Planned Parenthood and Title X

This blog has repeatedly told of the pattern of racism and profiteering that Planned Parenthood regularly engages in at the expense of our hard-earned tax dollars.

One of our ministry partners at The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is the Family Research Council (FRC). Our friends at FRC are organizing a petition to encourage President Bush to limit (or eliminate) the amount of our tax dollars that go to funding Planned Parenthood and other abortion-on-demand providers. The petition describes the regulatory construct as follows:

Regulatory changes promulgated under President Reagan clarified the law that Title X recipients may not refer for abortion or combine family planning services with abortion services. These regulations were defended by President George H.W. Bush and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173) in 1991. Unfortunately, by the time they were being enforced, President Clinton took office and rescinded these pro-life regulations. He then implemented statutorily unsupported regulations that require recipients of Title X funding to refer for abortion. Moreover, these regulations allow the collocation of abortion clinics with their affiliated Title X family planning clinics - in some cases utilizing the same waiting rooms, staff and facilities. More than a minimal economic separation between abortion providers and family planning clinics is warranted.

You can find the rest of the petition here and we encourage you to sign it. (Note: The petition must be signed no later than May 7.)

No one should be permitted to determine whether one life is more valuable than another.  And, no one should be compelled - under color of law - to pay for that decision.

“Is Planned Parenthood Above the Law?”

That is the question asked (and answered) by Maggie Gallagher, nationally syndicated columnist and head of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, in her column published on Townhall.com yesterday. I’ll tease and spoil you all at the same time with this penetrating quote from the end of Gallagher’s article:

But here’s what we’ve learned: Planned Parenthood is an organization staffed by people committed to the proposition that there is never a good reason not to have, support, fund or perform an abortion. In their own minds, their sacred mission to destroy human life puts them above the normal rules and even laws that any minimally decent person (whether pro-choice or pro-life) would recognize.

To bring this home, West Virginia is guilty of aiding to the coffers of Planned Parenthood and other abortion on demand providers. While the Federal government is underwriting the costs of Planned Parenthood to the tune of $330+ million of our tax dollars every year, West Virginia taxpayers are being compelled to fund abortion and related services in excess of $300K every year.

What is more, in this most recent legislative session, more than 60 bills were introduced on the issue of abortion. Assuming we are a 50/50 state on the question of life (and I don’t believe that we are), then one would expect at least some of those bills to advance. But, none - as in, zero, zilch, nada, bupkis - moved from their point of introduction.

Our leaders must be reminded that the family - including the pre-born - is the first priority, not an afterthought. To not even debate or discuss these bills leave lives hanging in the balance - literally!

For more, download this month’s newsletter, “Engage,” from our website.

Polispeak: Rarely Safe.

In reading the online CNN report about the faith forum attended by the two candidates for the democratic presidential nomination, the following line lept out at me:

Clinton, asked whether she believed life begins at conception, replied that “the potential for life begins at conception,” adding that the Methodist church, her denomination, had “struggled with this issue.”

Much, I suppose, could be said about the tightly chosen rhetoric of Sen. Clinton (“potential for life?”), but it was this line that really made my puzzler puzz:

“…And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal — but it needs to be safe and rare,” she said.

Safe and rare? We all know that this line was a product of a copious amount polling, strategy sessions, and spinmeisters. So, it’s worth our time to unpack the phrase.

First, Sen. Clinton believes abortion on demand, as currently practiced, ought to be legal. That means, from conception to 2/3’s delivery, Sen. Clinton wishes to have abortion available for all. This would also include partial birth abortion, the banning of this baneful practice she voted against in 2003.

But, her talking point here suggests that she is in favor of “safe” abortion. Safe for the future life? That can’t be it, after all the plain meaning of abortion ends that future life with suction, chemical, or clamps. Could she have meant safe for the mother? Perhaps, but it is a bit far fetched. Studies have linked abortion with several conditions that cannot be described as “safe” for the mother. Safety, it appears, is a concern based mainly within the political world, not one of reality.

Then there is the word, “rare.” While this is clearly opposed to what Sen. Clinton just said (”I think abortion should remain legal”), it could be supposed that Sen. Clinton is speaking in terms of ratios - births to abortions. Some sources say there is a birth every 8 seconds in the world, while other sources suggest an abortion takes place every 6 seconds. If Sen. Clinton suggests abortion, defined thusly, is rare, then so rare must also be live births. Then again, if she would like to see abortion be rare, perhaps she could help steer the multiple million Federal dollars away from the coffers of Planned Parenthood. That would do much to make abortion on demand go the way of the dodo.

No one should be permitted to determine whether one life is more important than the next, nor should one’s rhetoric escape unexamined (including mine).

The question is for you: what do you know about abortion and will it influence your participation in this representative democracy?To begin to answer the first part of that question, I commend you to the Roe IQ Test. Your knowledge (or lack thereof) about abortion in America may surprise you.

What Are You Investing In?

We are told that we are in the middle of an economic crunch that has not been felt so widely for many years.  Recently, the Fed came under severe scrutiny for bailing out the financial big-wig Bear Stearns to the tune of $3.2 billion dollars.  While it was perhaps a wise and necessary move, we wonder what is next.

Word out this week is that Planned Parenthood - the nation’s leader in abortion services - has, for the first time, taken in $1,000,000,000 (that many zeros means, “billion”) in income.  Obviously, it’s scary that an organization who performs more abortions than any other non-profit group is making that kind of money on that controversial of an industry.  But, perhaps it is to be expected.  After all, the market has skewed everything else, right?  The cost of healthcare, rising oil prices.  I bet we could even blame this on some aspect of global warming if we tried.

But that does not adequately explain it.  The real kicker to the story is that Planned Parenthood received $336,000,000 of your tax dollars to advance their agenda.  Even more staggering is that, like any good organization that lives and breathes by federal grants, Planned Parenthood is reinvesting in the political process - to the tune of $10,000,000.

Let’s restate that.  Planned Parenthood, who has income over $1,000,000,000, subsidized by 336,000,000 of our tax dollars, is reported to be prepared to invest $10 million in political contributions nationwide.  Wow!  I hope they are worth the investment.  Let’s consider their investment resume:

• Planned Parenthood is under criminal indictment in Kansas for defrauding Kansans of their tax dollars.
• The Kansas indictment also charges Planned Parenthood with complicity in aiding sexual predators who seek to destroy evidence of their sexual crimes on children.
•  Recently, Planned Parenthood has raised their own level of criticism by being caught on tape willing to accept donations earmarked for the abortion of minority babies.

It might make more sense to take the $336,000,000 and reinvest it in Bear Stearns!  Although, unlike Bear Stearns, Planned Parenthood is turning a profit.  If you follow the link above, you can read that Planned Parenthood’s profit from 2005 to 2006 has doubled from $55,700,000 in 2005 to $112,000,000 in 2006.

While some of the $10,000,000 of the Planned Parenthood political action committee money that will be infused in national campaigns will most certainly find the pockets of some of our leaders, we have the added “blessing” of being required to contribute $300,000 tax dollars to the performance of abortions in West Virginia every year.

Friends, no one should be permitted to determine whether one life is more important than the next.  More than that, no one should be permitted to invest our dollars in a dying industry.  Since Planned Parenthood is making more than $100 million in profits each year, that can only mean one thing.

We must insist that our leaders make the family - including the unborn - the first priority.  Remind your leaders that this will influence your vote this year.

What is the Value?

Two news stories have caught my eye this morning.

The first comes out of Oregon where a “man” claims to be five months pregnant.   The story reveals that this person has been attempting to remove the anatomical portions that made him a her.  But, interestingly, this change left the reproductive organs intact.  When she (he?) stopped taking the testosterone treatments, he (she?) was able to get pregnant.

The story, which is reporting on another story from The Advocate, said that this person claims to have been pregnant once before, carrying triplets.  However, that pregnancy ended soon after it became life-threatening.  Now, this person and his (her?) wife (who really is female) are expecting a new child in July.  The unfortunate irony is that the wife has been unable to have children.

Most interesting is the closing quotation from our hero (heroine?):  writing in the advocate, this gender-confused parent-to-be said that the new life, “sparks legal, political and social unknowns.”

More on that in a minute.

The other story that caught my eye also happens to be out of Oregon (and we thought California had the monopoly for odd stories for the west coast).  In this story, someone perusing craigslist (an online bartering/selling site) noticed that someone was out of “tweak” (that’s methamphetamine) and was offering to sell their baby for $1,000.  No one knows, but sadly hopes, that this is a sick joke.

The two stories independent of the other are equally disappointing.  In one, there are two individuals struggling with their sexual identity, with at least one of the two having had to deal with the pain of not being able to conceive.  The focus, it seems, is not on the creation of a precious life, but what “legal, political and social” impact the birth will force upon society.  In this instance, life has been devalued to a political stunt, a legal brief, or a social experiment.

In the other, we have parents willing to sell their child for a high.  Assuming this is a joke, the story reveals a society that so undervalues life that its humor is found by analogizing life to dollar bills.  But, suppose this is serious.  In that scenario, we have parents who have become so addicted to a chemical substance that they are no longer capable of making independent decisions, but truly see everything in their world in terms of dollars for “tweak.”

While these stories make the obvious point that no one should be permitted to determine whether one life is more valuable than the next, I urge you to think of the story behind the story.  In one we have a barren woman and a sexually confused individual.  Each carry their own series of hurts.  One even lost three children.  In the other, we have parents willing to put a dollar sign on the worth of their child for the sake of their addiction.

The reason we oppose abortion, the reason we promote life, the reason we seek to build strong families is precisely because we believe life to be invaluable.  That is not to say we see no value in it; invaluable means “indispensable” or “priceless.”  Without life, we simply do not have families.  Our concern is not only for the children innocently affected by these events, but also for the lives of the parents.  One has redefined marriage, the other has ignored its import.  Without strong marriages, our families are broken.

You see, the value of life is that it allows our families to live and gives the opportunity for it to be lived in the context of a family.  As we concern ourselves with speaking the Truth of the invaluableness of life, let us also extend grace to all those lives that are affected.

That is a truly valuable experience.

Protecting the Predator

Planned Parenthood has, rightly, been under some severe scrutiny from the pro-life movement and, even more, from the U.S. Government.  

Stories last week revealed that Planned Parenthood (who is not denying their complicity) is apparently willing to receive donations for the express purpose of aborting minority babies.  Racism and Planned Parenthood is not a new story.  In 2004, black male employees filed suit against their abortion-leading employer, charging that several white women had created a racially hostile work environment for them.

It makes us wonder why the federal government funds them to the tune of $300 million annually.  Event the seemingly insignificant (compared to the feds) state support of more then $300K annually is bad enough.  

Read more about the Kansas prosecution on the “columns” page of this blog. 

Legislative Roundup

It has been a busy couple of weeks for The Family Policy Council of West Virginia.  Since our last post, we have been working out front and behind the scenes to discourage some policies that would significantly harm the family, we changed our name (from the West Virginia Values Coalition to The Family Policy Council of West Virginia), and continued to lay the foundation for this great organization.Still, we promised you regular updates and we are sorry that the administrative realities have prevented our attention to this lot on the real estate of cyberspace.There will be more to come on this issue, but to begin to resolve what has been (by all accounts) an odd legislative session, consider the following thoughts.

1.  No “life” legislation passed either house this session.  Though 61 bills on the subject of abortion were introduced, 0 moved from their place of introduction.   
2. Marriages were hardly enriched.  It would be wrong to say that marriages were not even discussed in our legislature.  Certainly, there was some good debate driven by the proposed “Joint Parenting Act,” a bill introduced to wide bipartisan support.  While this bill does much to assist families following a divorce (and is, for that, commendable), little has been done to encourage one man and one woman to life life together at the core of a family.   
3. Religious freedom afforded ambiguous protection.  While The Family Policy Council of West Virginia recommended (and wrote) a piece of legislation that has been supported by everyone from the ACLU to the National Committee on Amish Religious Freedom, the House Committee on the Judiciary passed.  There is hope, however, that this issue will find some hearing during an upcoming interim session.

So, that’s what did not happen.  There is more, but it is important to highlight two things that DID happen during this session:

1.  The legislature got richer.  We do not take a position on legislative pay raises; however, we do wish to point out the nepotism involved.  Perhaps it was time for an increase in pay, but we would urge our elected officials to consider this issue only after satisfactorily dealing with those issues of prime concern to the electorate.  We are gravely disappointed that a paycheck was put before life, marriage, or religious freedom.  
2. The radical homosexual agenda nearly snuck one through.  This is, perhaps, the greatest surprise of any of this legislative session.  That S.B. 600 was introduced is not surprising.  A version of it has been introduced for more than a decade.  In this session, at least 5 bills attempted to provide extra constitutional protection for the homosexual lifestyle.  What is surprising is that it passed the Senate (unanimously), but lost votes in the House.  While we are delighted that our legislature did not pass a measure that would penalize families for simply abiding by their religious convictions, we are concerned how close our society came.  

Clearly, we all have some work to do.  West Virginia is a state that is dominated by leadership that espouses a worldview in conflict with much of its electorate.  While we can work to make changes at the political and policy level, we must also work inform the worldview of our own friends and neighbors.  

 

While this legislative session is disappointing on several levels, we must remember that God is yet on his throne.  Let us remind ourselves of the grace Christ exhibited in his stand for the Truth. 

 

At The Family Policy Council of West Virginia, we envision a society that treats life as preciously as God does.  We work for this vision because, without life, there is no family.

 

We see a society that encourages one man and one woman living within the joy of marriage for life because we know that strong marriages, make strong families, which make strong communities, cities, states, and nations.  Without strong marriages, quite frankly, families are broken.

 

We look to a future that permits West Virginia families to fully and openly practice their faith with the maximum of protection under the law.  Our historical appreciation for religious freedom in West Virginia drives our concern for the future of our families.  Without policies that safeguard religious freedom, families cannot worship.

 

As an integral part of a national effort to defend the local family, The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is poised to make families the first priority of our leadership, not an afterthought.

 

Let us pray as hard as we work for the family of West Virginia. 

Legislative Update - February 8, 2008 (Day 31)

The Legislative Session of the West Virginia legislature is only 60 days in length. Today marks the halfway, plus 1, point of this legislative session. By all accounts it has been a particularly quiet time in Charleston. But, just how quiet?

In 31 days, 1,736 bills have been introduced - which does not include any resolutions either (or both) house has introduced. Of the nearly 2,000 bills introduced, only 16 have passed through the Senate completely and 37 have made it all the way through the House of Delegates. Of those, only 2 have passed both houses. Neither, as of this writing, have been signed into law by Governor Manchin.

The point? Legislative action is slow. Legislative action in an election year is especially slow.

This Week at the Legislature

LIFE IN LEGISLATION

“Choose Life” License Plates

This past Tuesday, H.B. 4422 was introduced in the House of Delegates and would create the “Choose Life” license plate for anyone wishing to have one. The “Choose Life” program has generated much discussion throughout the country, including West Virginia. Currently, 16 states offer the license plate, 6 states are considering adopting the license plate, and 5 other states are engaged in litigation over the plate.

Some will remember that this issue has come through the West Virginia legislature in years past. If you recall, the bill generated not a little bit of debate in a state that is traditionally pro-life in the homes, but not as much in its governance.

Why all the fuss?

Obviously, the bill touches upon the issue of abortion, one the most debated social issues of the modern era. But, with the “Choose Life” license plates, some argue that - since the license plate is technically owned/issued by the government - the message contained thereon is government speech which must remain content neutral.

The reason? Different states have different provisions, but the “Choose Life” program was started to permit both the expression of one’s pro-life viewpoint as well as fund pro-life programs. To the latter point, when someone would purchase the “Choose Life” plate, a certain portion of the fee could be collected by the marketing agency and then distributed to programs offering adoption or other pro-life services.

But, because the government is the official issuer of the plate, some argued that this constituted the government speech. Because government must remain, “content neutral” in its speech, by permitting a license plate, government broke its own rule.

Today, several courts have held that what you put on your license plate is your speech, not the governments. Thus, in legal terms, the government has opened a “limited forum” (I.e., your license plate) for you to express your viewpoint. Under that scenario, there is no government speech argument to be made.

In West Virginia, the government has clearly opened a limited forum on our license plates. That is why you can purchase license plates to express your appreciation for everything from the Mountaineers to Bowling to the Shriners.

However, no new license plate program is permitted to charge a fee beyond those required by the DMV. Note the word, “new” in that sentence. At one time, this was an option. But, our legislature shut that door recently. Now, if H.B. 4422 passes, it will only express a viewpoint (which is good), but not fund pro-life programs (which would be even better).

Whether or not the legislature can allow some license plate programs to charge a special marketing fee, but not “Choose Life” is a question our lawyers at the West Virginia Values Coalition are reviewing very closely.

Survival Ban

Delegate Tim Miley (D-Harrison) has introduced a bill that would make it a felony to abort a new life that was capable of surviving outside of the womb. H.B. 4392 would do much to protect life in West Virginia.

The introduction of this bill raises an interesting question: when is a child capable of surviving outside of the womb? Around the time that Roe v. Wade was decided, the viability of a new life was hotly debated, but few would have felt comfortable with abortion past the first week of the third trimester. However, it is clear that this idea is changing.

Last February, an Associated Press story noted the delivery and survival of Amillia Sonja Taylor. Amillia was born at 21 weeks, and 6 days gestation. It was, at the time, the earliest known child to survive being born prior to 23 weeks.

While Amillia’s miraculous story creates a strong argument that abortion on demand ought to be illegal after 22 weeks, the question lingers: if it is a life at 22 weeks gestation, why not at 21? 15? 5? 1?

The West Virginia Values Coalition believes that life is sacred from the moment of conception until its naturally occurring death. While we support Delegate Miley’s attempt to curb a largely unaccountable abortion industry, we continue to ask for the complete cessation one of history’s more barbaric activities: abortion.

We also call upon churches to prepare for the day that abortion in the United States is at an end. For, on that day, it will be the churches who must lead a compassionate charge to love, care, and support women in crisis pregnancies and the children they bear. This is part of our duty to care for the family.

Bioethics

H.B. 4463 sponsored by Del. Kenneth Tucker (D-Marshall) would be among the first bioethics laws in West Virginia.

American United For Life have assessed West Virginia’s bioethics laws as, “Dangerous.” The goal of Del. Tucker’s bill is to preserve and protect the survival of all human embryos in West Virginia. What is more, H.B. 4463 stands for adoption too - in a way many of us do not often think about.

Listen to how H.B. 4463 speaks of the value of life and family, “A frozen embryo may be transferred to another entity, located in the State of West Virginia, for preservation, or it may be made available to a married couple desiring to adopt it, to raise as their child. The goal for each frozen embryo located in the State of West Virginia is that it be adopted by a family in which it can live out its full life.”

Where some see a petri dish of tissue or genetics, we join Delegate Tucker in seeing a potential life. And - if you look closely - you may even see a completed family, together, living a full life.

So long as our bioethics laws remain “Dangerous,” such a family portrait exists only in our imagination.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN LEGISLATION

The West Virginia Freedom of Religion Act

On Thursday, the West Virginia Religious Freedom Act (click on “Press Releases” on our website for more information) was introduced by Delegates Shook (D-Monongalia), Majority Leader DeLong (D-Hancock), Azinger (R-Wood), Miley (D-Harrison), Varner (D-Marshall), Reynolds (D-Wayne), and Burdiss (D-Wyoming).

The West Virginia Religious Freedom Act (WVFRA) provides the maximum protection under the law of an individuals right to openly practice their faith. West Virginians have a deep appreciation for religion and its importance to their families. The passage of the WVFRA allows our laws to find agreement with our constitution. Moreover, it removes the ambiguous protection that our families current live under in West Virginia.

It is interesting to note that, when the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (the Federal corollary to the WVFRA) was passed in 1993, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved its language.

When was the last time Congress did anything unanimously?

When the Senate voted on it, the vote was 97-3 and was quickly signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The coalition in support of the Federal RFRA included the National Council of Churches, the American Jewish Committee, the American Muslim Committee, the Presbyterian Church, and the American Association of Christian Schools, among many others.

Nineteen other states have passed similar legislation, including: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Under WVFRA, a West Virginian would have their right to openly practice their faith maximally protected.

MARRIAGE IN LEGISLATION

Sexual Orientation….Again

In last week’s update, we suggested that you keep an eye on H.B. 4164 as it winds its way through the House of Delegates.

This week, the Senate introduced it’s version of the same bill. Senators McCabe (D-Kanawha), Foster (D-Kanawha), Wells (D-Kanawha), Kessler (D-Marshall), Bailey (D-Wyoming), Minard (D-Harrison), Hunter (D-Monongalia), Jenkins (D-Cabell), White (D-Webster) introduced S.B. 600 would protect a person’s, “heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression, whether actual or perceived” under the West Virginia Human Rights and Fair Housing Acts.

These bills are the “Trojan Horse of tolerance.” They purport to promote toleration and acceptance and to eliminate discrimination. In fact, if passed, laws like this would do much to create new levels of discrimination. As observed in last week’s update, these proposed laws undermine your freedom of conscience, religion, and right to contract.

Furthermore, the true aim of these bills is the redefinition of marriage and the family. That passage of these bills would provide an opportunity for the radical homosexual agenda to challenge West Virginia’s Defense of Marriage Act.

You have the right, as citizens and voters in West Virginia, to let your voices be heard on each of these bills. By encouraging, or discouraging, the action of your legislator on a particular bill, you actively participate in self-governance.

Family Voice is the official blog of the West Virginia Values Coalition, a 501(c)(3) research and education organization dedicated to standing for the Truth for the advancement of West Virginia’s famlies. Donate online at www.familypolicywv.com.

Legislative Update: Februrary 1, 2008

Part of our mission at the West Virginia Values Coalition is to keep West Virginia families informed about issues affecting today’s families. During each legislative session, several of those issues arise, but most families in West Virginia rarely hear about the hundreds of pieces of proposed legislation that could impact if passed.

During the 2008 legislative session, Family Voice will regularly highlight those proposed policies and provide much needed analysis and commentary from a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Summary: January 2008

It would be impossible to review each and every bill introduced.  However, what follows are some highlights from the last 22 days of this legislative session.

Since the first day of this legislative session, January 9, 2008, literally thousands of bills have been introduced at the legislature. If you have been listening to any political news coverage in West Virginia lately, you are aware of some of the issues our legislators are facing. Teacher pay raises have been hotly debated. More recently, a discussion of whether or not to teach gun safety classes to our high school students has received national attention.

But, a very important milestone passed without much notice. January 22, 2008, marked 35 years since Roe v. Wade paved the way for abortion on demand. Since that time, more than 40 million innocent lives have been discarded as globs of tissue, rather than the precious lives they could have been.

Since the beginning of this legislative session, more than fifty (50) bills touching on the issues of abortion have been introduced.

Do you know how many have passed? Zero.

Do you know how many will likely pass? One.

Among them are bills like H.B. 2312 and H.B. 2313. These bills would require “prolife, antichoice, faith-based or abstinence only facilities” – or, as you and I might know them, “crisis pregnancy centers” – to create a litany of policies that would do little more than bind these organizations up in red tape and prevent them from accomplishing their mission to preserve life.

What is more, H.B. 2313 specifically requires the creating of “quality assurance programs” for each such facility. Interestingly, there exists no law requiring those facilities that perform abortions to have a comparable quality assurance program. Apparently, Delegates Brown and Hatfield (sponsors of H.B. 2312 and 2313) would rather busy organizations dedicated to saving life in quality assurance programs, rather than ensure those facilities whose life-taking procedures risk multiple lives give any “assurance” of “quality.”

S.B. 89 and S.B. 485 are two very commonsense bills. S.B. 89 would requires abortionists to follow their Hippocratic Oath and save the life of any child that survived an attempted abortion. S.B. 485 follows the example of the Federal government and bans the inhumane practice of partial-birth abortion.

How many of these proposed bills have you heard about? That is the unfortunate irony in West Virginia. Our legislators often talk a good talk about how “prolife” they are and, as they have already done, will introduce many pieces of legislation only to secure the endorsement of prolife organizations. While few, if any, laws that will preserve life and advance West Virginia’s families get passed, most West Virginians confess to be prolife.

The only way to resolve the irony is to let your legislator know what you want him or her to do. If they do not do it, elect someone who will. Remember, you hold the keys to the governance of this state.

Bills to Watch

It is almost getting tiresome to see the redundant efforts by a few try to sneak in what I like to call, “the Trojan horse of tolerance.” Delegates Fleischauer and Webster (among others) have once again trotted out H.B. 4164 in an effort to secure special rights for homosexuals. While billed as an effort to encourage “tolerance” for the homosexual community, in reality, this bill seeks to undermine marriage while giving additional rights to special interest groups.

H.B. 4164 would make it a violation of the Human Rights Act of West Virginia for employers to discriminate based upon one’s “sexual orientation.” How is “sexual orientation” defined? For the purposes of this bill, “sexual orientation” means, “heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression, whether actual or perceived.”

This bill would require the government to create a brigade of thought police. It would mean that an employee sitting in the breakroom, reading his or her Bible could be “perceived” as discriminating against someone’s “sexual orientation.”

One’s “gender identity” is not a civil right and would upend half a century’s worth of civil rights laws. Civil rights, which the Human Rights Act is intended to protect, are based upon immutable characteristics. “Gender-identity” is – at best – a transient concept.

In attempting to end one form of discrimination, this bill, in fact, discriminates against many others. It assails one’s freedom of religion by neglecting to exempt religious organizations. In other words, a parochial school could be forced to hire and openly homosexual employee or face an expensive lawsuit.

It discriminates against one’s freedom of conscience, forcing an employer to sacrifice his or her sincerely held religious belief or face thousands of dollars in legal fees.

An organization’s religious liberty is likewise threatened. Under this bill, a church could be forced to rewrite theological doctrine, or face litigation. Political activists who attempt to advance these bills are simply trying to drive faith underground.

The real goal is to redefine the family. Most West Virginians do not approve of homosexual behavior. Homosexual rights activists know that they cannot win at the ballot box; hence, they use bills like H.B. 4164 to circumvent the democratic process in an effort to undermine the definition of marriage and challenge laws like West Virginia’s Defense of Marriage Act.

Laws should govern objective action, not subjective thoughts. While this bill is currently pending in committee, because it is sponsored by the Chairwoman of the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee, it could come to a vote at any time.

Thankfully, you have the right to let your legislator know what you think about this bill. Unless you call your legislator, they will assume you approve of bills that contradict your values.

Family Voice is the official blog of the West Virginia Values Coalition, a 501(c)(3) research and education organization dedicated to standing for the Truth for the advancement of West Virginia’s famlies. Donate online at www.wvfpc.org.