By Dr. Michael A. Milton

We were told this would not happen. We were told to just let the bill pass and read it later. Well, we are reading it now. And the fine print doesn’t look good for religious freedom.

Perhaps you have heard about last Sunday’s “pulpit protest” by Roman Catholic priests around the nation over the administration’s mandated health care program which will require Catholic institutions — universities, hospitals and seminaries to “tow the line” regarding national health care mandates; notably, the requirement to provide insurance that will promote contraception and ultimately abortion.

The protest is unprecedented by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But make no mistake. This is not a Catholic issue only. It is not a contraception issue. It is a religious liberty issue. It is an American issue.

Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted was spot-on when he preached, “we cannot, we will not, comply with this unjust law. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build (America) … Or to have the posterity stripped of their God given rights…” This Presbyterian says, “Amen,” to that Catholic bishop.

As the next chancellor and CEO of one of America’s largest protestant seminaries, I can tell you that the Obama health care mandate is already having an enormous impact on our ministry. Yet until this latest revelation, the impact has mostly been financial. In a word, this thing is going to be extraordinarily expensive.

Now, unless there is a wholesale repeal of this Act or unless there is dramatic and immediate steps taken to curb the government’s prying into the consciences of religious institutions like our seminary, or other similar religious organizations that appeal to a Higher Law than Man’s, we will have a constitutional crisis on our hands. I realize that those are heavy words. But we must all realize that this is a weighty matter.

It is interesting that Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday (February 6th, 1911) is going to be celebrated as this crisis unfolds before us. He had something to say about how government mandated medicine steals liberty. Back in 1961 then actor and General Electric spokesman, Ronald Reagan, warned America:

“One of the traditional ways of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine…”

Reagan went on to describe how a secularist government would use national health care to advance other leftist agendas. He also went on to quote a founder who warned against the loss of liberty through gradual intrusion of a meddling government:

James Madison warned, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (James Madison, speech in the Virginia ratifying convention on control of the military, June 16, 1788 in: History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, Vol. 1, p. 130 [H.B. Grigsby, ed. 1890]).

If liberty and freedom were a government-issued right then it would have the prerogative to take it back. But liberty and freedom, as our founders declared, come from God. To meddle with those rights of conscience is to return to the crisis of human rights that gave rise to this nation. Unless these violations of religious rights are expelled, now, they will bring ruin to this nation.

It is time for Americans to speak up for religious freedom while there is still time. Thank God for the Catholic Bishops and priests who did. We all must. For you can’t lose just a little liberty. You lose — we lose — all of it when we lose any of it.

(Ph.D., University of Wales) serves as the chancellor/CEO elect of Reformed Theological Seminary (one of the largest accredited seminaries in the country), a U.S. Army chaplain (instructing at the Armed Forces Chaplain School) and the James M. Baird Jr. chair of pastoral theology at RTS/Charlotte. He is an author, songwriter, singer, ordained minister, former pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Chattanooga, Tenn., and he previously served as the president of RTS/Charlotte. Dr. Milton also hosts a national Bible teaching television program, Faith For Living, broadcast on the NRB Television Network, and a radio program broadcast on several stations in the southeast. For 16 years he served in the business world and has also served as a top-secret Navy linguist.

Christian Newswire

He has already given up on the white male vote. Is he now giving up those “bitterly clinging” to their religion also? Will there be anyone left to vote for Obama besides his radical socialist base?

Obama’s history with abortion is not pleasant. As a senator in Illinois he argued for a law that would allow survivors of abortion to die without medical treatment.

From ‘What you need to know about the `Born Alive’ controversy and Barack Obama‘ in a August 20, 2004 article at the Chicago Tribune:

Here’s some of what Obama said on April 4, 2002 during floor debate in the Illinois Senate:

The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child—however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mothers’ womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s,  let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, (the fetus is) not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved….. The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, …that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Pro life activist Jill Stanek noted then senator Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide in an article on WorldNetDaily.com in January of 2008. Among the reasons was #10:

“10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”

More recently Obama has raised the ire of Catholic groups. Cliff Kincaid wrote in a previous article about Obamacare rules violating religious conscience:

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

 

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

 

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

 

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

The Obama administration also put its abortion advocacy above sex trafficking victims. Lifesite News reported:

For over a decade, we have achieved an amazing left-right, religious-secular, bicameral, bipartisan consensus, unified in combating sex and labor trafficking at home and worldwide without promoting abortion.

Until today.

In what can only be described as an unconscionable abuse of power, the Obama Administration has engaged in what amounts to bid rigging; denying taxpayer funds to a demonstrably superior organization—the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)—with an exemplary ten year track record of performance that scored significantly higher in independent HHS reviews than two of the three NGOs that got the grant.

The Obama Administration’s discriminatory practice of funding NGOs that provide or refer for abortions even when they fail to win a competitive process is not only unjust, unethical and in violation of conscience laws (Weldon Amendment and Coats-Snowe), but it severely undermines public—and Congressional—confidence and support for what is an otherwise laudable program.

If you are a Catholic, or other faith-based NGO, or a secular organization of conscience, there is now clear proof that your grant application will not be considered under a fair, impartial, and transparent process by the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration’s bias against Catholics is an affront to religious freedom and a threat to all people of faith.

Follow Michael Whipple on Twitter

Follow usACTIONnews on Twitter or on Facebook

Mr. Terry’s pro-life ads are protected by Federal Law. Mr. Terry’s graphic ads have already run (in conjunction with the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary) in eight states: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine.

The Terry Campaign Super Bowl Ad is scheduled to run in 13 cities in 6 states as of 1/30/12.

Mr. Terry has met all the legal qualifications to be on the ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and as a write in candidate for Illinois.   Mr. Terry’s attorney, Jason Craddock, affiliated with the Thomas More Society, states:

 ”The DNC’s action is sheer deceptive thuggery. They imagine themselves above the law and in their letter (which thinly veils their intent) they direct the media to break the law as well, all for the sake of hiding the gruesome, bloody reality of the President’s policies and promotion of abortion without limits.”

Mr. Terry States:

“I — unlike the President — can prove that I am a legally qualified candidate for President; that I am legally on the ballot in the states in question; that I have met every legal standard imposed on me by the FEC and the FCC.

 

“Which is more noteworthy: the arrogance, or the fear of the Obama/DNC team? We know that Obama does not want America to see an ad that shows his record of promoting child killing via unbridled abortion, but to openly call on stations to break the law shows a level of panic and folly that is surprising. Of course, if Obama would promote the murder of babies through abortion…why not promote the violation of FCC law? Pride goes before the fall, Mr. President.”

Gaspard was Obama’s White House Political Affairs director until January of 2011. He has ties to ACORN also. Discover the Networks notes:

By 2001, Gaspard was a leading activist with the New York Working Families Party (WFP), an outgrowth of the New Party.

In 2001 Gaspard served as political director for Bertha Lewis, who was, at that time, the head of ACORN‘s New York chapter. (Lewis would go on to become ACORN’s chief national organizer seven years later.) In the July 2, 2001 issue of The Nation, Gaspard and Lewis jointly published a letter defending the Working Families Party against its critics. In that letter, the authors described their extensive joint involvement in WFP activities; they signed their names as: ”Bertha Lewis, ACORN, WFP”; and “Patrick Gaspard, SEIU State Council, WFP.”

As of 2009, Gaspard is was listed as an advisory board member of the WFP-aligned Working Families Center.

The ACORN front group Working Families Party has been shown to be in on funding and organizing the Occupy movement from the beginning.

Carl Horowitz at NLPC points out that “Patrick Gaspard was serving as a New Party organizer in New Jersey. He would continue his work for its successor group, the Working Families Party, a New York City entity co-founded by ACORN activists, most of all, longtime New York ACORN boss Bertha Lewis, a hardcore radical who serves as party co-chair.”

Patrick Gaspard was the “Karl Rove” of the Obama White house helping to shape domestic policy  issues.

Obama’s history with abortion is not pleasant. As a senator in Illinois he argued for a law that would allow survivors of abortion to die without medical treatment.

From ‘What you need to know about the `Born Alive’ controversy and Barack Obama‘ in a August 20, 2004 article at the Chicago Tribune:

Here’s some of what Obama said on April 4, 2002 during floor debate in the Illinois Senate:

The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child—however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mothers’ womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s,  let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, (the fetus is) not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved….. The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, …that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Pro life activist Jill Stanek noted then senator Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide in an article on WorldNetDaily.com in January of 2008. Among the reasons was #10:

“10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”

More recently Obama has raised the ire of Catholic groups. Cliff Kincaid wrote in a previous article about Obamacare rules violating religious conscience:

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

 

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

 

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

 

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

The Obama administration also put its abortion advocacy above sex trafficking victims. Lifesite News reported:

For over a decade, we have achieved an amazing left-right, religious-secular, bicameral, bipartisan consensus, unified in combating sex and labor trafficking at home and worldwide without promoting abortion.

Until today.

In what can only be described as an unconscionable abuse of power, the Obama Administration has engaged in what amounts to bid rigging; denying taxpayer funds to a demonstrably superior organization—the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)—with an exemplary ten year track record of performance that scored significantly higher in independent HHS reviews than two of the three NGOs that got the grant.

The Obama Administration’s discriminatory practice of funding NGOs that provide or refer for abortions even when they fail to win a competitive process is not only unjust, unethical and in violation of conscience laws (Weldon Amendment and Coats-Snowe), but it severely undermines public—and Congressional—confidence and support for what is an otherwise laudable program.

If you are a Catholic, or other faith-based NGO, or a secular organization of conscience, there is now clear proof that your grant application will not be considered under a fair, impartial, and transparent process by the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration’s bias against Catholics is an affront to religious freedom and a threat to all people of faith.

No wonder the DNC is using its left wing radical from Obama’s White House staff to coerce TV stations into refusing to run Randall Terr’ys graphic pro-life ads.

These ads tell the truth about abortion and Obama. Watch if you dare:

To see the DNC letter go here

By Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com

Follow Michael Whipple on Twitter

Follow usACTIONnews on Twitter or on Facebook

Go to www.TerryForPresident.com to see Super Bowl Ad Obama campaign does not want voters to see.

By Cliff Kincaid

My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.

The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.

At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

Support for the latter explanation comes in the form of the Obama Administration’s efforts to co-opt the Catholic Church, primarily through appointing nominal Catholics to high-level positions in government and keeping funding going to the church for “social justice” causes. Another player in this effort is the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, an atheist who nevertheless has found groups that are “Catholic in name only” to accept his financial largesse. These groups, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are designed to give the impression that Catholics are less concerned about issues like stopping abortion and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage than passing government health care. The Obama/Soros gamble may be backfiring.

It’s true that the bishops went along with Obama’s health care scheme, even lobbying on its behalf. But now they seem to be realizing that the plan was a Trojan Horse designed to force population control measures on the people of the United States. It will be difficult for the bishops to continue working with the administration on other issues, like immigration. They have drawn a line in the sand. They cannot back down.

Father Larry Swink of Jesus The Divine Word Catholic Church in Huntingtown, Maryland, is not alone in his tough language. Pittsburgh Bishop David A. Zubik posted a letter on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh’s website that said, “It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it.” He added, “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.”

You know it’s serious when the bishops are talking about heaven and hell.

Indeed, Fr. Swink opened his discussion of what he described as the evil nature of the Obama Administration by reading from scripture about Jesus casting out demons. He saw the order on health care coverage as the start of religious persecution. The congregation joined him in calls of “Amen” when he challenged them to stand tall with the church.

You cannot expect the secular Washington Post to go along with such rhetoric. But even its liberal editorial writer saw the ramifications of the health care order, perhaps anticipating the confrontation that we now see developing. From the point of view of this liberal paper, the Obama Administration is not only undermining religious freedom but risking a major backlash to its overall “progressive” agenda and even a second term in office.

Some may see this battle as just another church-state dust-up that will be resolved through litigation. But when apocalyptic imagery is used, such as what I heard at my church on Sunday, one must wonder if there is an awakening on the part of the Catholic community and if there is something else going on here besides politics as usual. In short, is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?

            Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

By Terence P. Jeffrey at CNSNews.com

EXCERPTS:

The regulation further requires that health-insurance plans must provide sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients without any fees or co-pay.

The regulation, issued as part of the initial implementation of Obamacare, requires Catholics to act against their faith–which teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion violate the natural law and that Catholics cannot be involved in them.

In a statement, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops immediately condemned the administration’s decision to move forward with the regulation as “literally unconscionable.”

The regulation will go into effect on Aug. 1.

FULL ARTICLE

By Cathy Cleaver Ruse - The Washington Times

EXCERPTS:

“If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.” Perpetuating this cruel charade on the little boy and forcing little girls to participate in it is “inclusiveness” to the Girl Scouts. To others, it’s child abuse.

But it shouldn’t be surprising: The Girl Scouts have a cross-dresser in the front office.

Several years ago. a quarter of the Girl Scout councils nationwide admitted to partnering with Planned Parenthood, the nation’s abortion giant.

Heard enough? There’s a lot more at 100questionsforthegirlscouts.org.

FULL ARTICLE

“The House-passed bill ensures that taxpayer funds are prioritized to entities dedicated to providing comprehensive health care to women, not abortion,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B Anthony List. “This is a great victory in what has become a nationwide battle to stop taxpayer funding of abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.”

“It is time to get New Hampshire taxpayers out of the abortion business,” said Michael Tierney, an Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney in Manchester, New Hampshire. “Planned Parenthood’s business model is centered on abortion, and New Hampshire taxpayers want no part in it.”

“Every innocent life deserves to be protected. Taxpayer dollars should go toward helping and caring for the most vulnerable Americans, not killing them,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Mike Norton. “New Hampshire taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortions.”

This victory in New Hampshire preempts the announcement of the SBA List’s national campaign to Expose & Defund Planned Parenthood, which will be made public on January 23, 2012 during Dannenfelser’s “State of the Unborn” address, made on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

The SBA List has long supported efforts in the “Live Free or Die” state to defund abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. To date, SBA List activists in New Hampshire have sent more than 94,000 messages to their elected representatives on the issue. In June 2011, the New Hampshire Executive Council voted to cancel a $1.8 million dollar contract with Planned Parenthood, citing that taxpayers would be subsidizing the abortion business. Following the measure, SBA List held a rally in Concord, New Hampshire to show support for the Council’s vote, urging them to stay the course despite pressure from Planned Parenthood lobbyists for a re-vote.

Later in September 2009, the New Hampshire Executive Council filed a formal protest with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Government Accountability Office following the Obama Administration’s award of a non-competitive $1 million contract with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, bypassing the state’s earlier decision to reject taxpayer funding of the abortion giant.

Including New Hampshire, nine states have successfully defunded Planned Parenthood of over $61.7 million.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of more than 330,000 Americans dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2012 /Christian Newswire

A pro-death blogger on the Abortion Gang has tried to use Tebow to raise funds for more baby killing:

A few years back, the-best-person-and-football-player-on-the-planet, Tim
Tebow, the savior from The University of Florida, Heisman Trophy winner,
2010 number 25 draft pick, and now savior quarterback for the Denver
Broncos, made a commercial….he was selling anti-choice propaganda. In his commercial (funded by Focus on the Family) he reminded everyone that his mother was a missionary whose life was threatened by her pregnancy – or more specifically, the pregnancy that would turn into the child who would become the man who would become Tim Tebow. Sophia Brugato, The Abortion Gang, December 13, 2011

This about Tebow from Amy Lutz at TheGOPNet:

Tim Tebow’s endearing nature transfers into life off the field as well. He doesn’t criticize his teammates; he encourages them when they make mistakes. Lost games (or, rather, game) and play failures are taken in stride. Additionally, the young quarterback is perhaps the most unabashed, passionate Christian in the public sphere today. When the Broncos appear to be on the edge of defeat, Tebow calmly sings hymns to fuel his spirit. At post-game press conferences, he always remembers to thank “Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior” and takes a knee and prays after touchdowns and before games in a practice that’s now mockingly known as “Tebowing.”

For some, Tim Tebow has become a symbol of inspiration; yet, for others, he’s no more than a target of mockery. Various football players, like Detroit’s Stephen Tulloch, have started “Tebowing,” not as a sign of worship, but as an insult. After Tulloch sacked Tebow in Denver’s only loss since the boy wonder has taken charge, the linebacker knelt down and “Tebowed,” “thanking God” that he had knocked his adversary to the ground. Many people outside the football world have taken part in the Tebow-bashing as well. The often-insufferable and former CNN host Bill Press claimed that Tebow is a “disgrace” and “embarrassment” and proclaimed that he should STFU about Jesus (for those of you who don’t know, I’ll leave it up to you to figure out what that stands for).

Tebow is perpetually at odds with the nasty, below-the-belt criticism of his unwavering faith and unshakable spirit. However, this has yet to faze him.

And from the Denver Post:

The sellout crowd of 75,970 at Sports Authority Field at Mile High erupted in celebration. Witnesses said that in Denver neighborhoods, delirious people were screaming from their balconies. Patrons at Denver-area bars were heard chanting, “Te-bow! Te-bow!”

Tebowmania is once again inflated. It was the Broncos’ first playoff victory in six years.

Tebow had just come off back-to-back rough performances against the lowly Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs to close out the regular season. He spent the week covering his ears from a deluge of insults from local and national media outlets.

And for an example of Tim Tebow’s faith in action watch this video of him acknowledging a faithful fan who has had severe problems: http://denver.cbslocal.com/video/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6623840

By Bruce Walker at American Thinker

EXCERPTS:

Does the left [...] not grasp the horrors of the sexual revolution — the millions of abortions, huge subsets of America’s babies born out of wedlock, a huge rise in sexually transmitted diseases, and the general collapse of the nuclear family?

How high does our rate of teenage suicide have to go before leftists like Colmes grasp that the values which most Americans have historically held are not ignorant, but rather wise?  Many of our teenagers are drowning in drugs and booze.  Their media idols lead horrific lives which often end in early death.

Instead of making Heaven, we have opened new doors of Hell.

FULL ARTICLE

By Penny Starr at CNSNews.com

EXCERPTS:

According to PPFA’s annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008,  in 2007 Planned Parenthood’s “adoption referrals to other agencies” totaled 4,912. In Fiscal Year 2010 that number was 841, a decrease of 82.8 percent.

The PPFA Fact Sheet states that adoption is included in 1 percent of services in 2008 (primary care and “other services” are included in that 1 percent), or 2,405 adoption referrals.

The latest annual report claims that abortion services make up 3 percent of “medical services,” but PPFA states it served 3 million people and performed 329,445 abortions – numbers that show 11 percent of customers received an abortion.

The Fiscal Year 2009-2010 annual report also shows that PPFA’s net assets as of June 30, 2010 topped $1 billion, specifically $1,009,600,000.00.

“With over a billion in net assets and a business model centered on abortion and government subsidies, it is time for Planned Parenthood to end its reliance on taxpayer dollars,” Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Despite an unprecedented effort by statewide and federal leaders to defund them, a wave of former employees willing to testify against them, and uniform agreement amongst Republican presidential candidates that they should be defunded, Planned Parenthood continues full-steam ahead.”

FULL ARTICLE