Business Discrimination

During West Virginia’s last legislative session, the Legislature dodged a bullet by refusing to pass S.B. 600. That bill would have made “sexual orientation” a human and civil right. What would this have meant to the business world?

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has written a white paper on the implications of S.B. 600 on businesses - to read it, click here and then on the link for “Businesses and S.B. 600.” One of the lawsuits mentioned within that white paper concerned Elaine Photography from New Mexico. This typical photographer (weddings, graduations, etc.) declined the business offered by a lesbian couple, objecting to photographing their “commitment ceremony.” Two weeks later, Elaine is hauled before the NM Human Rights Commission, charged with discriminatory practices.

Today, the NM Human Rights Commission held that Elaine’s religious conviction violated New Mexico law. In addition, the commissioner ordered Elaine to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.

If S.B. 600 had been successful, small, medium, and large sized businesses would be increasing their potential for liability. The West Virginia Human Rights and Fair Housing Acts are nearly identical to New Mexico’s.

In attempting to limit one form of discrimination, it seems another is created.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good Marriage = Good Health

A less-than-earth-shattering report out today suggests that happy marriages have husbands and wives with lower blood pressure, while those classifying their marriages as “unhappy” have increased blood pressure - higher than that of singles!

While the report admits that it is far from conclusive, the initial findings are of interest.  Said the news report: 

Analysis found that the more marital satisfaction and adjustment spouses reported, the lower their average blood pressure was over the 24 hours and during the daytime.  But spouses who scored low in marital satisfaction had higher average blood pressure than single people did.

More study is clearly need, if for no other reason than to remove much of the subjectivity inherent in this study.  The study suggests blood pressure in unhappy marriages is worse than being single, but it says nothing about blood pressure in good marriages vs. singles.  The implication is that those in good marriages are more healthy (in terms of blood pressure, anyway) than those who are unmarried. Still, one result ought to be potently clear:  good marriages mean good health.  

Such a result ought to motivate us, our leaders, and our society to encourage marriages to be “good” by any means necessary.  

More than that, if the implication be true, we ought to work very closely with the single community, helping them identify the person they choose for a mate.  Evidently, the decision will affect not only their happiness, but their overall heart-health.

Perhaps all the talk of nationalizing health care or increases in health insurance costs could be reduced if only we, as a society, worked to make marriages strong.    

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. 

Huh?

We are not inclined to criticize the Charleston Gazette very often.  After all, they are kind enough to publish several of the op-ed’s we have submitted.  Besides, like them or hate them, they are the largest newspaper in West Virginia.But, in light of the Family Voice post yesterday, we found today’s editorial interesting.  

What was interesting to me was not that the Gazette has now managed to squeeze the words “fundamentalist” and “puritanical” into at least 4 editorials over the past 2 weeks.  What was interesting was this conclusory line:

In addition to abstinence lectures, youths need practical, commonsense, matter-of-fact instruction about birth control and disease prevention.

Much could be made of this line, I suppose.  First, the obvious irony is that IF we as parents managed to instruct our youths to abstain until marriage, both the teen pregnancy rate and percentage of sexually transmitted diseases would plummet.  This, of course, would also require that parents, rather than professional educators and government social workers, assume the lion’s share of the sex education of their children.   

Second, if we as a society would treat the act of sex as something to be treasured, rather something to be shared as casually as a handshake, perhaps we would see a growing reluctance in teens toward premarital sex.

But, I rather like that the author of that op-ed chose the word “commonsense” to describe the type of instruction needed to lower teen pregnancy and the spread of STD’s.  Perhaps a simple syllogism will illustrate just how commonsense abstinence is for both of those issues.

STD’s are contracted by having sex with more than one partner.  Abstinence means having no sex until doing so only with one’s spouse.  Therefore, if one practices abstinence, one cannot contract an STD.

Teen pregnancy results from teens having sex.  Abstinence means having no sex until doing so only with one’s spouse.  Therefore, those teens who abstain will not have a teen pregnancy. 

What could be more commonsense about that? 

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?

The View from the Back of the Bus

By now, most of us are aware of the California judge’s ruling that, “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.”  

I agree.

Now, before you misunderstand me, let me qualify my agreement: I agree that parents in California (or any other state, for that matter) do not have aconstitutional right to home school their children; I believe they have a fundamental right to determine the upbringing of their children - including educational choices.  

Our society was founded upon the principle that our rights were “endowed to us by our Creator.”  Government gets what we were endowed with only by “the consent of the governed.”  Sadly, much of our culture has forgotten that our rights were given to us “unalienably” - by no man given, by no man can they be taken.  

The decision by this California-dreamin’ judge worries so many of our families, not necessarily because of the implications it could have upon home schooling (though worthy and valid), but because parents have been forcibly shoved one seat further back in the bus, while government wrests the controls as the “experts” in the rearing of our families.  

We do not disagree that our children ought to be educated by qualified individuals.  We simply disagree on who decides who is qualified.  When professional educators substitute their own agenda for what is best for the family, it is our children who suffer. 

For even better articulation of this issue, see Albert Mohler’s blog entry from last Friday.