Posts

Why Washington State Didn’t Follow America’s Lead

Following this week’s elections, FPIW’s Joseph Backholm, Zach Freeman, and Chris Plante sat down to talk about why Washington State’s elections didn’t go as well for conservatives as other elections did nationally.

It all comes down to one thing: high voter turnout in Western Washington, and low voter turnout in Central and Eastern Washington. Listen here:

Why Planned Parenthood is Suing FPIW

 

Two days ago, FPIW’s communications director, Zach Freeman, was served legal papers naming him as a defendant in a lawsuit. The suit was filed by 10 unnamed plaintiffs, identified only as “Jane and John Does”, asking the court to prohibit the University of Washington from releasing public records that had been requested by Mr. Freeman.

Those asking for their personally identifying information to be withheld include four current or former employees of Planned Parenthood, one employee of Cedar River Clinic (a controversial late term abortion clinic) as well as an employee of Evergreen Hospital and the University of Washington.

David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, was also named as a defendant because he made a similar public records request.

Mr. Daleiden made national news last year with the release of videos showing Planned Parenthood and abortion industry executives discussing how to harvest the organs of aborted babies and maximize revenue.

Shortly after those videos were released, a group of Washington State legislators wrote two letters to Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson asking him to investigate whether the parts of aborted babies were illegally being sold for a profit. (A copy of those letters can be found here and here).

After a couple of months had passed, the Attorney General wrote a memorandum to the legislators notifying them that he had done an investigation and Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong. (A copy of that memorandum can be found here).

It is no secret that Bob Ferguson is a strong political ally of Planned Parenthood. Therefore, we thought it would be wise to verify that the evidence supported the Attorney General’s office conclusion that nothing illegal had taken place.

As a result, Mr. Freeman filed a public records request seeking information relevant to the AG’s investigation into Planned Parenthood.  That request provided a number of documents, including an interaction between the AG’s office and the University of Washington from September 2015 that caught our attention.

In that correspondence, Deputy Attorney General Paige Dietrich asked Ian Goodhew, Government Relations Director at the University of Washington for “the contract you mentioned”.

Mr. Goodhew responded to this request by seeking assurances that “You will hold those confidential and not share with anyone without consent?”

In response, Ms. Dietrich said, “I don’t think we’ll need copies of the agreements.” (A copy of this correspondence can be seen here.)

While we don’t know what this contract they were referring to is, it seems plausible given the context that it would be an agreement UW had with an outside entity to procure aborted body parts.

The fact that the Attorney General’s office rescinded their request for information after UW expressed concern about that information becoming publicly available was interesting enough to warrant further investigation.

That, in addition to other things, is the reason Mr. Freeman filed the public information request with the University of Washington. Even if the Attorney General was not interested in those contracts, we decided we were.

Since they are public records, the public is has the right to inspect them.

It is entirely possible that those records are innocuous and/or irrelevant to the investigation. We simply don’t know.

Still, the response to our request for those records as well as others has done nothing to dampen our curiosity.

While the requests were not intended to gather information about any individual, it is inevitable that public records will reveal the identity of people involved in public work. As a general matter, if you are having conversations with public entities you can expect that the public might discover that through public records.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that their safety would be in jeopardy if their identities became public. They argue that because Mr. Freeman and Mr. Daleiden are pro-life that they intend to harass and/or commit violence against the individuals who might be identified in these documents.

Coming from an industry built on violence to others, this is deeply ironic. But that is beside the point.

The conversation about who is a bigger threat to whom is irrelevant to the legal question about whether anyone in Washington was illegally profiting off the sale of baby body parts.

It is possible that all relevant information will be turned over once this distraction is resolved and the public will be able to see if anything illegal is happening. It also possible that this is just an initial attempt to keep information away from the public.

We don’t know. Yet. But we intend to find out.

We anticipate a hearing to be scheduled soon.   We will be sure to let you know what happens.

One more thing.

Thank you for your support that allows us to ask important questions like these. The abortion industry in Washington has been operating free of accountability for decades and Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar tax-payer funded giant.

We are still a ways away from our first billion and receive no money from taxpayers. Friends like you make it all possible.  If you want to support this effort, please consider partnering with us.

Thank you for standing with us so we can continue to fight for what is good, true, and beautiful. When the dark side is agitated, you know you’re doing something right.

Maine Woman Bans Gun Owners and Supporters from Restaurants, and I Support Her

 

A Maine woman is refusing to serve customers who don’t agree with her beliefs and values system.  And I support her.

I support her right to choose who she serves or doesn’t serve, and for what reasons, at her restaurant(s). It doesn’t matter if I believe her views are right or wrong, or think she’s ‘on the wrong side of history’. She worked hard to build her businesses, and she should have the freedom to operate them as she sees fit. Period.

This same freedom should be extended to bakers, florists, and photographers who don’t want to provide services for a gay wedding.  It should be given to a print shop that doesn’t want to print posters for the Westboro Baptist Church.  It should be given to doctors, nurses, and hospitals who don’t want to provide abortions.  It should be given to Muslim catering companies who don’t want to serve pork or Jewish people who don’t want to work on the Sabbath.  

This is freedom.  Get outside the groupthink and apply some consistency.

Our politics have led us to a place of many divisions. Our social balance hangs, in many cases, upon a thread.  People find offense at nearly every word spoken.  Protests are held in abundance, around the clock, for any and every reason.  Our world is a tinderbox, ready to catch on fire at the drop of a hat.  We couldn’t get along if our very lives depended on it.

Perhaps the last thing that we all have in common is that we all want to be free.

We should all be willing to fight for others’ freedom of conscience, even if we disagree with their beliefs, and even if we think the Constitution should require them to serve us.

Losing freedom is a lot more expensive than being forced to go eat a meal somewhere else.

Zachary Freeman is the Communications Director for FPIW.  You can follow Zachary on Twitter at @ZacharyGFreeman.

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.