion facilities that would fail to meet the safety standards.

That’s kind of the point, no?

Texas led the way in its effort to make sure a woman’s health isn’t in jeopardy when visiting an abortion clinic.  By holding the facilities accountable to sanitation standards and by requiring the doctors performing abortions to have authorization to admit a woman to a hospital if anything goes wrong, it appears evident that Texas really does care most about women’s health.

Even with the existing framework thrust upon us by Roe v. Wade, the Court’s opinion was quite clear in making sure that states maintained the right to place reasonable requirements on clinics, especially when they were enacted in the interest of the health of the woman.  The Court’s opinion stated:

The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.

It’s very hard to imagine how Texas’ efforts would have crossed a constitutional line. But nonetheless, a victory for Texas in June would be a major victory for the safety of women and the eventual abolition of abortion.

 

You can read more about the legal standards and precedents to will be examined here.

Sign the petition to Investigate Planned Parenthood in Washington!

 

Christian Ministries: How to Protect Them From Lawsuits

Are you a pastor or ministry leader?  Are you unwilling to compromise your beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality but concerned about the legal liabilities that might result?

If that’s you, we want to help.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to redefine marriage for the entire country has many pastors and ministries leaders worried about how this will impact their ministry.  And for good reason.  During arguments before the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General said that maintaining tax exempt status is “going to be an issue” for non-profits that hold to the natural and historical understanding of marriage.

While there is risk in a changing world, there are also steps you can take to protect the ministry you care about from lawsuits.

Picture1

Alliance Defending Freedom published a small booklet titled Protecting Your Ministry From Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Lawsuits with the sole purpose of equipping pastors, ministry leaders and Christian school faculty with the necessary tools to better protect their churches, ministries, or schools.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) is taking this booklet one step further. FPIW is setting up meetings all over Washington State to help pastors and ministry leaders better protect their ministry from future sexual orientation and gender identity lawsuits. These meetings will be based on ADF’s Protecting Your Ministry booklet, but will also discuss how to be more proactive in the legislative process in Washington State.

 

Topics Include:

  • Statement of Faith
  • Religious Employment Criteria
  • Formal Membership Policy
  • Marriage Policy
  • Facility Use Policies
  • Religious Mission Statement
  • Code of Christian Conduct
  • And Much More

 

These meetings are free! All we ask is that you let us know if you are planning on attending (register here).

Several meetings are scheduled, but more dates and times will be announced in the following cities in the near future.  Click here to see if any meeting will be in an area near you.

If you are interested in hosting a Protect Your Ministry meeting in your community, let us know.  We’d love to work with you!

 

Three Reasons It Isn’t Over

The Supreme Court has spoken.

It wasn’t a surprise, but it was disappointing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court created an oven-fresh, new right to marry someone of the same gender.  The Court provided no limiting principle that would prevent their logic from extending to other kinds of relationships whose profession of love is not currently acknowledged with a marriage license.

The decision was a setback for the rule of law.

The Constitution says as much about marriage as it does about the Seahawks.  When the Constitution is silent on an issue, then that issue should be resolved by the legislative branch of government.  The states (or Congress) should have been allowed to continue wrestling with this issue and reaching a resolution based on the input of the people through their elected representatives.

But as it turns out, the voices of 51 million people from thirty-one states who voted for laws defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman were overruled by five, unelected lawyers in Washington, DC.

For a number of people, the response to the Court’s decision was relief.  Sentiments like, “At least it’s over!!” and “Can we please stop talking about gay marriage now?”

Unfortunately, the conflict between the sexual revolution and the nation’s faith-based people and institutions may only intensify in the coming months and years.  Here’s why.

1. The LGBT political leadership doesn’t want to coexist:  An entire industry was built to accomplish what happened on Friday.  That industry is not going to suddenly declare itself obsolete. You don’t raise money by declaring victory. Now that “full equality under the law” has been accomplished, there will be another crisis requiring their attention, and another, and another…

2. Some people are still free to disagree: The goal of the LGBT political movement has always been to eradicate the belief that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different.  That is why they promote policies that allow someone to decline to decorate a cake critical of same-sex “marriage,” but not decline to decorate a cake supportive of it.  The goal is to create a government that punishes beliefs about homosexuality they disagree with. Therefore, as long as you have the freedom to run your business, non-profit, university, school, or church according to your beliefs, their job is not done.

3. Now it’s easier to call you a racist, legally speaking:  The 14th Amendment was written to stop the government from treating people differently because of their race. Now that the Supreme Court has discovered a new right to marry someone of the same gender in the 14th amendment, it’s easier to argue that those who don’t celebrate homosexuality are the same as racists. As a result, the ability to remove tax-exempt status, cut off federal funding to religious universities, and otherwise marginalize people who believe in natural marriage became easier.

Marriage has been redefined most recently, but it may not be the last word to be redefined.

Soon, “religious freedom” may mean only the freedom to believe what you want in your head and maybe talk about it at church or at home. You may need a license though. In the same way, “civil rights” may soon be redefined so that a person can be forced to celebrate an event they disagree with but not free to say something “offensive”.  After all, that’s “hate speech.”

The world is changing quickly, but the truth about marriage remains.

And the need for courage only grows.

So you stayed out of the debate about marriage because you didn’t feel like telling someone else how to live their life.  Great.

But what will you do when they start telling you how to live yours?

Will you surrender all your freedom in an effort to avoid being misunderstood? Let’s hope not.

But we’re going to find out, because, despite what we all wish, this is far from over.