Paternal Value

On March 26, this blog discussed the now infamous story of Thomas Beatie who, halfway through “gender reassignment” decided to artificially inseminate herself and become pregnant. (See the link below for more information.)

This has, of course, generated not a little bit of conversation in the blog world. Today, I read a well-reasoned article by Jeff Robinson on the blog for The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Mr. Robinson makes a significant point:

“While this story is certainly extraordinary, it cannot escape the inescapable truth: Thomas Beatie is not a man; “he,” is a woman, a person who has merely sought to alter his (I use that pronoun in the universal sense denoting ‘personhood’) biological identity; however, the fact that Thomas Beatie is truly a female is absolute, for God did not create men (gender-specific, non-universal sense) with wombs. Women who take testosterone injections will grow beards. Nevertheless, the irony here is that, in spite of a “gender reassignment” procedure, the female body of “Thomas Beatie” is functioning precisely according to God’s design.” (Emphasis mine)

There is no need to belabor (no pun intended) the point; however, I wish to expand upon it briefly.

Not only has Beatie failed to alter God’s physical design, despite their best efforts to pursue an alternative lifestyle, this couple is forced to use the parlance of tradition. As Beatie has said, “To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child. I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.”

Clearly, Beatie has redefined the word “family,” even as Beatie has redefined “marriage.” Despite being biologically (and anatomically, apparently) female and a lesbian in the midst of “gender reassignment,” in describing the relationship to be, Beatie is forced to use traditional language. Even Beatie recognizes the need for the new life that will be created to have a father-figure and a mother-figure. If both were not vital to the development of a child, wouldn’t Beatie simply say, “Our child will have two mothers, one with a beard.” (Please do not read that as sarcasm.)

Just as testosterone injections and breast reduction surgeries fail to change one’s biology, acting the role of a man does not a father make. Plainly, the influence of a father is of vital importance to the development of a child. Love, while noble, is incompletely received if not uniquely given from a mother and a father, a female and a male.

Mothers and fathers plainly matter and fulfill human needs that each distinctly offers that the other gender simply cannot. Children are underserved when fatherhood is a pretense to the real thing. Another arrangement is but a poor imitation of complete love.

Homeschooling Update

On March 11, we wrote about a California court’s finding that there was no constitutional right to homeschooling.

It appears that the winds may be changing, thanks in large part to our ministry allies, the Alliance Defense Fund.  Thanks to ADF’s request, the California court is going to take a second look at this decision.

Read ADF’s press release for more information.

Should HPV Mix with the ABC’s?

It was disheartening to read the headline yesterday:  1 in 4 Teenage Girls has Sexual Disease.  That’s 25% of our daughters in high school.  25%. The study by the Center for Disease Control reveals some staggering statistics:

The study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan is an analysis of nationally representative data on 838 girls who participated in a government health survey. Teens were tested for four infections: human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and herpes simplex virus, 2 percent.

That HPV is the largest sexually transmitted disease today is alarming. Undoubtedly, however, this data will be used to make a push for mandatory HPV vaccine for our school age children.  In fact, the article even recommends that girls ages 11-12 get the vaccine, with a follow up shot for young ladies aged 13 to 26.  

 Concerned Women for America has done a lovely job of explaining what HPV is and how to prevent it.  HPV is contracted by direct genital to genital, or genital to anal contact.  Thus, giving the vaccine is almost a fait accompli, the girls will have sex anyway, the government should throw drugs their way to make sure no cancer or sexual diseases come their way.  That treats symptoms, not causes. 

CWA’s article also notes that the HPV vaccine does not prevent 30% of the cancer causing strains of HPV.  Even the data Merck has put out that “supports” the need for the vaccine is largely based on a prediction, not fact.  This isn’t like the measles or the mumps.  You won’t get HPV by sneezing, coughing, or wheezing on someone.   

It was the headline this morning that made my hair really stand up:  Parents May Be Jailed Over Vaccinations.  Granted, this is about Londoners refusing the Polio vaccine, but think of the potential implications.  More than government standing in the shoes parents out to be fitted with, could mandating HPV vaccines over the objections of parents lead to jail?  

Wouldn’t it simply be easier to do as CWA suggests: (1) teach abstinence, (2) vaccinate only by fully-informed, parental consent, and (3) make available affordable, accessible Pap testing for HPV?

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.