Posts

Bremerton School District to Use Taxpayer, Classroom Funds to Fight Kennedy Lawsuit

 

The Bremerton School District is lawyering up.

After filing a federal lawsuit against the District, Coach Joe Kennedy’s legal team made one thing pretty clear: Coach Joe just wants his job back.  “All we really want for him – is to be back on the sideline coaching those kids – and nothing more,” said Michael Berry, one of Kennedy’s attorneys with the First Liberty Institute.

Kennedy was fired last year after refusing to submit to the District’s demands that he stop praying before and after football games. His prayers, the District said, constituted an endorsement of religion, and were in violation of the separation of church and state. When this story broke last year, there was overwhelming support for Coach Kennedy from across the country, standing in support of continued protections under the First Amendment.

He didn’t stop praying, and the District put him on leave before ultimately firing him.

But there’s a new twist to this story: Bremerton School District must use taxpayer money to fight the discrimination lawsuit that Coach Kennedy has now brought against them in federal court.

The Kitsap Sun reported that the Bremerton School District has made the decision to pull needed legal funds from the general fund in order to beef up its legal team to fight this lawsuit in court.

Translation: the Bremerton School District is pulling funds from the classroom to keep Joe Kennedy off the field.

The District spent $6,600 in September of 2015 to cover the cost of legal work related to the Kennedy issue.  That amount increased to $10,512 in October 2015.  At present time, the District has dumped an additional $190,000 into its legal fund — all from the general fund — for legal work “in anticipation of legal costs for JK.”

As a taxpayer, how do you feel about this?  Sound off in the comments below, or on Facebook and Twitter.

Washington Primary Results Analysis: What Does it Mean?

 

Tuesday night’s primary election in Washington pushed a number of candidates through to the general election in November, where a number of district- and state-level seats are set to be filled. The balance of power in the Washington legislature is almost certainly in play as well.

These numbers will change as more votes are counted from late-mailing voters. In 2012, the Republicans gained some ground after the counting of late-mailed ballots; however, at present, the ballots counted are certainly a majority. We’ll keep you updated as the updates become available.

Here are some of the races to pay attention to as the election draws nearer.

Balance of Power in the State Senate

Several state senate races may well determine if the Republicans are able to maintain control in that chamber.

In the 5th District, incumbent Democrat Mark Mullet clings to a very narrow, 45-vote lead over challenger Chad Magendanz. Both will, of course, advance to the general election. While in the House, Magendanz voted against for the abortion insurance mandate and for the legalization of gay marriage, but also claims to support parental notification for abortion. Current Score: Mullet (D) 50.15%, Magendanz (R) 49.85%.

In the 10th District, incumbent Republican Senator Barbara Bailey gathered 51.4% of her district’s primary vote; however, both of her challengers were Democrats, who split the remaining 48.6% of the vote. If failed challenger Nick Petrish’s supporters consolidate behind Democrat Angie Homola, this could shape up to be a tight race in a district that has elected both Democrats and Republicans in recent years. Current Score: Bailey (R) 51.4%, Democrats 48.6%.

In the 17th District, Senator Don Benton is retiring, leaving the seat up for grabs in a narrowly contested race. Former Democrat Rep. Tim Probst holds a few hundred-vote lead over current-Rep. Lynda Wilson, who has vacated her seat in an attempt to keep the 17th in Republican hands. Current Score: Probst (D) 50.67%, Wilson (R) 49.33%.

In the 41st District, incumbent Republican Senator Steve Litzow holds just a 169-vote lead over Democrat challenger Lisa Wellman. Third-party Libertarian challenger Bryan Simonson picked up 590 votes in the race. If the numbers hold at present, Litzow will hold the seat. Litzow was one of the three Republican Senators that defected from the ranks to strike down Senator Doug Erickson’s attempt at reversing the Washington Human Rights Commission’s open-bathrooms rule. Current Score: Litzow (R) 48.72%, Wellman (D) 47.69%; 3.59% of votes cast have gone to Libertarian Bryan Simonson.

At present, Republicans hold a 26-23 lead in the Senate, including Senator Tim Sheldon from the 35th District (Shelton), a long-time Democrat who caucuses with the Republicans. If current results of the primary held through the general election, the Republicans would lose one seat, but retain leadership of the Senate 25-24. If Litzow loses control of the election in the 41st District, however, and Magendanz can’t overtake Mullet in the General, the Democrats would reclaim the senate majority by the same margin. However, if Litzow can hold his seat, Wilson holds the seat vacated by Don Benton in the 17th, and Magendanz could pick up Mark Mullet’s seat in the 5th, the Republicans would gain a seat.

In summary, the balance of power in the Senate is up for grabs.

 

Balance of Power in the State House

The primary elections in the Washington State House appear not to have an impact on the overall balance of power. Democrats, who hold a 50-48 majority, would retain the majority if the primary results carried over to the general election in November. After Tuesday night, Republicans are at risk of losing as many as six seats, while Democrats appear only to be at risk of losing one. Here are the races to watch:

District 5, Seat 2: The race is on to fill the seat vacated by Chad Magandanz, who is running for Senate in the District. Republican Paul Graves brought in 47.17% of the vote in the primary, however, his two Democrat challengers, Darcy Burner and Matt Larson, brought in a combined 52.83% of the vote. Graves will have his hands full keeping the seat in Republican hands.

District 6, Seat 1: In the race to replace a vacant seat left by Kevin Parker, Democrat Lynnette Vehrs pulled in the highest number of votes during the primary; however, three of four of Verhs’ challengers are Republican, meaning that Mike Volz will be the candidate to run to keep the seat in Republican hands. Current ballot counts show Democrat and Republican turnout to be almost a dead heat. Current Score: Vehrs 44.29%, Republicans 51.58%.

District 17, Seat 1: This seat, vacated by Rep. Lynda Wilson when she decided to run for the district’s Senate seat, will be a close race between Republican Vicki Craft and Democrat Sam Kim. In a crowded field, Republican candidates received 47.04% of the votes, while four Democrats split the remaining 52.96%.

District 26, Seat 1: Gig Harbor Rep. Jesse Young faces a tough re-election, capturing the primary lead by just 141 votes over Democrat challenger Larry Seaquist. In the field of four candidates, Republicans received 49.41% of the vote while Democrats received slightly more at 50.59%.

District 28, Seat 2: Incumbent Democrat Christine Kilduff captured a majority of her district’s vote Tuesday night, barely crossing the 50% threshold. However, her remaining opponents, all Republican and Libertarian, captured the remaining votes, separating the Democrats from the Republicans by only 264 votes.

District 30, Seat 1: Incumbent Republican Rep. Linda Kochmar trails Democrat challenger Mike Pellicciotti by 419 votes, nearly a four-point margin; currently 52-48%.

District 30, Seat 2: Incumbent Republican Rep. Teri Hickel currently trails Democrat challenger Kristine Reeves by just 55 votes. (50.23-49.77%) While late arriving ballots could change the final outcome of the primary, it appears this will be a very close race in November.

Statewide Office

Governor: Incumbent Governor Jay Inslee captured less than half of the votes cast in Tuesday’s primary. Republican challenger Bill Bryant came in second place, ahead of all other candidates by a wide margin. The race will likely come down to voter turnout; Republicans captured 43.5% of all votes cast while the Democrats and other minor parties captured the rest.

Lieutenant Governor: In a bit of a surprise race, the top two candidates to emerge from this race are Republican Marty McClendon and Democrat Senator Cyrus Habib. McClendon bested Habib by a full percentage point in a race that featured eleven candidates.

Supreme Court, Position 5: Chief Justice Barbara Madsen enjoyed a healthy showing in the Primary, besting opponent Greg Zempel by a wide margin. Both will head to the general election. Current results from the primary: Madsen 64.16%, Zempel 29.28%.

FPIW Statement Regarding Seattle City Council’s Plans to Ban Same-Sex Attraction Therapy

LYNNWOOD – Next week, the Seattle City Council is expected to vote on a bill that would ban Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) therapy for minors who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion.

This bill, filed by Councilmember M. Lorena González, would strip families of helpful, life-changing counseling they should have the freedom to receive, says Christopher Doyle, a licensed professional counselor and leader of the #TherapyEquality campaign of Equality And Justice For All.

“Proponents of this bill and others like it communicate lies that counselors who affirm clients’ sexual identity do so through electroshock and vomiting-inducing drug therapy,” Doyle said. “Activists are repeating half-truths and un-truths through myths and claims that have been thoroughly discredited for years. Therapy by experienced, educated, and sincere counselors helps minors and families find the root of sexual identity issues and leads them down the path to healing and restoration.”

Doyle, a former homosexual who says that therapy changed his life, is now married to his wife, and they have five children. He has long advocated for therapy freedom and therapy equality, especially as activists fight harder to ban therapies for minors that help them deal with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion.

Doyle is coming alongside the Family Policy Institute of Washington to encourage residents to voice their opposition to the ordinance, which would restrict the rights of minors with unwanted same-sex attractions to seek out their treatment of choice and not be labeled as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ). The bill would ban children and their parents from receiving counseling from licensed mental health professionals to help address unwanted sexual attractions.

“As bills like this crop up around the country, we encourage those who are opposed to them-and those who can tell their own story about how therapy changed their lives-to speak up and tell lawmakers why residents deserve therapy freedom,” Doyle said.

Joseph Backholm, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, released this statement on Thursday afternoon:

“To set restrictions on what a counselor or therapist can do or say in the course of his or her work is both an assault on free speech and an exercise in ignorance. For a City Council to assume that they know better how to counsel a client than the professionals themselves is an insult both to the profession and to the intelligence of the voters who entrust the Council to focus on the issues they’re tasked with.”

###

You can read more about the Seattle City Council’s efforts here.

Equality And Justice For All is the only civil rights organization that works to further the general welfare of the ex-gay community by promoting fair and equitable laws and policies protecting their rights. By furthering individual self-determination and liberty for former homosexuals, the organization strives to reduce bigoted representations of the ex-gay sexual orientation status, ensuring that ex-gays and their friends and families can be open, honest, safe and respected in a diverse society.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) is a pro-family public policy educational organization serving Washington State, focusing on issues of marriage, life, religious freedom and parental rights. 

 

 

Franklin Graham’s Decision America Tour Visits Olympia Wednesday

 

Evangelist Franklin Graham will be in Olympia on Wednesday, June 29th, as part of the Decision America Tour.  The rally will be held on the Capitol steps at 12:00pm.

The event will serve as a time to pray for our state, our nation, and our leaders.  You can see the video below:

You can find more information about the event, including practical information such as where to park, here.  We invite you to attend!

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.

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.

New California Proposal Puts Pressure on Faith-Based Colleges

 

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act prohibits a person from being excluded from any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of his or her sex.

Additionally, the Equity in Higher Education Act prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of specified attributes — namely sex — from any program or activity offered by postsecondary education institutions that benefit from state financial assistance or whose students accept state financial aid.

In both of these cases, there exists an exemption for postsecondary schools controlled by a religious organization.  This was done to protect against the government interfering with the school’s fundamental beliefs and tenets.

Enter, California.

In February, California Senator Ricardo Lara introduced SB 1146, which would target religious postsecondary schools and interfere with their ability to exercise their religious tenets in educational programs, activities, and facilities.

If enacted, the bill would allow seminaries to retain the exemption from Title IX, but it would remove the exemption for most religious colleges and universities. It would also require schools to publicly notify the state, students, and faculty that they are seeking exemption and the reasons why.

Not only would this be bad PR for the school, but it makes the university vulnerable to lawsuits by authorizing students to seek a remedy if they feel that they have been discriminated against in any way.

What sets a religious educational institution apart from its secular counterparts are the fundamental beliefs and tenets of the school. These beliefs inform practically every aspect of how the school operates, including chapel services, facilities, education programs, student activities, and living situations. In other words, if this bill passed, it would compromise the very things that make a religious university what it is.

The bill’s supporters argue that religious schools should not be allowed to discriminate against students on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

The question begs to be asked, though: if a student is aware of the school’s beliefs but disagrees with them, why is he or she there in the first place? One must attend the school in order to be subjected to discrimination. Why voluntarily attend a school that possesses fundamental convictions with which you disagree?

While everyone can certainly agree that the safety of all students is important, one begins to wonder why a transgender student, for example, would choose to attend an evangelical university with beliefs on gender and sexuality are antithetical to their own.

The cries for tolerance from liberals and progressives begin to look more like intolerance of opposing views. SB 1146 would limit a religious institution’s right to exercise their religious beliefs.

Biola University lists these examples of how the bill would impact religious schools that lose their exemption:

  • Faith-based institutions in California would no longer be able to require a profession of faith of their students.
  • These institutions would no longer be able to integrate faith throughout the teaching curriculum.
  • These institutions would no longer be able to require chapel attendance for students, an integral part of the learning experience at faith-based universities.
  • These institutions would no longer be able to require core units of Bible courses, nor offer students spiritual direction or pastoral care.
  • Athletic teams would no longer be able to lead faith-based community service programs.

How do you think religious universities should handle this issue? Should they should comply with Title IX and all of its implications, even if they are compelled to compromise their beliefs? Leave a comment below.

 

Snohomish School District Adopts Radical Changes to Gender Policy, Parental Rights

 

Parental rights and student privacy suffered another setback Wednesday night when the Snohomish School District voted 6-0 to change its policy on how its schools manage student gender identity issues.

The school board voted in favor of opening up all locker rooms, showers, changing facilities, and bathrooms to students of any gender or biological sex.  You can read the entire policy change here.

Furthermore, the district will not be notifying students or their parents about other students’ usage of the facilities, in an effort to protect the privacy of those students.  This means that young girls will not be notified that a biological male plans to use the same showers and changing areas as they do, and parents will be left unaware that biological males may be showering or dressing with their daughters.

As it stands now, the policy requires no medical proof for being “transgender,” nor is there a requirement that a student must observe a trans- identity at all times.

Additionally, “The District will provide all students the opportunity to participate in physical education and athletic programs and opportunities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identities,” according to the policy document adopted by the school board.  The decision comes after students in Alaska voiced their frustration after a biological male won third and fifth place in events at the girls’ state track championships.

This policy change also undermines parental rights.  Though the school district’s procedures allow for contacting and involving a gender transitioning student’s parents when the student permits, or when it is legally necessary to do so, parents may be left out of the process altogether.  A student who begins to identify as the other gender will be given “support” by school officials, with or without the involvement of the student’s parents.

Furthermore, school officials will now use the student’s preferred name and gender, regardless of whether parents are notified or what gender is listed on official documents like birth certificates.  The purpose of these changes, according to the district, is “to maximize the student’s social integration and equal opportunity to participate in social, athletic and academic opportunities, ensure the student’s safety, modesty and comfort, and minimize stigmatization.”

What about the safety, modesty, and comfort of females who will now be unwittingly showering and changing with biological males? By changing their policies to ensure the “comfort” of transgender students, the school district is sacrificing the privacy of the vast majority of students who are uncomfortable with the idea of showering and changing with students of the other biological sex.

What happened yesterday at the Snohomish School District meeting should function as a wake up call to parents throughout the state.  It is time to become involved in your child’s school district by attending school board meetings. Find out whether your local school board intends to adopt similar policies, and if so, raise awareness among other parents and share your feelings with your school board.

If this concerns you, or your children, please contact the Snohomish School District immediately and let them know what you think.  Their next meeting is Wednesday, July 27th, at 6:00pm.

Dr. Bill Mester, School Superintendent | 360-563-7280 | bill.mester@sno.wednet.edu

Scott Peacock, Asst. Superintendent of Leadership & Learning | 360-563-7284 | scott.peacock@sno.wednet.edu

School Board Members

Jay Hagen
School Board President
Director District #5: Cathcart, Little Cedars, Totem Falls, Glacier Peak
Phone 360-668-4635
E-mail Mr. Hagen

Leah Hughes-Anderson
School Board Vice President
Director District #2: Cascade View, Emerson, Centennial
Phone 425-308-1252
E-mail Ms. Hughes-Anderson

Shaunna Ballas
Board Member, Foundation Representative
Director District #1: Riverview, Seattle Hill, Snohomish High School
Phone 206-715-0283
E-mail Ms. Ballas

David Johnston
Board Member, WIAA Representative
Director District #4: Central, Valley View, AIM High
Phone 360-568-0228
E-mail Mr. Johnston

Josh Seek
Board Member, Legislative Representative
Director District #3: Dutch Hill, Machias
Phone 425-377-2466
E-mail Mr. Seek

Judge Orders Public Hospitals in Washington to Perform Abortions

 

Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who resides on the Skagit County Superior Court, issued a ruling Tuesday that requires public hospitals that provide maternity services to also perform abortions.

As part of its national campaign to bully hospitals into performing abortions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Skagit Regional Health District and its Skagit Valley Hospital on behalf of Kevan Coffey, a nurse practitioner who had been previously employed at the Skagit Valley Hospital.

While working at the hospital, Coffey would refer patients seeking an abortion to Planned Parenthood because the hospital lacked doctors willing to perform the procedure. Washington law currently protects doctors who refuse to perform abortions from being discriminated against in employment.

Judge Montoya-Lewis wrote in her ruling, “If the Hospital District chooses to provide maternity services, it is acting in its capacity as a state entity, and, therefore, must provide those services in an equivalent manner those women who seek voluntary [abortions].”

Washington state law prohibits hospitals from asking prospective employees whether they would be willing to perform abortions. State law guarantees that “no person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of the person’s participation or refusal to participate in the termination of a pregnancy” (RCW 9.02.150).

How can a hospital be expected to perform abortions if state law prohibits it from seeking to employ doctors willing to perform the procedure? Judge Montoya-Lewis said in her ruling that the hospital has an obligation under Washington’s Reproductive Privacy Act to secure doctors who are willing to perform abortions. However, this would entail the hospital making the doctor’s willingness to perform abortions a condition of employment, which would necessarily discriminate against pro-life doctors, thus violating state law.

Thomas Ahearne, a lawyer for the health district, said the hospital’s board will meet Thursday to decide their next steps. The hospital is considering appealing the judge’s ruling.

Additionally, it is notable that Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief supporting Coffey and the ACLU. He released a statement after the judge’s decision, calling it “a great victory for reproductive rights in Washington.”

The conscience and religious rights of health care providers are increasingly under attack. A U.S. district court in Michigan recently dismissed a lawsuit against a Catholic nonprofit that operates 86 hospitals in 21 states. The ACLU, which filed the lawsuit, wanted to force the hospitals to change its policy that prohibits doctors from performing abortions.

The Illinois Assembly recently passed SB 1564, which amends the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act by removing some conscience protections for physicians and health care providers who hold moral objections to abortion. If signed by Governor Bruce Rauner, the law would force physicians to transfer or refer patients wanting an abortion to another physician willing to perform the procedure. Pro-life doctors and those working at crisis pregnancy centers would also be required to inform pregnant women about the benefits of undergoing an abortion.

FPIW also recently brought attention to Planned Parenthood’s Washington state candidates survey, which attacked the forty percent of Washington’s hospitals that are managed by Catholic health systems. Planned Parenthood claims that these religiously-affiliated health providers “undermine patients’ rights” and “interfere with their ability to obtain a full range of health services” because they refuse to perform abortions.