Family Policy Discussions

What is a Values Voter?

2011-10-11T14:03:00.001-07:00

Last week at the Values Voters Summit in Washington D.C., Texas Governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry introduced his speech with an off-the-cuff comment about how really, we’re all values voters. “The only question,” he said “is whose values are you voting for”?

This is true of course. The belief that abortion is wrong is undeniably a values based position—as is the belief that women have the right to end the life of their child if it happens to be inconvenient to them. There may be factual disagreements about whether or not it is a child, or disagreements over whether mitigating factors are relevant to the rightness or wrongness of the final decision. But ultimately, whatever your conclusion, it is a values based conclusion based on your belief about what is right or wrong, good or bad.

Such is life in all of public policy.

However, for too long, the left has claimed a sort of moral high ground by positioning themselves as the liaise faire lovers of freedom while denigrating the right as moralists intent on imposing their narrow view of right and wrong on the masses. They self-righteously condemn those who want to “moralize” issues of life and marriage while failing to recognize their own moralism reflected in zoning restrictions, hate-speech legislation, graduated income taxes, or land use regulations.

Ultimately, the discussion about who is the greater moralist is a fruitless conversation because it distracts us from talking about actual issues. And as much as I know this will pain many of my friends on the left, we should all be willing to admit that, regardless of our conclusion, we have a values based understanding of the world which informs our preferences.

Fortunately, there is evidence that this truth may be penetrating the American psyche.

Robert Reich, a leftist talking head who served in the Ford, Carter, and Clinton administrations, referred to President Obama’s recent proposal to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as a “moral battle”. And he seems quite pleased about it.

He explains the moral imperative of raising taxes by explain how unjust it is that so much of America’s wealth is in the hands of our countries’ wealthiest individuals. The point is not to debate Mr. Reich’s tax policy preferences, but to highlight the admission that his preference for higher taxes is a moral one. And the need to raise them is not necessitated simply by budget realities, but by a fixed standard of right and wrong that he apparently expects the rest of us to know about. No relativism here.

So far, neither the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the ACLU, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation have compared Mr. Reich to the Taliban nor have they warned us of the looming theocracy that will be established if these moralists get their way. That, of course, is reserved only for situations in which James Dobson makes a moral argument.

But we can hope that the silence in response to Mr. Reich’s moral appeal is a foreshadowing of a future in which we can admit that all of us really are values voters. Perhaps then, instead of obsessing over who is the worst person, we can move on to the more important discussion of who is right.

Best,

Joseph Backholm
Executive Director

Government Requires Insurance to Pay for Contraceptives

2011-09-27T11:28:00.000-07:00

By Rebecca Faust,

Federal agencies recently issued regulations under the new health care act impinging on the freedom of pro-life citizens to not purchase contraceptives. However, they are still accepting public comment on these regulations from citizens like you.

At the beginning of August, the Health Resources and Services Administration added contraceptives to the list of services which health insurance plans are required to cover without a co-pay. While this does not include surgical abortions, it does include morning after pills which can prevent implantation of an embryo. Furthermore, some churches and individuals have religious beliefs against use of any artificial contraceptives, even those which don't cause abortion.

On August third, the Department of Health and Human Services issued interim final rules authorizing the Health Resources and Services Administration to make a religious exemption to the contraceptives requirement for churches. These rules were declared effective August first, two days before their official publication. It appears that the release of the two sets of regulations was coordinated.

But the limited religious exemption allowed by the Department of Health and Human Services provides inadequate protection.

The exemption only applies to certain non-profits. It does not protect pro-life business owners purchasing health care for their employees. It does not provide an option for companies who would prefer not to spend their money in that way.

In addition to qualifying as a non-profit under the Internal Revenue Code, organizations would need to meet three criteria to qualify for the exemption:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.

(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.

(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.

This still leaves Christian charities endeavoring to serve the public unprotected. Ironically, even a pro-life pregnancy resource center would not meet the criteria for a religious exemption if it wanted to provide health insurance for employees.

Furthermore, there is no exemption for individual health insurance plans. This could leave pro-life citizens who choose to purchase health insurance for themselves in the tenuous position of paying into a program which subsidizes services contrary to their moral beliefs.

While this may happen already through some health care plans, these new regulations virtually insure the absence of options for those wishing to sell or purchase insurance plans grounded in pro-life ethics.

Finally, this situation will be compounded if and when the individual mandate takes effect. The price for refusing to subsidize contraceptives now may be remaining uninsured. The price in the future may be greater.

For those of you who already have insurance, it should be noted that your plan may be grandfathered so that it won't be required to include free contraceptives.

You can submit comments to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the religious exemption. Comments on the department's interim final rules must be submitted by the end of the month. If you would like them to broaden the religious exemption to better protect pro-life citizens, now is the time to say so. You can submit your comment online: www.regulations.gov. The identifier for the interim final rules is: CMS-9992-IFC2.

You can also submit comments to the Health Resources and Services Administration regarding whether insurance companies should be required to cover contraceptives at all. The Resources and Services Administration is accepting comments on an ongoing basis. Email them your comments at: womensguidelines@hrsa.gov.

How Pastors Helped Marriage in NC

2011-09-20T15:55:00.000-07:00

Last week, the Governor of North Carolina convened a special legislative session to consider a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Like Washington, amending the state constitution in North Carolina requires two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and a majority of the public to support it on the ballot before it can become part of the constitution. Getting the measure through the legislature is thought to be the more difficult step. It is expected to pass when it goes to a vote next year.

But an interesting thing happened on the road to getting the measure on the ballot.

The amendment had already passed in the State House but needed 30 votes in the State Senate. There are 31 Republicans in the North Carolina state Senate, one of whom was unable to vote for health reasons.

One other Republican State Senator was undecided. It was his vote that would determine whether or not the marriage protection amendment would receive a vote.

That is the point at which a group of pastors from his district got together to see what they could do on behalf of marriage in North Carolina. They didn't protest, they didn't picket outside his office, they didn't call the press and make statements about Sodom. They simply got together and visited with him in his office.

They discussed the issue, prayed together, thanked him for his willingness to sacrifice to serve the public, and encouraged him to let the people of North Carolina vote on whether marriage should be protected in the state constitution.

And when it was all said and done, that is exactly what that he did. And after the vote, the pastors who visited him in the 11th hour were given much of the credit for helping create that outcome.

You will probably never know the names of the pastors involved. That is probably how they prefer it. Still, what happened in North Carolina is a perfect example of what can be done if the church is paying attention and willing to get involved. These pastors weren't required to turn their churches into political action committees. They did not hijack the gospel for political purposes. They simply did what they're called to do.

This kind of ministry is not outside the realm of what a pastor should be engaged in. Some might say that it is precisely what pastors are called to do. It just so happens that a byproduct of ministering to this person made a positive contribution to the culture as well as to the individual. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Joseph Backholm

Executive Director

Family Policy Institute of Washington

Abortion and Mental Health - A New Look

2011-09-13T12:36:00.000-07:00

By Donald F. Calbreath, Ph.D

As the Washington state legislature prepares for its next session, we can anticipate pro-abortion forces once again trying to close crisis pregnancy centers. These centers provide a number of valuable services to pregnant women and their partners - pregnancy testing, counseling, health information, and adoption services among others. What they do not provide is abortions. This "lack" is something that greatly offends "pro-choice" supporters (whose only "approved" choice appears to be abortion) (1).

In the last legislative session, Planned Parenthood and its allies strongly supported HB 2837 (and its companion Senate bill 6452) which would have severely limited the activities of crisis pregnancy centers (2). Pro-life opponents said that these centers were providing false information to clients, including misinformation about links between abortion and breast cancer (worth another column at another time) and between abortion and mental health. Planned Parenthood's web site indicates that abortion is a relatively benign procedure for a psychological standpoint (3). They cite research studies that suggest few (if any) mental health issues for women undergoing an abortion. There are a number of problems with this work, including the fact that the most current reference is over five years old. No discussion of current literature is provided, leaving us with a very incomplete and misleading picture of the impact of abortion on mental health.

Some of Planned Parenthood's criticisms are valid. Early studies did not correct for experimental bias. But their studies try to muddy the water by looking at women who have had children and the mental health effects on these individuals. Yes, many women experience depression after birth of a child, especially if they did not want the child to start with. But what does the current research literature say about the direct mental health effects of abortion? The picture is clearly different from what pro-choice advocates tell us.

Without doing an exhaustive survey of the literature, we want to focus on a few key papers that have appeared that represent quality peer-reviewed research on this issue. A 2007 publication (4) concluded that "High rates of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) characterise women who have undergone voluntary pregnancy termination." A report in the British Journal of Psychiatry (5) concluded that "...women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder that were about 30% higher." A very recent study, which appeared within the last couple of months, also reported adverse effects of abortion (6). The abstract to the article stated "Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion." It went on to say "Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services."

An often-neglected aspect of the abortion-mental health debate is the impact of abortion on men. A Townhall column last year summarizes several research studies that looked at how abortion affects the men involved in the pregnancy (7). They write "In researching the topic, we found a variety of books, websites and support groups dedicated to male post-abortion trauma, as well as a number of studies on the issue. One study reported that 82 percent of male parents of a recently aborted baby (ranging from two days to 37 months) experienced depression. Another study found that men experienced anxiety, helplessness, guilt, and a dual sense of responsibility and regret during an abortion. An additional study reported that many biological fathers need professional support in dealing with abortion and its impact on relationships."

A very interesting summary of recent medical articles summarizing the adverse emotional effects of abortion can be found at the web site of the Elliott Institute which is "a leader in the field of research, education, and advocacy for women, men, children and families hurt by abortion" (from their web site) (8).

A quick search on Google for post-abortion support groups provided a lengthy list of organizations that are involved in post-abortion counseling and healing of various sorts. We have to ask the question: if abortion does not have an adverse effect on mental health, why do all these groups exist? They are here because there is real pain, real guilt, and real remorse that need healing.

The myth that abortion does not create mental health problems is just that - a myth. The truth is that everyone involved is harmed one way or another by abortion - the unborn child, the mother, and the father. Pro-abortion advocates cannot be allowed to spread misinformation about this serious topic.

1. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/25/state-4753/

2. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2837&year=2009

3. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/research-papers/emotional-effects-induced-abortion-6137.htm

4. "Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation", S. Suliman et al, BMC Psychiatry volume 7, 24, (2007).

5. "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study", D.M. Fergusson et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, volume 193, pp 444-451 (2008).

6. "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009", Priscilla K. Coleman, British Journal of Psychiatry volume 199, pp 180-186, (2011).

7. "A Woman's "Choice" That Affects Men: Post-Abortion Trauma", Jerry DeBin and Jeanne Monahan, Townhall, June 20, 2010

8. http://afterabortion.org/

Planned Parenthood Admits Failure

2011-09-08T16:20:00.000-07:00

During the last legislative session, the Washington State legislature chose to increase funding for Planned Parenthood through a contraceptive program called "Take Charge". In our testimony in opposition to HB 5912, we explained that there is no evidence to suggest that increasing funding for contraceptives actually reduces the unintended pregnancy rates.

Now, only a few months later, the Guttmacher Institute, which was started as a division of Planned Parenthood, has reached the same conclusion.

In a recently released analysis, the Guttmacher Institute confirmed that the overall unintended pregnancy rate in the U.S. has remained essentially flat since 1994. This is despite a steady increase in funding for contraceptives topping out at $305 million per year in 2006.

Planned Parenthood has been one of the primary proponents of increased funding for contraceptives as a way of reducing unintended pregnancies and reducing costs for governments. That theory is much of the reason that funding for Planned Parenthood has increased from $187 million per year in 1999 to more than $363 million in 2009.

Yet all the evidence suggests that despite this massive increase in funding for contraceptives generally and Planned Parenthood specifically, the efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies through contraception have not been successful.

Still, the increased funding for Planned Parenthood has had a significant effect. As they have increased the size of their operations under the guise of reducing unintended pregnancies, they have managed to dramatically increase the number of abortions they provide. In 1999, Planned Parenthood performed 183,000 abortions. They performed 265,000 in 2005 and 332,278 in 2009.

These increases in Planned Parenthood abortions occurred during a period in which abortions decreased 15% nationally.

The fact that money for contraceptives does not reduce pregnancy is not a state secret. This information has been available for years and has been presented to the Washington State legislature as well as other legislative bodies.

However, the money directed to Planned Parenthood is not necessarily expected to accomplish an actual public purpose. That money is distributed to Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood is very active in the elections of those who pass these bills. Until the political pressure not to give money to Planned Parenthood is stronger than the political benefit from doing so, you can expect Planned Parenthood to continue to get public dollars despite their admitted failures.

Joseph Backholm
Executive Director
Family Policy Institute of Washington

Washington’s Orphans Need You

2011-08-22T21:32:00.000-07:00

Did you know that Washington has more than 10,000 children in foster care today? Did you know that more than 1,000 of those children are free to be adopted, if only a home could be found for them?

The world has lots of problems with no obvious solutions, but this isn’t one of them.

Join Focus on the Family, the Washington Department of Social and Health Services as well as church and adoption leaders from around Washington on Saturday, September 24, 2011 at Overlake Christian Church in Redmond, WA. You'll hear more about the kids who are waiting, the process of adoption from foster care and ways to support adoptive families. In addition, agency and county representatives will be on site to answer questions and help you get started.

Pure and undefiled religion before God is to look after orphans and widows in their time of need. This half-day conference will be a great opportunity to understand how you can help be part of the solution and engage those in your community to solve this problem. So join with thousands of others from around Washington State who share a goal of taking care of the most vulnerable children in our communities.

Click here to get more information about this event.

Or if you don’t need any more information and you know you have all the information you need because there are just some things in life you really don’t have to pray about, you can register here.

We look forward to seeing you there.

Polygamist Lawsuit Uses Same-Sex "Marriage" Arguments

2011-08-02T12:57:00.000-07:00

By Joseph Backholm, Executive Director

The last thing in the world same-sex "marriage" advocates want to talk about is polygamy. If you ever tell them marriage recognition for same-sex relationships requires recognition of polygamy as well, the usual response is, "we're not talking about polygamy." Nor will they, even if you want them to.

Polygamy exposes the weakness of the same-sex "marriage" debate like nothing else. By refusing to openly support polygamy, in addition to same-sex "marriage", advocates admit that they really don't want "marriage equality" like they say they do. They just want their recognition. They are apparently content to allow other sexual minorities to wallow in their ostracism. Which, given their own history, is ironic.

They dislike discussing polygamy because it is impossible to make a legal distinction between polygamy and homosexuality with respect to legal status. They realize public opinion does not support polygamy. Therefore, if the public comes to understand that same-sex "marriage" will create precedent that will pave the way for the recognition of other, less popular relationships involving loving, consenting adults, they are less likely to win the debate.

Therefore, they would rather ignore a discussion about legal and social precedent and focus on the fact that most gay people are decent people and good neighbors. As true as that may be, it is a hollow foundation on which to build public policy.

For the past 20 years, the same-sex "marriage" advocates have been fairly successful in divorcing homosexuality from polygamy. The sympathies generated for same-sex "marriage" have not been extended to polygamists, despite the fact that there is no rational. legal reason to distinguish them.

That is why the lawsuit filed by polygamist Jonathan Turley, whose family is featured on the reality show Sister Wives, could end up being very significant in the on-going discussion over same-sex "marriage."

Turley's lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws. His arguments rely heavily on the 2003 Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas which was a landmark case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Subsequently, Lawrence v. Texas has been cited heavily in cases finding a legal right to same-sex "marriage". In that case, the Supreme Court said:

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Simply substitute the word "homosexual" for the word "polygamous" and nothing about this argument changes. Once you stand on the principle of "government cannot care what people do sexually, as long as it involves adults" you have to be prepared for where that road will lead. If you didn't contemplate the possibilities in advance, that's just poor planning.

This lawsuit and its arguments are not surprising. Even those in the gay community knew that their work for same-sex "marriage" would be used by those in polygamous or even incestuous relationships. The parallels are impossible to ignore. They just hoped it wouldn't be this soon.

Four Days to Double Your Investment

2011-07-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

Last week we told you about an exciting matching opportunity that allows you to double your investment for the month of July. A generous ministry friend has offered to match every dollar, up to $20,000, that will be raised for the rest of July. Will you help us maximize this opportunity?

So far, many of you have. And we’re thankful. But we still have about halfway to go in order to make sure we take full advantage of this opportunity.

Whether its $5 or $500, your support makes our work to change the culture possible.

Summer can be a difficult season financially. But thanks to your support, we can continue focusing on the work that needs to be done. And as you know, there is a lot of work to be done.

The decision of the New York state legislature to pass same-sex “marriage” only weeks ago reminds us of the inevitability of that debate here in Washington. Since it is inevitable, we should prepare. If we do not prepare, we will lose.

Our desire to make sure we are prepared like never before is the motivation behind our extensive efforts to educate, motivate, and mobilize.

It is the reason we held our statewide pastor’s conference.

That is why we are putting Culture Impact Teams in churches throughout Washington. These citizen led organizations exist to remind the church that every Christian is a duel citizen-a citizen of heaven and a citizen of earth-and that we have obligations to both.

That is also why we are conducting Truth Project Trainings throughout Washington State. We have already done them in Spokane, Vancouver, and Renton, and are making plans for more this fall. As a result, nearly 100 individuals have been trained to lead small groups that will encourage their communities to think biblically about the culture, including: art, media, history, economics, philosophy, and more.

That is why we continue to build relationships with legislators. In August, we will be bringing legislators from Washington together with legislators from around the country for a Legislative Worldview Training in Louisiana. The title of the conference is "Consequences of Truth" where Chuck Colson, and other leading thinkers on issues related to worldview, will encourage legislators to think about how the reality of Truth impacts the ways they govern.

If you are excited about what is taking place on behalf of the culture and families here in Washington, we know you'll be excited to be part of it.

Thank you for your support. And please remember, your gift will be doubled for the remainder of July, up to $20,000.

Administration Threatens Conscience Rights

2011-07-25T15:06:00.000-07:00

Here in Washington, the state has been working for years to force pharmacists who are pro-life must choose between being in business or violating their conscience.

It appears that same war on individual freedom is now being waged in Washington D.C. as well. We wanted to pass along the following letter that was published in the Washington Post from Jonathan Imbody, the President of the Christian Medical Association and director of Freedom2Care.

Not only do some have very different values, but there are some who are working very hard to take away the right of those who disagree with them to live life as they choose.

Discarding consideration of both cost and conscientious objections, the Obama administration appears poised to adopt a radical advisory board recommendation: that the federal government must pay for or force others to pay for ethically controversial contraceptive drugs.

Included in the indiscriminate mandate would be controversial drugs such as ella (ulipristal acetate) and the "morning-after pill" (levonorgestrel). Food and Drug Administration labels note that these drugs "may inhibit implantation" of a living human embryo. Since many physicians, patients, employers and even some insurers adhere to life-affirming ethical standards, they cannot in good conscience participate in prescribing, taking or paying for such drugs. This mandate offers them no alternative.

That's obviously of scant concern to the administration, which has gutted the only federal regulation protecting conscientious medical professionals from job-ending discrimination. Nor does the administration consider consequential the additional cost to taxpayers and potentially business-killing burdens that this overbearing policy will bring.

Time and again, confronted with protests that the government cannot continue to willfully disregard cost and conscience, this president audaciously answers, "Yes, we can."

Jonathan Imbody, Ashburn

President Supports Repeal of DOMA

2011-07-20T16:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday President Obama gave his public support to legislation sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as a union between one-man and one-woman.

Currently federal law, and almost all state law, says a person cannot not marry someone who is a minor, already married, a close relative, or of the same gender. Feinstein's bill, being called the Respect for Marriage Act, would remove the gender limitation but allow the other restrictions on marriage recognition to remain in place.

This position further confuses the President's position on the issue of marriage. During his 2008 campaign, the President said he did not support same-sex "marriage". Since then he has called the federal DOMA unconstitutional and was also instrumental in the repeal of the militaries' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The President also opposed Prop 8 in California while still maintaining his position that he opposed same-sex "marriage".

Regardless, during an election in which most of the attention will be given to a weak economy and high employment, these developments all but guarantees that cultural issues like marriage will be a critical voting issue in the 2012 Presidential election.

Preparing for Success

2011-07-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

In sports there is a saying that, "When you are not practicing, remember, someone somewhere is practicing, and when you meet him he will win." So it is in every effort. We cannot expect to win if we are not prepared to win.

While the issues from the last session are over, we know there are more coming. Will you help us prepare?

Others hope you will. And in order to encourage you to do so, a $20,000 matching grant has been offered for the rest of the month of July. Ever gift will be doubled, up to $20,000 for the rest of the month. Will you help us maximize this opportunity?

It is crucial that we are able to prepare year round for the battles we know will come, so that when they do come, we are prepared to win.

We have already had some exciting success this year. We defeated legislation targeting pregnancy centers and stopped an effort to allow contract surrogacy, effectively allowing the sale of children in Washington.

But there were other efforts we did not win. Despite our best efforts, and despite record deficits, the legislature still increased funding for Planned Parenthood. Why did that happen? Planned Parenthood is politically influential because they work year round in order to advance its pro-abortion agenda.

We must make sure they are not the only ones preparing.

That is why we recently conducted a Pastors Seminar with Dr. Wayne Grudem, to equip pastors to lead courageously on issues related to government and public policy.

That is why we are putting Culture Impact Teams in churches throughout Washington. These citizen led organizations exist to remind the church that every Christian is a duel citizen-a citizen of heaven and a citizen of earth-and that we have obligations to both.

That is also why we are conducting Truth Project Trainings throughout Washington State. We have already done them in Spokane, Vancouver, and Renton, and are making plans for more this fall. As a result, nearly 100 individuals have been trained to lead small groups that will encourage their communities to think biblically about the culture, including: art, media, history, economics, philosophy, and more.

That is why we are building relationships with legislators. In August, we will be bringing legislators from Washington together with legislators from around the country for a Legislative Worldview Training in Louisiana. The title of the conference is "Consequences of Truth" where Chuck Colson, and other leading thinkers on issues related to worldview, will encourage legislators to think about how the reality of Truth impacts the ways they govern.

In addition, we are making plans to carry out our Candidate Training seminars this fall. While working in communities to identify the next generation of leaders, we want to make sure that when they do decide to run for office they are prepared to run effective, efficient campaigns.

We hope you are as excited about what is happening as we are! But none of this is possible without the support you have given and the support you continue to give. Summer is always a challenging time for non-profits, but thanks to your generosity, this could be the best summer ever for FPIW.

If you are excited about what is taking place on behalf of the culture and families here in Washington, we know you'll be excited to be part of it.

Thank you for your support. And please remember, your gift will be doubled for the remainder of July, up to $20,000.

Is it Really Death With Dignity?

2011-07-14T12:47:00.000-07:00

By Don Calbreath, PHD

On November 4, 2008, 58% of the voters in the state of Washington approved Initiative 1000 (1). This measure allows certain terminally ill patients to receive lethal medications in order to terminate their lives, thus making Washington the second U.S. state to approve a form of physician-assisted suicide. Thirty of the thirty-seven counties had a majority of votes in favor of the initiative, with a few mainly rural counties in the state not giving a "yes" majority vote (2). (. Although the state voters had rejected a similar measure in 1991 (54% voted "no"), the tide of public opinion has made a major shift in the intervening seventeen years.

Washington was not the first state to approve physician-assisted suicide - Oregon had already done so in 1994. But the history of physician-assisted suicide goes back even further in the U.S. Dr. Jack Kevorkian (known as "Dr. Death to many) had become interested in the issue of death early in his medical training in the 1950s (3). After a controversial and unsuccessful medical career, he became intrigued by medical reports of physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands. Kevorkian became the leading U.S. advocate for this practice and contributed to the deaths of a number of individuals. His involvement ultimately led to him spending eight years in prison. Kevorkian died on June 3, 2011.

The movement in the Netherlands that had fascinated Kevorkian began in the early 1980s in that country, although Switzerland had allowed the practice since 1941. Even before the practice was legalized in 2002, Dutch physicians had administered euthanasia to approximately 2700 patients each year. The new law required that the patient request be voluntary and that the patient be informed about his/her condition and the alternatives.A second physician must be involved in the consultative process (4).

How well has this law worked out? Since it is very similar to the Washington and Oregon statutes, it is worth our while to ask what has happened since the enactment of this legislation. Not surprisingly, there have been flagrant abuses of the situation. There is growing awareness that the guidelines are often not followed and that many patients are euthanized without their consent (5). A number of patients felt that they were being pressured into the act. Of even more concern is the fact that at least one Dutch health minister suggested giving "suicide pills" to the elderly who are simply bored with their lives (6). More recently, she has expressed regret for her role in legalizing euthanasia in Holland (7).

Well, that's Europe, but things like that could never happen here. Let's take a quick look at Oregon, where "Death with Dignity" was made legal in 1994. One 2008 study showed that a fourth of the patients receiving lethal drugs were depressed, but were never referred to a mental health professional (8, 9). There are some indications that the law is not being followed with regard to proper documentation and review of requests. Perhaps the most troubling recent reports dealt with Oregon patients who were denied expensive medications for treatment of their terminal conditions, but were offered physician-assisted suicide instead (10).

Are there problems with the Washington law? One prominent Washington attorney pointed out several flaws (11). One of your heirs can be a witness to the consent form, opening the door to coercion. At the time of administration of the lethal dose, the patient does not have to have mental competency or even be aware that the dose is being given. A "self-administered" dose does not necessarily mean that - another person can give the drug, whether the patient is aware of what's happening or not. There is no requirement for witnesses at the death, leaving the door open for drug administration without the patient's consent or awareness.

Furthermore, the "official" cause of death will be listed as the underlying illness and the death is to be considered as "natural".So, it will be very difficult to investigate cases of murder under these conditions.

"Death with Dignity" was sold to the public under the guise of alleviating suffering in extreme cases and protecting patient autonomy. The reality is that abuses can and will occur, based on past experience with other statutes. Coercion will become more commonplace since there are few safeguards to protect against it.

Both the American Medical Association and the Washington State Medical Association oppose assisted suicide legislation as being inconsistent with the healing role of the physician (12,13).Outside the major population centers of Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia, many physicians and hospitals in the state of Washington will not participate in the practice (14).

One encouraging sign in this controversy is the increased awareness for better pain management and palliative care for terminal patients. Physician resistance to "death with dignity" statutes could lead to improved end-of-life care and a truly dignified death.

References:

1. http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/documents/i1000-text%20for%20web.pdf

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act

3. http://www.biography.com/articles/jack-kevorkian-9364141

4. "Death with Dignity: The Dutch explore the limits of a patient's right to die", John Horgan, Scientific American, March 1991.

5. "The Dutch way of death", Rachel Nowak, New Scientist, June 20, 1992.

6. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/14/netherlands.suicide/index.html

7. http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/regret-for-legalizing-euthanasia-expressed-by-former-dutch-official

8. Oregon Death with Dignity program spurs fierce debate, intense criticism

Steve Maynard. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Nov 9, 2008

9. "Death with dignity: The first decade of Oregon's physician-assisted death act", Heide Aungst, Geriatric, December 2008.

10. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

11. "Deatth with Dignity: What do we tell our clients?", Margaret Dore, Washington State Bar News, July 2009.

12. http://www.wrtl.org/pdf/ama_phys_assisted_suicide.pdf

13. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2008/09/30/washington-medical-association-brochure-against-i-1000-and-assisted-suicide

14. "In rural Washington state, law allows assisted suicide, but most doctors don't", Kim Murphy, LA Times, May 7, 2009.

*Don Calbreath PHD is the emeritus associate professor of chemistry at Whitworth University in Spokane.

Gay Bar Cries Foul when Printer Declines Business

2011-06-22T17:22:00.000-07:00

Just what does liberty mean?

A case in King County is forcing us, once again, to consider this question. According to reports, someone trying to open a gay bar on Capitol Hill in Seattle requested print services from a printer in Kent. According to the owner of the print shop, the material he was asked to print contained content he was uncomfortable with, so he made the decision not to print it.

We don't know what kind of conversations took place in the print shop, but we do know that the following email was ultimately sent to the bar owners. According to the owner of the print shop, it was sent without his approval by a part-time employee.

"My boss had decided that we won't be able to print for your bar. Not that we're against homosexuals at all, but because knowing that our printed products will be advertising and promoting the kind of lifestyle that goes against our morals is something that he can't bring himself to do. "

While this employee probably does not have a public relations career in her future, the more important question is whether or not the position taken by the print shop is one of the freedoms and individual business owner should have.

According to the ACLU, it is not.

The print shop owner insists that the refusal to print was not because the customers are gay.This is almost certainly true. If the same customers had asked for fliers advertising Girl Scout cookies, there would not be an issue.

But they didn't. They asked for a flier that advertised "Bad-A** bartenders" and "No Bull****drinks". The flier also referenced "less tudes" and "more dudes" in combination with a rainbow flag. Like it or not, that flier represents a perspective and a value system that some (hundreds of millions) Americans are not entirely comfortable with.

Why the outrage then? Aren't we supposed to celebrate our differences?

If the shop owner had refused to do work for a strip-club, a casino, or a fortune teller, no one would care. Nor would we demand a gay printer to do a print job for Exodus International, a ministry that helps people leave the gay lifestyle.

In America, after all, we respect the fact that not everyone is like us and we recognize that the chance to make different choices without the threat of harassment from our neighbors or our government is part of what makes us special. At least we used to.

The fact that this is a story illustrates how much some "liberals" resent individual freedom.

In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has offered to provide legal assistance in the event the customer wants to take legal action against the printer. Apparently their concept of "liberty"means the "liberty" to force people to do work for you but does not include the "liberty" to run your business in a way that is consistent with your personal beliefs. If you haven't been already, let me be the first to welcome to opposite world.

Joseph Backholm

Executive Director FPIW

State Increases Planned Parenthood Funding to Balance Budget

2011-06-01T15:13:00.000-07:00

Only weeks ago, Indiana becoming the first state to decide that Planned Parenthood would no longer receive money from tax payers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

But here in Washington, the state took a very different approach.

With the passage of SB 5912, the state legislature decided to increase funding for Take Charge, a contraceptive program which Planned Parenthood claims pays for the services of 70% of their clients. Since Take Charge was implemented in 2001, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington has seen their revenues increase from $5.5 million to over $27 million a year.

Take Charge was created with the goal of reducing the state's costs for live births. But during that same period, the state's costs for live births have risen 70%, from $198 million to over $340 million a year.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of women eligible for Take Charge in Washington (women within 200% of the federal poverty level) has increased from 294,000 in 2002 to 300,000 in 2009. During that same time period, the state's costs per birth have risen almost 25% from $6394 to $7952 per birth.

While some cost increases could be expected, neither of those factors explain the 70% increase in the state's costs. Nor do they fully explain why the increase dramatic rise in costs for lives births that coincide with the creation of the Take Charge program.

In fact, in the 7 year period prior to Take Charge being enacted (1993-2000), the state's annual costs for live births increased only 46% (from $135 million to $198 million).

Despite these facts, the state made assumptions about the impact of increased funding for Take Charge that allowed them to put it on the books as a net decrease in the overall state budget. Consequently, in the budget that was just passed, the state will direct more taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood but claim it as a spending reduction.

The willingness to ignore history in favor of rosy assumptions about the future might help explain how the state found itself with historic deficits in the first place.

In reality, this bill did serve a purpose. It allowed them to find a "savings" while increasing funding for a politically influential lobby. But it is not a purpose that serves the public well.

Moreover, knowing that these kinds of games were played on the balance sheet should cause us all to question whether the budget that was just passed will in any way resemble reality.

Truth Project Training Coming To Renton and Spokane!

2011-05-26T11:56:00.000-07:00

is coming to Renton June 25th and Spokane June 26th!

In a recent study, the Barna Research Group revealed a stunning statistic that continues to reverberate throughout the evangelical world. Only 9 percent of professing Christians have a biblical worldview (See sources below).

Because of this, today's believers live very similarly to non-believers. A personal sense of significance is rarely experienced, we spend our money and time on things that fail to satisfy, and the rates of addictions, family breakdown, and other problems are no different within the church as without. We are, in short, losing our bearings as the body of Christ because we tend to view the world the same way as those who do not have Christ. In essence, the body of Christ is conforming to the world when we need to be transformed by renewing our minds with a biblical worldview (Romans 12:2). Jesus commanded us to make "disciples," not just church members, and to teach them all things He taught us (Matthew 28:18-20). This is discipleship, or worldview, training.

To address this need within the body of Christ, the Family Policy Institute of Washington is partnering with Hightland Community Church in Renton,WA and Trinity Baptist Church in Spokane, WA to provide a training opportunity in the use of The Truth Project. This four-hour training is designed to equip Pastors, Ministers of Youth, Ministers of Education, Sunday School teachers, and Small Group Bible Study Leaders (laity or staff) with the tools to take their people through a 12-week course in the essentials of a biblical worldview.

What is Focus on the Family's The Truth Project?

The Truth Project is a DVD-based small group curriculum comprised of 12 one-hour lessons taught by Dr. DelTackett. This study is the starting point for looking at life from a biblical perspective. Each lesson discusses in great detail how view all areas of daily life from a biblical perspective. The Truth Project has been used in thousands of churches, worldwide, to equip both seasoned Christians as well as new believers. It is an excellent discipleship tool for new member's classes, youth, college, and young adult groups, or any adult discipleship training ministry.

Date and Location:

Renton
Saturday, June 25th 8:30 a.m. to 12:30
Highlands Community Church
3031 NE 10th Street
Renton, WA 98056

Spokane
Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m
Trinity Baptist Church
6528 N. Monroe Street
Spokane, WA 99208

How can I start this in my church for Discipleship/Worldview training?
Registration is $99.00 per person/couple. This includes all the materials and information you'll need to lead a Truth Project group in your home, church, or other setting. Payment can be made in advance (by check or credit card) or at the event.

To register:

Please do not call the church. To register for the training or have your questions answered, send:
1) Name, 2) Address, 3) Phone, and 4) Name of church to:

Dr. David Shelley - The Truth Project trainer
E-mail at: david.shelley@factn.org or call: (615) 957-1146 or

Two other Christian Worldview Resources

We're also introducing two other Christian Worldview Resources:
1) a new curriculum that Focus recently created for teenagers and college students called,
"True U: Does God Exist?"

It is a sad fact that many Christian teens have their faith and biblical worldview belittled and attacked in school and many leave the church after graduating from college. To help counter that, Focus created this DVD-based, ten-week series to equip Christians with the logical and scientific proofs of their faith.

I'll show a brief segment of the video promo, "The Toughest Test in College," during our Truth Project training, and these will be available for purchase too. They are $39.00 each. Here's a picture of the materials, and you can learn more online: www.trueu.org.

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963

This short book is NOT about partisan politics, it is NOT about Republicans and Democrats, and it is NOT about President Obama. IT IS ABOUT educating the Body of Christ on our biblical and historical responsibility to be informed and engaged in the political and cultural struggles of our day as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world." This book was written by Dr. David Shelley, a veteran pastor and trainer for The Truth Project by Focus on the Family. It can be purchased at the training for $15.00.

Want to know more about what's in The Truth Project lessons? See an overview.

Attend this training and you will receive one "The Truth Project" DVD set per person/couple, which includes all 12 professionally produced lessons on seven DVDs, a leader-training DVD, and online access to hundreds of resources you can use in helping your fellow believers develop a biblical worldview.

Sources quoted above: The Barna Update, "A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life," December 1, 2003. A newer Barna Survey, "Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist" March, 2009.

Host a Legislative Review with FPIW

2011-05-23T16:01:00.000-07:00

Now that the legislative session has ended, lots of people will be asking themselves, "what happened, anyway?" We know there was a $5 billion deficit. But what about the issues that affect your family and your values?

Did you know that during this session the legislature was working with the abortion industry to shut down pregnancy resource centers? Did you know that during this legislative session the legislature was very close to allowing children to be bought and sold through surrogacy contracts? Did you know that the legislature removed the words "mother" and "father" from state law and replaced them with the word "parents" in an effort not to offend those who don't believe children benefit from both a mother and a father.

And these efforts are just representative of the culture wide effort to restructure the family.

The state is also on the verge of increasing funding for Planned Parenthood at a time when teachers are losing their jobs and the mentally and physically disabled are losing their assistance.

These are the stories that are often buried under the budget deficit headlines that we want to make sure you know about.

Over the next several weeks, FPIW will be all over Washington State meeting in homes, community centers, and churches to discuss what happened this session on issues related to life, marriage, religious freedom, and parental rights.

If you have a group of 30 or more that would like to hear more about these issues, and also discover what they can do to be part of the solution, we would love to meet with you.

To inquire about hosting a review of the legislative session with a representative of FPIW for your friends or community group, please contact us at info@fpiw.org or call our office at 425-608-0242.

We look forward to seeing you soon.

Candy Cane Case Will Impact 41 Million Kids

2011-05-18T16:02:00.000-07:00

On Monday, May 23, the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals will hear a casethat will impact every elementary school child in the nation. In the case Morgan et al. v. Plano (Texas) Independent School District, known as the infamous "candy cane" case, judges will determine whether elementary students are too young to have First Amendment freedoms.

This is the biggest religious freedom case in the nation.

The Liberty Institute, our sister organization in Texas, along with two former US Solicitors General, Kenneth Starr and Paul Clement, will go to battle for the rights of American students before all 17 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Such en banc hearings are rare and are only for big cases with national impact.

The "candy cane" case started eight years ago when public school officials banned eight-year-old Jonathan Morgan from giving candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a holiday party.

They also confiscated one little girl's pencils banning her and others from handing them out afterschool because they had Bible verses on them.

Outrageously, these same officials even banned an entire class sending cards to our troops overseas from writing the words "Merry Christmas" to our soldiers.

The government officials are now arguing that elementary kids are too young to have First Amendment rights.

Think of what this would mean: no religious freedom, no right to respectfully express a different opinion than the government, religious discrimination permitted, and no way for parents to protect their children.

This is outrageous and we're fighting to stop what could be a horrible tragedy for this country. The First Amendment protects every American, even families and children in public school.

Please spread the word on this case. To the Liberty Institute's latest video on this case, visit www.FirstAmendmentFreedoms.LibertyInstitute.org

Encourage every church in the nation to pray this weekend.

Does Planned Parenthood Want Fewer Abortions?

2011-04-28T12:13:00.000-07:00

This week the Indiana State Legislature voted to end taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood. Here in Washington, Planned Parenthood was testifying in support of legislation (SB 5912) that would increase their public subsidy despite a $5.5 billion deficit. During the course of their testimony, Planned Parenthood representatives explained that they really want to help reduce the number of abortions by giving people increased access to government funded contraception.

This argument was also made repeatedly while taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood was being discussed at the federal level.

While Planned Parenthood consistently states they really, truly, honest to goodness, want to reduce the number of abortions, and that giving them money for contraception is a great way to accomplish that goal, the evidence suggests otherwise.

In reality, the more money Planned Parenthood gets, the more abortions they perform.

In 1999, Planned Parenthood received $187 million from the federal government and performed 183,000 abortions. [1]In 2005, Planned Parenthood received approximately $273 million dollars from the government and performed 265,000 abortions. [2]In 2008-2009, Planned Parenthood received $363 million dollars [3]and performed 332,278 abortions in the year ending 2009.[4]

Curiously, the increase in abortions for Planned Parenthood between 2006 and 2009 occurred during a period when abortions nationally declined by 15%.[5] Even when the rest of the country is doing fewer abortions, Planned Parenthood finds a way to do more. Since they benefit financially from every abortion, this really shouldn't be surprising.

In 2009 if a pregnant woman walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic, she was 340 times more likely to receive an abortion than an adoption referral. In that year, PPFA performed 332,278 abortions while providing only 977 adoption referrals. [6]Yet they still claim to be the place for unbiased, objective counseling in making decisions regarding pregnancies.

Keep this in mind next time you hear that Planned Parenthood shares your goal of reducing the number of abortions.

If you have an opinion on SB 5912 and its ability to provide more of your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, please contact your legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and let your voice be heard. You can deliver a message to your legislators through that number even if you don't know who they are by providing your address. Please be respectful, but please be heard.

[1] Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Annual report, 1999-2000
[2] See Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood Services (April 2007) [3] Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 29 and 2008 Income Tax Returns.
[4] See Planned Parenthood Federaion of America, Planned Parenthood Services, p. 2 at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
[5] According to its 2008 annual report, PPFA performed 289,750 abortions in 2006 and 305,310 abortions in 2007. PPFA, 2007-2008 Annual Report, p. 9 (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm); PPFA, "Planned Parenthood Services," March 2011, p. 2 (link provided above); PPFA, "Planned ParenthoodServices," September 2010, p. 2 (link provided above); and, (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm).
[6] PPFA, "Planned Parenthood Services," March 2011 (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf).

FPIW Testimony in Opposition to a Funding Increase for Planned Parenthood

2011-04-26T12:58:00.000-07:00

Summary of Concerns

SB 5912: Increasing eligibility for Take Charge to 250% of federal poverty level.

Unintended pregnancies are NOT due to lack of access to contraception: There is no evidence that the current pregnancy rates are due to lack of access to contraception. Conversely, there is a great deal of evidence that there is already virtually universal access to contraceptives.

Increased contraception use linked to higher pregnancy and STD rates: Access to contraception does not necessary reduce pregnancy rates. Recent studies have found that it actually has led to increased pregnancy rates, as well as STD infections, because those on contraceptives are more likely to engage in risky behavior.

Funding Take Charge does not save money: The Take Charge Program has not managed to reduce state costs for live births in the last 10 years. In fact, under Take Charge, the state's costs for live births have increased more than 70%. Therefore, the assumption that an increase in spending for Take Charge can be calculated as a decrease in the state's budget is erroneous.

Take Charge forces those who do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood to fund it: Take Charge primarily funds Planned Parenthood, a non-profit that millions of Washingtonians would not choose to support with their charitable giving. It is not appropriate to channel more than $20 million to an organization much of the public is morally or philosophically opposed to when so many uncontroversial expenditures are being cut or eliminated.

Read the full testimony here.

Senate Considers Increasing Funding for Planned Parenthood

2011-04-25T14:26:00.000-07:00

The special session will convene tomorrow. And when it does, the state Senate will continue to consider how best to close the $5.5 billion deficit the state currently has. One peculiar solution has been offered. On Tuesday, April 26th, 2011 at 2:30 pm, the Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a public hearing on SB 5912, which would increase spending on contraceptives by $2.5 million. The bill proposes expanding eligibility for Take Charge, the state's primary state supported contraceptive program, to those who make up to 250% of the federal poverty level.

While taxpayers spend $15 - $20 million each year on Take Charge, (most of which comes from federal sources) the state pays much more to deliver babies than it did previously. In fact, since take charge has been operating,Washington State's spending on live birth's through Medicaid increased from $200 million to nearly $340 million in 2009.

Yet, despite this reality, this bill seeks to increase funding for Take Charge while claiming that those expenditures will save the state money.

Abortion providers, which also provide contraceptives, are strong supporters of this proposal. Take Charge has expanded their customer base to such an extent that more then half of Planned Parenthood's client's are now Take Charge enrollees.(see page 2) Planned Parenthood now does 11% more abortions annually than they did before Take Charge.

It has also been a financial windfall for them as well. In 1999, when Take Charge was created, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, the largest of the five Planned Parenthood regions in Washington, had $5.5 million in revenue. (see page 9 line 17) In 2008, after 8 years of Take Charge, their revenues had jumped to $27.3 million. (page 2 line 9)

If you can make it to Olympia, please attend the hearing on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011 at 2:30 pm, in Senate Hearing Room 4. Otherwise, please contact your legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and ask them to oppose SB 5912.

Senate Passes Amended HB 1267

2011-04-21T18:19:00.000-07:00

By Rebecca Faust

This morning, the Washington Senate passed a newly amended version of HB 1267, which would overhaul the Uniform Parentage Act. Because the House and Senate must pass the identical bill before it can be signed into law by the governor, HB 1267 has been sent back to the House. The House may be considering it tomorrow or possibly even this evening.

As originally passed by the House, HB 1267 would have legalized paid surrogacy. Fortunately, a majority of the Senate saw the problems with commercialized childbearing. So the Senate amended HB 1267, removing the provisions which would have allowed paid surrogacy as well as making other changes. The bill as passed by the Senate was then returned to the House, but the House refused to accept the Senate amendments.

Today the Senate voted to withdraw their previous amendments, adopt a new "striking amendment" instead, and re-pass the bill in this freshly amended form. A striking amendment is an amendment that re-writes an entire bill instead of listing specific changes. The new Senate version of HB 1267 would still not allow paid surrogacy, but does back down from some of the other changes which the Senate had made previously.

Even with the amendments made by the Senate, HB 1267 remains a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is premised on the notion that a child's parents aren't necessarily a father and a mother and that the "intent" of, and relationships between, the adults involved are more important than their biological relationship to the child. (Please keep in mind that we are talking about determining who the parents are after a child is born, not about placing a child for adoption after the natural parents' rights have been relinquished or terminated and appropriate screening of the person or couple wishing to adopt the child.)

For example, HB 1267 would require that if a birth mother is in a domestic partnership with another women, that other woman must be presumed to be a mother of the child also. The natural parents, or those wrongly presumed to be parents, could eventually straighten out the affected children's parentage after going through judicial proceedings and genetic testing (with associated time and costs for those involved).

You can call the legislative hotline (1-800-562-6000) to send a message to your representatives, or find individual contact information for your representatives on the legislature's website. Keep in mind that this bill could be voted on very soon.

Victory & Defeat: Senate Passes Surrogacy Bill Without Surrogacy

2011-04-13T10:54:00.000-07:00

Just before the 5 o'clock deadline on Tuesday afternoon, the State Senate passed HB 1267 by a vote of 27-21 making significant modifications to the state's "uniform" parentage law.

However, an amendment passed by the Senate gutted the most controversial portion of the bill which would have authorized contract surrogacy. However, the bill will still remove the words "mother" and "father" from state law in favor of "parent" and make other revisions that move Washington further away from the expectation that children should be born with a mother and father.

Therefore, the passage of the bill was simultaneously a victory and a defeat.

However, this issue is not resolved. The House and Senate must pass identical bills. Therefore, because the Senate made substantial changes to the bill, it must return to the House. The House will have the opportunity to concur with the amendments passed by the Senate or refuse to concur and send it back to the Senate.

If the House agrees to the amendments, the bill will go to the Governor where it will almost certainly be signed. If the House does not agree to the amendments, the Senate would have the opportunity to withdraw their amendments and vote on the bill as passed by the House.

The sponsors of this bill are not accepting today's Senate vote as defeat, however. Prime sponsor Jamie Pedersen told the Seattle Times, "To get us to the point where we needed to be to move out of the Senate, we needed to retreat - I hope temporarily - on surrogacy," the Seattle Democrat said Tuesday evening. "The bill and subject matter are now eligible to be discussed until the [April 24] end of session."

You are urged to:

Pray that the House and Senate cannot reach agreement on this issue and that the entire bill dies;
Contact your legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and tell them contracts are for selling cars and houses, not kids.

Paid Surrogacy Bill Passes Rules Committee, Final Vote Pending

2011-04-11T15:37:00.000-07:00

On Friday, the Senate Rules Committee voted to send HB 1267, re-writing the Uniform Parentage Act and legalizing paid surrogacy, forward to the full Senate for debate. If the bill is going to be passed by the State Senate, it will happen either tonight or tomorrow. If you haven't yet contacted your senator about this bill and wish to do so, it is important that you do so right away. Even if you have, it would be good give them another reminder of the need to oppose this bill.

This bill would allow a woman to be paid to become pregnant and give up custody of her child, even if the child is biologically hers. The bill would require the women to give up the child immediately upon birth. She would have no opportunity to reconsider her decision. She could seek an abortion during pregnancy, but could not rescind the surrogacy agreement. Custody of the child would be based solely on the surrogacy contract, without any allowance for a judge to consider the best interests of the child. It is a lengthy and complicated bill with numerous problems. But if you believe that parental rights and a child’s well being is not something that should be bargained for in a financial transaction, you should oppose this bill.

Please ask your senator to oppose HB 1267. You can leave a message for your senator by calling the legislative hotline: 1-800-562-6000.

Thank You, U.S. Supreme Court: A Win for Religious Liberty in Education

2011-04-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court upheld the Arizona Scholarship Tax Credit legislation that provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions made to private tuition organizations, which in turn fund scholarships for private schools - many of which are Christian schools.

Despite the loud voices of a few disgruntled individuals, complaining that the law was a violation of church and state, the court ruled that a legitimate claim did not exist.

In many other states, similar legislation is being considered. As a result of this tax credit, funding for private and religious education may increase, allowing parents to more easily afford a private or religious education for their children.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington gladly supports the U.S. Supreme Court for its commitment to Parent's Rights and Religious Liberty in Education.

U.S. Supreme Court's Decision

Arizona's Private School Tax Credit Law

Senate Committee Votes for Paid Surrogacy

2011-03-24T10:38:00.000-07:00

By Rebecca Faust

The Senate Committee on Government Operations, Tribal Relations and Elections voted to recommend passage of House Bill 1267 on Tuesday, March 22nd. If enacted, HB 1267 would make numerous changes to Washington's Uniform Parentage Act, including the legalization of paid surrogacy.

HB 1267 is rife with opportunities for abuse. It not only allows a surrogate mother to be paid for giving her child, but it eliminates criminal penalties for violating surrogacy laws and requires that if a surrogacy contract doesn't meet statutory requirements, custody of the child will be awarded on the basis of the parties' intent and not the best interests of the child. So whatever safeguards it does provide, which for the most part seem to be more about protecting the surrogate and intended parents than the child, have limited enforceability.

The committee voted down several proposed amendments to the bill, which is now in the hands of the Senate Rules Committee to decide whether to schedule it for debate in the full Senate.

If you have not already done so, please contact your senator and ask him or her to oppose this bill. You can call the legislative hotline to leave a message for your senator, or you can find contact information for individual senators on the legislature's website. The legislative hotline phone number is: 1-800-562-6000.

Truth Project Training in Vancouver, WA!

2011-03-17T12:24:00.000-07:00

is coming to Vancouver/Portland on April 2, 2011

In a recent study, the Barna Research Group revealed a stunning statistic that continues to reverberate throughout the evangelical world. Only 9 percent of professing Christians have a biblical worldview (See sources below).

Because of this, today's believers live very similarly to non-believers. A personal sense of significance is rarely experienced, we spend our money and time on things that fail to satisfy, and the rates of addictions, family breakdown, and other problems are no different within the church as without. We are, in short, losing our bearings as the body of Christ because we tend to view the world the same way as those who do not have Christ. In essence, the body of Christ is conforming to the world when we need to be transformed by renewing our minds with a biblical worldview (Romans 12:2). Jesus commanded us to make "disciples," not just church members, and to teach them all things He taught us (Matthew 28:18-20). This is discipleship, or worldview, training.

To address this need within the body of Christ, the Family Policy Institute of Washington is partnering with Evergreen Bible Church in Vancouver, WA (just across the state line north of Portland, OR) to provide a training opportunity in the use of The Truth Project on Saturday, April 2, 2011. This four-hour training, from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm, is designed to equip Pastors, Ministers of Youth, Ministers of Education, Sunday School teachers, and Small Group Bible Study Leaders (laity or staff) with the tools to take their people through a 12-week course in the essentials of a biblical worldview.

What is Focus on the Family's The Truth Project®?
The Truth Project is a DVD-based small group curriculum comprised of 12 one-hour lessons taught by Dr. Del Tackett. This study is the starting point for looking at life from a biblical perspective. Each lesson discusses in great detail how view all areas of daily life from a biblical perspective. The Truth Project has been used in thousands of churches, worldwide, to equip both seasoned Christians as well as new believers. It is an excellent discipleship tool for new member's classes, youth, college, and young adult groups, or any adult discipleship training ministry.

Date and Location:
Saturday, April 2, 2011, 8:30 am to 12:30 pm
Evergreen Bible Church
9600 E. Mill Plain Blvd.
Vancouver, WA 98664

How can I start this in my church for Discipleship/Worldview training?
Registration is $99.00 per person/couple. This includes all the materials and information you'll need to lead a Truth Project group in your home, church, or other setting. Payment can be made in advance (by check or credit card) or at the event.

To register:

Please do not call the church. To register for the training or have your questions answered, send:
1) Name, 2) Address, 3) Phone, and 4) Name of church to:
Dr. David Shelley - The Truth Project trainer
E-mail at: david.shelley@factn.org or call: (615) 957-1146 or
Two other Christian Worldview Resources
We're also introducing two other Christian Worldview Resources:
1) a new curriculum that Focus recently created for teenagers and college students called, "True U: Does God Exist?" It is a sad fact that many Christian teens have their faith and biblical worldview belittled and attacked in school and many leave the church after graduating from college. To help counter that, Focus created this DVD-based, ten-week series to equip Christians with the logical and scientific proofs of their faith.

I'll show a brief segment of the video promo, "The Toughest Test in College," during our Truth Project training, and these will be available for purchase too. They are $39.00 each. Here's a picture of the materials, and you can learn more online: www.trueu.org.

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963

This short book is NOT about partisan politics, it is NOT about Republicans and Democrats, and it is NOT about President Obama. IT IS ABOUT educating the Body of Christ on our biblical and historical responsibility to be informed and engaged in the political and cultural struggles of our day as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world." This book was written by Dr. David Shelley, a veteran pastor and trainer for The Truth Project by Focus on the Family. It can be purchased at the training for $15.00.

Sources quoted above: The Barna Update, "A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life," December 1, 2003. A newer Barna Survey, "Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist" March, 2009.

FPIW Testimony in Opposition to Paid Surrogacy Bill

2011-03-16T11:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Family Policy Institute of Washington testified before the Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee in opposition to HB 1267. Below is a copy of the testimony we will be providing to the committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Family Policy Institute of Washington in opposition to HB 1267.

There are a number of issues that we are concerned about. The first is more symbolic. This bill would replace the words mother and father in state law with the word “parent”. We are concerned with this provision because state government would be changing an expectation that we believe serves the public well.

Currently, the law, in both its language and its forms, has the expectation that when a child is born both its mother and father will be involved. We see no reason to change this. Encouraging the biological mother and father to be involved in the lives of the children they produce has served humanity well for thousands of years.

Of course there are many situations in which the ideal is not realized. State law should and does accommodate for those situations. But accommodating for situations that are not ideal is far different than changing our expectations for the conditions under which children will enter the world.

The second concern is similar. This bill would expand the situations under which someone can be assumed to be the parent of a child. Currently, a person is assumed to be the parent only when he is married to the woman that gives birth. To date, state law has never taken the step of assuming parental rights for someone we know for certain is not biologically related to the child. Of course a husband is not always the biological father of the child. But assuming that he is, when in rare circumstances he will not be, is far different than automatically granting parental rights to someone we know is not a biological parent.

Currently, the law requires someone who is not biologically related to the child to go through a legal adoption before they are given parental rights. That system is not broken. While the adoption process can be inconvenient, the nature of the rights at stake warrant a careful, individualized examination of the facts before anyone is granted parental rights. This bill would grant parental rights based on the relationships of adults. That is not appropriate when the basis for granting parental rights has, and should always be, “the best interest of the child.” Such a change would be easily abused. Any convenience this bill creates for adults is far outweighed by the potential for instability created for the children.

Finally, we are concerned with the provision of this bill that would permit the purchase of parental rights. It has been argued that this bill is simply written to acknowledge something that already happens, surrogacy, and clarify how disputes should be handled. If that were true, this would be a much different bill. It would be simple to write a bill that clarifies that parental rights belong to the man and woman whose genetic material created a child when a surrogate is knowingly impregnated with their child.

But this bill does not do that. This bill, for the first time since slavery, allows legal rights to another person to attach based on the exchange of money, even if the surrogate is genetically related to the child. And for the first time, it allows a woman to sell the parental rights to her biological child. This bill is not written to clarify how disputes should be resolved. It is written in a way that ensures disputes over surrogacy will become far more common than they are today.

The purpose of the bill is to expand the number of women who are willing to be surrogates by introducing a profit motive.

Currently, women in Washington who agree to be surrogates do so out of altruism. When surrogacy is voluntary, the likelihood of changing your mind is reduced significantly. Once you encourage women who would not do something for love to do it for money, you greatly increase the likelihood that they will change their mind. And when you increase the likelihood of changing their minds, you increase the kind of occurrences the sponsors of this bill claim to want to avoid.

We do not believe it will ever be appropriate for the law to resolve a surrogacy dispute based on the exchange of money. The standard for deciding custody issues and parental rights has always been determined by “what is in the best interest of the child.” While we can easily understand the difficulty of surrogacy disputes, it would be a tremendous mistake if the disputes were resolved based on the exchange of money rather than the best interest of the child. Sometimes the reason you make a decision is just as important as the decision you make. This is one of those situations.

The idea of parental rights being the subject of a commercial transaction is something we all should object to. We do not allow those in financially challenging situations to sell their kidneys for financial relief. Why should they be permitted to sell their womb or their child, even if they do so before it is conceived?

This bill allows a woman to enter an agreement whereby, once she has taken money and been impregnated, she may only abort the child or give it to someone else, even if the child is biologically hers. Encouraging women to put themselves in that situation by enforcing such contracts will put women in extraordinarily stressful situations that are certain to result in unfortunate results. As a result, this bill would put Washington State in the position to forcibly take a child from its mother, even in cases where the child is biologically hers, because she took money in exchange for that child before it was conceived. That is not an appropriate use of state resources.

Moreover, the women who will be lured into these situations by this bill are the very women the law should go out of its way to protect. While this bill claims to have numerous safeguards, like so many other situations in which the exceptions swallow the rule, it would be incredibly easy to satisfy the letter of the law without fulfilling the spirit of the law by simply finding a lawyer and counselors who will play along. By introducing a profit motive, you create a strong incentive for that to happen.

This bill creates problems where there currently are none and fixes nothing. It is not the job of the Washington State legislature to solve infertility issues. It is the job of the Washington State legislature to protect the individual rights of the citizens in Washington and ensure, to the best of our ability, that people are not taken advantage of.

While we can sympathize with individuals who are unable to have a child themselves, there are options for those unable to find a volunteer surrogate. There are thousands of children in Washington who are currently alive that have no one in the world willing to say “I will love you forever”.

Whatever the alternatives, they are all better than making the wombs of vulnerable women and the children they produce the subjects of commercial transactions.

Pastors and Politics: A Conference with Wayne Grudem

2011-03-14T17:04:00.000-07:00

Have you found it challenging to engage your church on cultural issues? Is your church reluctant to acknowledge “political issues” even when they are biblical?

If you answered yes, we would like to enlist your support in helping to change this situation.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington is hosting a pastor’s conference in Leavenworth Washington May 16-18. We are privileged to have Dr. Wayne Grudem from Phoenix Theological Seminary and Rick Green from Wallbuilders to Leavenworth May 16-18 to lead a conversation about what the Bible says about how the church should engage on issues related to civil government.

Dr. Grudem is probably the best communicator on this issue in America today. He is a Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary. Previously he spent 20 years teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for 20 years. He has recently written the book “Politics According to the Bible” brings a respected, biblically based perspective to difficult questions pastors face.

Rick Green has served in both church and state, being a leader not only in his local church but a Texas State Representative as well. Rick has influenced tens of thousands of Americans to become salt and light in their communities, helping them understand their dual citizenship and responsibilities both as citizens of Heaven and of America.

Topics that will be discussed include:

Will my tax exempt status be threatened if I discuss political issues?
What does scripture say about civil government and the church?
Should I care how my church votes, or if they vote at all?
Should I speak to my congregation about political issues?
Is it biblical to say “We don’t do political issues”?

This conference includes 3 days and two nights at the Enzian Hotel in Leavenworth Washington. Registration, lodging, and most meals are included.

Our goal is to make this event free for pastors. But that does not mean there is no cost.

We want you to sponsor your pastor and his wife to attend this conference. For $250, you can make that possible for them. They can spend 3 days in beautiful Leavenworth, be encouraged by their time with other pastors, and consider what the Bible says about these difficult questions.

So whether you are going to encourage your pastor to attend personally, sponsor him, or sponsor another pastor, act today. Space is limited. We only have room for 100 couples and their wives and registration is now underway. So act now!

To sponsor a pastor click here.

Pastor's registering for the conference click here.

If you have questions, call our office at 425-275-8752

A Request from Sen. Swecker

2011-03-11T11:21:00.000-08:00

Senator Dan Swecker asked us to pass this along to you.

Will Washington Allow the Sale of People?

2011-03-09T16:19:00.000-08:00

A troubling bill that would allow the sale of children before they are conceived has passed the State House and awaiting a hearing in the Senate next week.

HB 1267 is an omnibus bill that makes significant changes to Washington’s parenting laws. It replaces the words “mother” and “father” with the word “parent”. It also grants non-biological parents, in some situations, parental rights without going through adoption processes if they are in domestic partnerships.

But the most troubling aspect of the bill is the provision to make Washington one of the few states that enforces surrogacy contracts. In essence, it would permit the formation of contracts in which a couple or individual could purchase a child from a woman prior to her pregnancy.

While surrogacy is not current illegal in Washington, surrogacy contracts are not enforced because the state does not currently believe it should put itself in a situation to forcibly remove a child from the woman who bore it because she took money prior to becoming pregnant.

Civilized societies have long believed that there are some things that money cannot buy. While a person can donate their organs, they cannot be purchased. So it has been with the womb and parental rights…until now?

Surrogacy is exceedingly rare. There are fewer than 600 surrogate births every year in the United States. The purpose of the bill is to expand the number of women willing to become surrogates. Ironically, this is precisely why it should never become law. When the motive behind surrogacy changes, the opportunity for abuse increases significantly.

Without surrogacy contracts, surrogacy happens only when the surrogate mother is giving something to someone. As with organ donation, significant sacrifices made in the name of love can be understood—even admired. That same sacrifice, made in the name of money, is unsettling at best and provides an incentive for a woman to make a decision she will likely come to regret.

Moreover, adding a financial transaction to the birth of a child all but guarantees significant human rights abuses. Under this bill, a surrogate who becomes pregnant will have only two choices: kill the child before it is born or give the child to the person that paid you. One need not be creative to imagine the inhumane circumstances that will result.

Are we really going to send police officers to take away a baby from its mother if she decides that those she previously took money from are not fit to raise her child? Are we really going to allow someone to go to court and make the argument that the child is theirs because “I paid for it…fair and square”?

In contract law, there is a concept called informed consent that must be present before a contract will be enforced. If you agree to purchase your neighbors car but he neglects to tell you that he has removed the engine and the wheels, that contract will not be enforced against you because you lacked relevant information necessary to make an informed decision.

So it is with pregnancy and motherhood. One of the reasons surrogacy contracts are not enforced in most states is that there is a general understanding that it is impossible for a woman who is not yet pregnant to have all the information necessary to give informed consent to such a contract.

This bill would make both the womb and the baby within it commercial property. Sadly, the woman would still retain the right to abort the child so the law would give more value to the womb itself than the child in it. Regardless, it would still give a person legal claim to another person because money changed hands. I thought we moved past this in the 1800’s.

If our elected officials pass this law and make surrogacy contracts enforceable, we, the people of Washington State, will be making the decision that there are circumstances in which we want the state to use its police powers to tell a pregnant women that her only legal options are to abort the child or give it to someone else.

Making matters even more Orwellian, the House rejected an amendment that would have required a surrogate mother to be a citizen of the United States. Perhaps we should establish a threshold now for how many poor (illegal?) immigrants would have to be taken advantage of by someone with money before the law is automatically revoked.

Given the risks, it is somewhat surprising that the bill has so much support. Fifty-three members of the State House signed on as sponsors of it. Fifty-seven members voted for its passage. Is there some kind of womb shortage that has left our civilization on the brink of extinction? Certainly not.

If people want a child this badly, perhaps the state should connect them with those who are already pregnant and “considering their options” rather than spending more than $7 million a year on abortions. Apparently, for many in the state legislature, it would be worse to encourage women who are already pregnant to give birth than to pay immigrants for their children.

Please contact your state Senators today and ask them to oppose HB 1267. They can be contacted through the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. A public hearing for this bill has been scheduled in the Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee for Tuesday, March 15th at 1:30 pm in Senate Hearing Room 2. You are urged to attend.
Please forward this to your friends as well. It matters.

Pregnancy Center Bill Dies in Olympia

2011-03-08T10:36:00.000-08:00

In a major victory for pregnancy resource centers in Washington, and a major defeat for the abortion industry, HB 1366 failed to make it out of the House of Representatives before the 5:00 deadline yesterday.

The bill, which would have created numerous regulations for pro-life pregnancy resource centers based solely on their unwillingness to perform or refer for abortions, has been one of the most hotly contested bills so far this session.

The bill was criticized because of its requirements that pregnancy centers notify the public of services they do not provide. No other entity in Washington is forced to make similar disclosures.

The constitutionality of the bill has been widely debated as well given the fact that the regulations of the bill could be avoided simply by deciding to perform or refer for abortions.

In January, a federal judge in Maryland found a similar bill to be an unconstitutional.

Approximately 750 pregnancy center supporters travelled to Olympia from throughout Washington State to attend the public hearing on this bill in the House. Even yesterday, pregnancy center supporters filled the House galleries, decorated in purple scarves. Dozens of legislators wore them as well on the House floor in the final hours before cutoff.

While the failure of this bill to pass the House before the cut-off is a strong indicator that the bill will not become law this year, nothing in Olympia is ever final until the session is adjourned. You are urged to remember that even if you aren’t interested in politics, politics is interested in you.

Thank you for doing your part to stand with us in support of pregnancy centers, freedom, and common sense.

Pregnancy Center Bill Moves to House Floor

2011-03-04T16:04:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, HB 1366, which would create significant, unconstitutional regulations for pro-life pregnancy resource centers, moved out of the House Rules Committee, clearing a significant hurdle in advance of the March 7 deadline. Several reports from Olympia are that the bill, which is the top legislative priority for Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League, could be voted on as early as this evening.

The bill would require pregnancy centers to post notices in five different languages on their front door, and on any written literature they create, stating that they do not provide or refer for abortion. No other entity of any kind in Washington State is required to post notices about the kind of services they do not provide.

The bill also provides regulations and liabilities regarding the handling of medical records and the administration of pregnancy tests which numerous medical professionals have objected to because it creates a different set of regulations and liabilities based solely on the fact that the services they are providing are being provided in a pregnancy resource centers.

Centers that violate any provision of the bill would be subject to injunctions and lawsuits.

Opponents of the bill claim the bill targets them because they are pro-life. This argument is strengthened by the fact that any pregnancy resource center could avoid every regulation and liability in the bill simply by agreeing to refer for abortion. Therefore, by definition, it is impossible for this bill to apply to a center that provides or refers for abortions.

In January, a U.S. Federal Court in Maryland threw out a similar law finding it to be unconstitutional compelled speech and unconstitutionally viewpoint based. A similar bill in the Washington State Senate failed to make it out of committee.

You are encouraged to contact your legislators through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000 and ask them to oppose HB 1366. This number will allow you to communicate with your legislators even if you don’t know who they are by providing your address

Paid Surrogacy Bill Passes House

2011-03-03T16:10:00.000-08:00

By Rebecca Faust

The Washington State House of Representatives passed HB 1267, which would overhaul Washington's parentage laws, on Monday, February 28th. HB 1267 has now been referred to the Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations, and Elections Committee.

HB 1267 would permit paid surrogacy arrangements, where an infertile or same-sex couple can hire a woman to have a baby and give it to them. HB 1267 would also change who the law presumes to be the parents of a child. If passed, the state would presume that children can be born with two parents of the same sex. This is even without assisted reproduction: there are also provisions in the bill to specifically address who the parents are when a child is conceived with assisted reproduction.

There were many proposed amendments, however most of them were rejected. Debate centered around the provisions for surrogacy contracts, which would create an exception to the current law against child selling.

Rep. Miloscia expressed strong concerns and asked for additional safeguards to be added to protect surrogate mothers, including a minimum wage and a requirement that medical costs related to the pregnancy be covered by the intended parents. However, the House rejected those changes.

Rep. Pedersen, the bill's prime sponsor, did offer an amendment so that the bill would no longer repeal the law prohibiting use of a child or developmentally disabled woman as a surrogate mother. That amendment was one of the few accepted by the House.

You can find how each representative voted on HB 1267 by visiting the bill's information page. HB 1267 is now in the hands of the Senate. You can send an email to your senator or send them a message by calling the legislative hotline 1-800-562-6000. Email addresses for senators can be found on the legislature's website.

Monday Minute : The Difference between Privacy and Secrecy

2011-02-28T12:53:00.001-08:00

Thoughts from our director.

The first two months of 2011 have been challenging for Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion business. They claim to be “America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care”, but the nature and volume of the attention they are getting could threaten the trust they want to have with the American public—and rightly so.

In Kansas, a case against Planned Parenthood continues in which 107 charges have been filed for making false information, failing to maintain records, and conducting illegal late-term abortions. In Virginia, New Jersey, and New York, Planned Parenthood employees were caught telling underage girls how to get around abortion laws, hiding the age of statutory rapists, and telling pimps how to get abortions for the victims of their child-trafficking.

Fueled by this shocking evidence, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would prevent the federal government from giving money to Planned Parenthood.

Initially Planned Parenthood’s responded to their apparent cooperation with sex traffickers by claiming that the employees depicted in the videos were actually plants. After that claim turned out to be meritless, they tried to portray themselves as the victim of a heartless effort to use their culture of privacy against them.

This is the point at which they most clearly demonstrate their detachment from the rest of the “not personally profiting from abortion and contraceptives” world.If you have watched any of the videos, you will be struck by the ease with which employees fraternize with individuals who have just admitted to pimping children for sex. It is the kind of ease and comfort that comes only from familiarity.

Perhaps that specific scenario was new, but it is obvious that Planned Parenthood employees are accustomed to confronting situations that should horrify them and simply dispensing contraceptives and abortions without judgment.

When a 15-year old admits that she was impregnated by a man who is 23, the public says “call the parents, tell the cops, throw the pervert in jail”. Planned Parenthood says, “just lie about your age and we’ll say nothing.” When a pimp says he wants to be able to gets abortions for the girls he sells for sex abortions without the authorities knowing about it, the public says “the gallows at noon tomorrow”. Planned Parenthood says, “just say you’re the guardian and we won’t have to report anything”.

The public is outraged, not because they hate privacy, but because they have not been conditioned to turn a blind eye to obvious injustices in the name of protecting privacy.

Shielding information from those who have no need for it is privacy. Refusing to notify parents that their child is pregnant by a man twice her age or has a sexually transmitted disease is secrecy because parents have a right to know when their children are in danger. The rationalization involved in reaching any other conclusion makes you unworthy of the public’s trust.

In Washington State, a parental notification law cannot even receive a public hearing because Rep. Eilene Cody, the chair of the House Health Care & Wellness committee, believes it is appropriate that 14-year old girls are considered emancipated the moment they conceive. In other words, she believes parent’s have no right to know when their daughter is pregnant. The last poll Gallup did on this issue revealed that 69% of the public felt that parents should be involved when teens get pregnant.

If young women know that Planned Parenthood will get parents and authorities involved when it is appropriate, they would go to Planned Parenthood less often. This would be bad for Planned Parenthood’s revenue because pimps and girls running from their parents would fear accountability. Still, it would be good for the community and the women they serve because sex-traffickers and girls engaged in dangerous behavior would no longer have a safe haven from law enforcement and parents.

Planned Parenthood has spent their life trying to convince themselves, and those who work with them, that these unfortunate incidences are simply the tradeoff for a culture of privacy that ultimately serves women well. But deep down, they must have known the chickens would come home to roost. Now that they have, they can’t really be surprised that we no longer want to pay for their delusions.

Legislative Update

2011-02-25T12:16:00.000-08:00

By Rebecca Faust

With the legislature's policy committee deadline passed, here's an update on where several bills are at.

In general, bills that weren't reported out of policy committee by Monday, February 21st, can't be passed this session. Fiscal committees have through today to report bills out of committee. These deadlines are only for bills in their chamber of origin (e.g. a House bill would need to be reported out of a House committee, but if it passes the House it can still be considered by a Senate policy committee at a later date). Budget bills are exempt from the committee deadlines.

Please keep in mind that bills which aren't reported out of committee by the deadline this session can still be considered and passed in the next legislative session.

HB 1366 Concerning limited service pregnancy centers.

Brief Description: HB 1366 would require crises pregnancy centers to make a number of disclosures in various languages and regulate how crises pregnancy centers handle client information.
Status: HB 1366 was reported out of the House Committee on Health Care and Wellness on February 10th. It is now up to the House Rules Committee whether to put HB 1366 before the full house for debate and vote.

SB 5274 Concerning limited service pregnancy centers.

Brief Description: SB 5274 would require crises pregnancy centers to make a number of disclosures in various languages and regulate how crises pregnancy centers handle client information.
Status: SB 5274: has not been reported out of the policy committee which it was referred to.

HB 1267 Clarifying and expanding the rights and obligations of state registered domestic partners and other couples related to parentage.

Brief Description: HB 1267 would make a number of changes to Washington's parentage laws, including changes to who is presumed to be a parent, and legalizing paid surrogacy.
Status: HB 1267 was reported out of the House Committee on the Judiciary on January 27th. Because HB 1267 has a fiscal impact, it was referred to the House Committee on General Government Appropriations and Oversight (a fiscal committee), which it was reported out of on February 16th. The House Rules Committee has decided to put HB 1267 before the full House for debate.

HB 1963 Concerning civil marriages.

Brief Description: HB 1963 would give legal recognition to "gay marriage."
Status: HB 1263 has not been reported out of the policy committee which it was referred to.

SB 5793 Addressing civil marriage equality.

Brief Description: SB 5793 would give legal recognition to "gay marriage."
Status: SB 5793 has not been reported out of the policy committee which it was referred to.

HB 1312 / SB 5148 Regarding statutory changes needed to implement a waiver to receive federal assistance for certain state purchased public health care programs.

Brief Description: HB 1312 and SB 5148 were identical bills introduced into the House and Senate respectively, although committee amendments have since been made to both bills. HB 1312 / SB 5148 would limit enrollment in state medical care services.

Status: HB 1312 was reported out of the House Committee on Health Care and Wellness on February 3rd. HB 1312 was subsequently referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means (a fiscal committee). It was reported out of the Ways and Means Committee also. It is now up to the House Rules Committee whether to put HB 1312 before the full House for debate and vote.

SB 5148 was reported out of the Senate Committee on Health and Long-Term Care on February 8th. SB 5148 was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means (a fiscal committee), which has not yet held a public hearing. If the Committee on Ways and Means does not report the bill today, it will need to wait till next session to be considered.

SB 5546 Concerning the crime of human trafficking.

Brief Description: SB 5546 expands definitions for human trafficking offenses and adds definitions for some terminology.
Status: SB 5546 was reported out of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 21st. It is now up to the Senate Rules Committee whether to put SB 5546 before the full Senate for debate and vote.

If you would like to share your opinion on any of these bills (or any other bill) with your legislators, you can call the legislative hotline 1-800-562-6000.

Follow up-to-date bill tracking here!

Redefining Marriage

2011-02-21T11:29:00.000-08:00

By Rebecca Faust

Legislators introduced two bills last week aimed at redefining marriage in Washington to include same-sex couples. Senator Ed Murray sponsored SB 5793, which was introduced on Monday, February 14th. Representative Jim Moeller sponsored HB 1963, which was introduced on Tuesday, February 15th. Both bills also had a number of co-sponsors.

Although the two bills are not identical, both would change the definition of marriage in RCW 26.04.010(1): "Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable." Instead SB 5793 and HB 1963 would define marriage as "a civil contract between two persons who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable."

Both bills are prefaced with a lengthy explanation and justification.

HB 1963 claims that "many of [the rights, benefits, and obligations conferred by state statute on married couples] are currently unavailable to Washington's same sex couples even with Washington's domestic partnership law," but does not provide any examples.

Some of you may remember that the legislature passed the "everything but marriage" law just two years ago, which took effect after it was unsuccessfully challenged through the referendum process (Referendum 71).

SB 5793 does provide a list of "rights, benefits, or obligations" supposedly "unavailable to Washington's same sex couples," but this list isn't accurate. For instance, SB 5793 complains that same-sex couples don't have "the right to inherit property when there is no will." In fact, a registered domestic partner has the same inheritance rights as a spouse would have in the absence of a will.

I suspect that HB 1963 and SB 5793 are less about legal rights and responsibilities than about obtaining a stamp of approval, from the state if not from God, that a sexual union and mutual commitment between two men, or two women, is equal to the (sacred) union of a man and a woman in matrimony. Of course, I don't question that they want the legal benefits of marriage (which for the most part they already have) as well.

Neither bill has been scheduled for a public hearing yet, which means they probably will have to wait until next year at least. However, if you would like to express your concerns to your senator and representatives, you can call the legislative hotline 1-800-562-6000. This could be a good opportunity to show legislators that we don't want them twisting marriage and that if they will stand for the true definition of marriage, they will have support.

Public Hearing on HB 1267 Scheduled for Tuesday

2011-02-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

By Rebecca Faust

Substitute House Bill 1267, overhauling Washington's parentage laws, has been scheduled for a public hearing in the House General Government Appropriations and Oversight Committee next Tuesday.

You can find detailed information about HB 1267 on the legislature's website, but here are a couple of highlights that may interest you:

HB 1267 would allow women to enter into a paid surrogacy contract, become pregnant through assisted reproduction, and give up their child for financial profit. Surrogacy contracts are binding in the sense that once a woman enters a contract, she can't decide to keep her child as her own. However, she would not need the consent of the intended parents to seek an abortion for any reason during the pregnancy.

HB 1267 would change rules regarding presumptions of parentage. Currently, if a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is legally presumed to be the father of that child. HB 1267 would extend this presumption to same-sex relationships, so that a child could be legally presumed to have a second mother, for example, if the mother is in a domestic partnership with another woman.

HB 1267 was previously considered by the Judiciary Committee, which recommended passage of a substitute (amended) bill. Because of the bill's financial impact for state government, it is being considered by a second committee (other than Rules), which specializes in fiscal matters, before possibly being considered by the full House of Representatives. HB 1267 is estimated to cost the state $80,920.

This public hearing is your chance to make your voice heard. In addition, you may contact your representatives by calling the legislative hotline: 1-800-562-6000. Here are the details regarding the hearing:

House General Government Appropriations and Oversight Committee
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
8:00 a.m.
John L. O'Brien Building, House Hearing Room C

If you choose to attend a public hearing, please be sure to sign in regardless of whether you choose to testify. Doing so creates a record of your presence and your position on the bill. There is a place to mark on the sign-in sheet whether you wish to testify or not.

Restrictions on Pregnancy Centers Found Unconstitutional

2011-01-31T11:05:00.000-08:00

In a decision that could have significant impact on legislation here in Washington State, a federal judge in Maryland struck down a law requiring pregnancy resource centers in Baltimore to post notification that they will not help you obtain an abortion.

The Baltimore ordinance, enacted December 4, 2009, states:

A limited-service pregnancy center must provide its clients and potential clients with a disclaimer substantially to the effect that the center does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control related services

The judge held that this violates their freedom of speech because it mandates the inclusion of a government message concurrent, and intertwined with, [their] delivery of fully protected speech. (pg 19-20).

The bill that is currently being considered in Washington state is much more onerous than the law that was struck down in Baltimore.

In the case of HB 1366 and SB 5274, pregnancy resource centers are required to include a disclaimer that says the centers do not provide abortions or “comprehensive birth control information” and do they provide referrals to those who do, nor do they provide medical care for pregnant women. That disclaimer, which is demonstrably false for the dozens of medical clinics in Washington, must be included not only on the front door of the clinic in 30 point font, but also on every piece of written literature the center creates that advertises their services.

If Baltimore’s regulation is improper because it mandates government speech concurrent with otherwise protected speech, it is quite likely that Washington’s bill would also be struck down.

This decision also greatly improves the chances that, if passed, an injunction would prevent the bill from ever being enacted.

While many have been making the argument that these bills are unconstitutional, this decision provides considerable strength to that argument. What the legislature will do with this information remains to be seen. But during a session in which they are trying to close a budget deficit approaching $5 billion, hopefully they will decide there are better uses for taxpayer dollars than defending a bill they knew in advance was unconstitutional.

There is a public hearing on this bill this Wednesday, February 2nd, at 8 am in the Cherberg building on the capital campus. You are urged to attend.

If you cannot attend, please contact your legislators through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000 and ask them to oppose HB 1366 and SB 5274.

To read the complete text of this decision, please click here.

To support our efforts to protect the pregnancy centers, please click here.

Why Washington Should Cut “Take Charge”

2011-01-12T12:22:00.000-08:00

I know, I know. You have no idea what Take Charge is, much less have an opinion on why it should lose its funding. But that’s what we’re here for: enlightenment. Regardless, when you’re staring down a $5 billion budget deficit, it isn’t that hard to make the case that something should lose its funding.

Take Charge is a tax-payer funded program that pays for contraception. While the majority of the funds come from the federal government, millions of state dollars are spent on the program every biennium. According to the Feminist Women’s Health Center, the goal of Take Charge is to help people have the tools to reduce unintended pregnancies which will save on the state’s expense of paying for labor and delivery.

In theory, this seems plausible. We all recognize that it is less expensive not to have children than to have children. While we should question the long-term wisdom of perpetual efforts to reduce the number of children born, possible short-term budget benefits seem possible.

Therefore, the program could be considered a success if the cost of the program was offset by even greater reductions in spending on live births and abortions. This has not happened.

While taxpayers spend $15 - $20 million each year on Take Charge, (most of which comes from federal sources) the state pays much more to deliver babies than it did previously. In fact, since take charge has been operating,Washington State’s spending on live birth’s through Medicaid increased from $200 million to nearly $340 million in 2009. Costs to the state from live birth’s have grown more then 70% since Take Charge was created. It seems fair to say that the program is not saving tax dollars by preventing pregnancies.

Of course it is not disappointing that babies are being born. It just seems fairly obvious that these expenditures are not accomplishing their stated purpose.

Even though taxpayers aren’t seeing any benefit from the program, that doesn’t mean no one benefits. It has done wonders for Planned Parenthood. The program has expanded their customer base to such an extent that more then half of Planned Parenthood’s client’s are now Take Charge enrollees.(see page 2) Because they know that 10% of all women who receive their contraceptives will ultimately become pregnant, they not only benefit from the taxpayer subsidies for the contraceptives, but they also do 11% more abortions previous to Take Charge being implemented.

The growth of their customer base has done wonders for their financial situation as well. In 1999, when Take Charge was created, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, the largest of the five Planned Parenthood regions in Washington, had $5.5 million in revenue. (see page 9 line 17) In 2008, after 8 years of Take Charge, their revenues had jumped to $27.3 million. (page 2 line 9) Not bad for a “non-profit”.

Given that Planned Parenthood in Washington has profited so significantly from this program, it is understandable that they would defend its continued existence despite the lack of return to taxpayers. Perhaps that explains why they, along with their friends at NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League), spent more than $1.2 million between 2008 and 2010 on Washington State elections.

In light of the $5 billion deficit the state is facing, the Governor has proposed cuts to virtually every area of government. Social services took some of the biggest hits. The cuts include General Assistance-Unemployable, which provides assistance to those who are physically or mentally handicapped in a way that makes them unemployable. The budget also reduces the number of children eligible for state health care coverage, eliminates dental coverage for adults, cuts school-based medical services, cuts interpreter services, as well as vision, podiatry, and hearing coverage for adults.

However, one thing the governor’s budget does not cut is Take Charge. Please raise your hand if you would rather pay for a college girl’s contraceptives than food for the handicapped or dental coverage for the poor. Me either.

There is a massive budget deficit. The state will cut a lot of spending that is not controversial but is unaffordable. Take charge fails to accomplish its stated goal of saving the tax payers money. There is no reason Take Charge should continue to be funded.

To Contact your Legislators about this, or any other issue, please call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Through this number, you can contact your legislators even if you don’t know who they are. We suggest you put it into your phone for future reference.

Monday Minute: Tell You What to Buy, Tell You What to Sell

2010-12-20T14:28:00.002-08:00

Two stories in the last week are painting an interesting picture of what freedom in America might look like in the future.

The first story is the ongoing saga concerning the constitutionality of ObamaCare. A federal judge recently found the mandate to purchase health care, which is the foundation of President Obama’s health insurance plan, unconstitutional.

That decision is at odds with two others that have said the mandate is proper under the omnibus “commerce clause”.
The commerce clause, which gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce, has been interpreted very broadly to allow just about every conceivable action the federal government would take. Still, the most recent decision held that the ability to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to compel people to participate in it. That is a refreshingly novel perspective that could determine if there is a limit to commerce clause powers.

This issue is not likely to be resolved soon. But the fact is, many people, including the President, believe it is appropriate for the government to force people to purchase things.

Here in Washington State, a lesser known issue involves whether the government can force businesses to sell certain products they would rather not sell. Many pro-life pharmacists do not want to sell the “Plan B” drug because they believe it causes an abortion. Therefore, for several years, they have been fighting for the right to refer patients who want the drug to pharmacists who do not object to selling it. However, just last week, the Board of Pharmacy, with the urging of our Governor, reasserted their desire to deny small business owners this right. Instead, they want to compel pharmacists to sell something that violates their conscience if they want to be a pharmacy.

Despite the fact that there is not a single example of a woman in Washington being unable to access “Plan B”, Governor Gregoire and the Board of Pharmacy apparently believe convenience in getting abortion drugs is more important than the right of an individual not to participate in behavior they believe to be immoral.

This issue also is not fully resolved. Pharmacists may proceed with legal action asserting their constitutional rights of conscience. Even the legislature could step in and overrule the Board of Pharmacies decision, and I hope they do.

But for a moment contemplate the absurdity of the fact that we are even having these discussions. If the leftists win these battles, we will have a situation where the government can compel you to purchase products you don’t want and force businesses to sell products they don’t want to sell. But really, they’re big fans of the free market.

Every time freedom is taken away, it is done in the name of a good cause. It’s usually done to provide safety or security for the greatest number; sacrificing the individual for the collective. But if you make that compromise too many times, there is a point at which you cease to be free. Once we allow the government to tell us what to buy and what to sell, the line between slave and free has to be close. If we allow the government to tell us what we can buy and sell, are we really free?

Monday Minute : Is Your Pastor An Anarchist?

2010-12-13T12:55:00.000-08:00

Thoughts from our Executive Director

Ok, the title is a bit alarmist. But there is a point, I promise.

Within Christendom, there are a wide range of approaches as to how Christians, both individually and collectively, should engage in law, government, and public policy. Some feel that government exists to make sure everyone behaves like them, some feel government is irrelevant. Still others feel government is an instrument of evil and should be totally abandoned.

However, the greatest conflict within Christian churches is between two groups that generally agree what the outcome should be but have strong differences of opinion as to what should be done to achieve that outcome.

One camp believes in complete engagement. They see it as a right, and indeed a responsibility, to engage in political and social battles. On the other side is a group that believes those efforts are ultimately futile. They believe bad laws and bad governments are merely a symptom of heart conditions that can only be addressed one person at a time.

Banning abortion will not prevent it from happening, defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman prevent people from being gay, and banning divorce will not prevent men from being abusive or unfaithful, they say. They will agree that certain behavior shouldn't be encouraged, but they disagree that government should be used to compel people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn’t.

If you are not in this camp yourself, you undoubtedly know someone who is. Many of them work in pulpits.

The problem with this argument is not with their motives. Of course, motives are almost always good, and good motives pave the road to hell.

The problem, as I see it, is simply that none of it is relevant to the question of “should we be involved?” God created government and God created the church. Both serve different functions. The purpose of good government is to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. The purpose of the church is entirely different. The fact that the government cannot accomplish the goals of the church should be obvious. Yet, many Christians abandon the realm of public policy as a form of protest against that very fact.

Moreover, refusing to get involved on issues like marriage and abortion because a legislative victory would not change hearts is not an argument for limited government, it is an argument for no government. No government action is designed to change hearts. If it is your desire to induce change only through a heart change, you would need to oppose the entire penal system.

Because I can hear the argument already, I feel compelled to acknowledge that many will make a distinction between social issues and criminal acts. They will feel that crimes should be punished because people are actually hurt, while social issues like marriage and abortion hurt no one. Ignoring the absurdity of this argument as it relates to abortion, those who make that argument in any case are arguing from outside orthodox Christianity.

Christianity is clear that corporate promotion of sin is never without consequences, for both the individual and the collective. Therefore Christians can not argue that promotion of bad behavior will ever be without consequences. As a result, refusal to take a position on a law that encourages bad behavior should never be based on the belief that it doesn't matter.

So the question remains, if you hold the position of non-engagement on social issues because hearts will not be changed, shouldn’t you also oppose (or at least be ambivalent to) every effort of government to control behavior? And if you recognize that bad behavior always has negative consequences, is ambivalence ever an option when your government moves to encourage bad behavior?

Monday Minute : Unusual Marriage Appeal Heard Today

2010-12-06T11:26:00.000-08:00

Thoughts from our Executive Director

In August of this year, a judge in California ruled that the California Constitution violated the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as a relationship between one-man and one-woman. Today that decision is being appealed before the ninth circuit court of appeals.

This case is unusual in several respects. In addition to hearing arguments about a state’s ability to define marriage, the court will decide whether those who disagree with the judge’s decision even have standing to appeal it.

For political reasons, neither California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown was willing to defend their state’s right of self-government by appealing the decision. I cannot help but wonder what the point of having a state attorney general is if he is unwilling to defend the state’s Constitution.

As a result, attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, ProtectMarriage.com, and Imperial County are left to defend the state’s Constitution in court. Because they were not parties to the original suit, the court must decide if the appeal will even be allowed.

Assuming it is, there are real questions about the objectivity of the judges that will be hearing this case. Several pro-marriage advocates have called for Judge Stephen Reinhardt to recuse himself.

Judge Reinhardt has already demonstrated strong sympathies for the gay rights agenda. He ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as applied to federal employees. In that decision, he quoted favorably from the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision striking down California’s predecessor to Prop 8. He has also ruled that student’s must give up free speech rights when it would offend gays; that employers can prohibit employee speech that disapproves of homosexual behavior; and that parents have no constitutional rights to protect their elementary-age children from school-initiated discussions on sexuality and gay marriage.

The most concerning aspect regarding Judge Reinhardt’s objectivity is that his wife—a longtime head of the ACLU of Southern California—is personally involved in the case he is set to hear today. Not only was she a contributor to the campaign to prevent the passage of Prop 8, but she has assisted the lawyers who want to overturn it. Now those lawyers will be before the husband of a woman who helped them build their case. That should not be.

This case is not just about marriage, it is about the American system of government. A majority of voters in California amended their state Constitution to define marriage in the way they preferred. A single judge stepped in and said that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from defining marriage as a relationship between one-man and one-woman. He substituted his views on marriage for that of 7 million Californians.

If California cannot define marriage as it seea fit, neither can any other state. This case will ultimately decide whether the power is vested in the people, or in the infinite wisdom of lawyers in black robes; whether we are a republic or an oligarchy.

Highest Evangelical Turnout In History

2010-11-08T14:58:00.000-08:00

Over the past several months, we have talked repeatedly about the need for conservative Christians to vote. Nationally, fewer than 40% of evangelicals vote in a typical election. As a result, millions of ballots that could be cast on behalf of enduring, common-sense values are left blank. Over the past decade, we have seen the impact of this failure to steward our civic authority as halls of government have become increasingly hostile to common sense and enduring concepts of what is true.

Then Tuesday happened.

By now you know that Tuesday’s elections represented an historic…something. The talking heads are still working out what that was. But what you may not know is exactly who is responsible for this change.

A poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the Faith and Freedom Coalition found that the largest single constituency in the electorate in the 2010 midterm elections was self-identified evangelicals. Overall, nearly 32% of the electorate identified themselves as evangelical or conservative Christians.

Surprisingly, this represented only a 5% increase over evangelical turnout in 2006. But the difference it made was historic.

Traditional political efforts intentionally ignore this voting bloc because of fear over controversial social issues like the right of the unborn to live and the definition of marriage. As the system has increasingly ignored their issues, these voters have become less engaged.

Fortunately, that is beginning to change. And you have helped create the change.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington is proud to be part of a national network of Family Policy Councils that has identified the voting apathy of America’s evangelicals as one of the primary culprits in our increasingly bizarre public policy. In doing so, we have been carrying out targeted efforts to reach voters that have been largely ignored by the political establishment. Efforts to ensure that socially conservative voters know which candidates share their worldview have proven to dramatically increase their likelihood to vote.

Here in Washington, we were able to target more than 300,000 of these households with pro-family messages through phone calls, mail, websites, and online messages. Similar efforts were conducted around the country. The results speak for themselves.

Of course, much is being done that we cannot take credit for. But this study verifies that we are definitely on the right course. This information shows how significant the conservative Christian voting bloc is, and proves that even a relatively modest improvement in participation can make a tremendous difference.

We trust this is just the beginning, and we are confident that we are on the right course. As we continue to learn and continue to grow, we will continue to raise our level of expectation. Thank you for your partnership that makes it all possible.

10 Reasons to Oppose Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

2010-07-27T16:06:00.000-07:00

In light of the Governor's ongoing hearings to discuss how to save tax dollars, here are 10 reasons why now is a good time to end taxpayer funding of abortions in Washington:

1. Every year Washington spends over $7 million directly to pay for abortions, through the Medicaid program. If these funds are to be spent on anything, they would be better spent helping the mentally and physically disabled, tuition expenses for exceptional but poor students,
2. Washington is just one of a handful of states that uses tax money to pay for abortions.
3. The federal government has not paid for abortions for decades, recognizing that it is immoral to compel people to fund activities they find morally wrong.
4. With a multi-billion dollar deficit, Olympia cannot justify this expenditure when so many other programs, with broad public support, are being cut.
5. It is irresponsible to cut education funding while continuing to provide subsidies to the abortion industry.
6. The abortion industry is massively profitable. Subsidies for the abortion industry is like a subsidy for Microsoft. They simply don’t need them. If the abortion industry is really concerned with the health and well-being of women, they can provide their services without charge out of their significant annual profits.
7. Warren Buffett's wife has a standing offer with abortion clinics and hospitals around the country to pay for half the cost of any poor woman's abortion. They don't need tax money.
8. If the government believes this $7 million to pay for abortions is "worth it" because it will save taxpayers' money by not having to pay for other benefits to these children -- by killing them in utero -- let the children be born and say so explicitly.
9. The $7 million to pay for abortions through Medicaid is separate from the roughly $25 million the state pays out to Planned Parenthood for birth control and other reasons.)
10. Almost exactly half of all the abortions in Washington are now paid for with taxpayer's money.

Click here to let Governor Gregoire know where you stand on taxpayer funding of abortion, as well as other ideas you might have for saving taxpayer money.

Special thanks to Jonathan from abortionstate.blogspot.com for his help in compiling this list.

Click here for documentation of how much taxpayer money Washington pays for abortion every year.

The problem with Kagan

2010-07-15T14:44:00.000-07:00

According to a recent study, only two-thirds of Americans can name a single Supreme Court justice. That means it is likely that even fewer are aware that the U.S. Senate is in the process of deciding whether Elena Kagan will be the next justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Not only should you be aware this is happening, you should be troubled by the apparent inevitability of her confirmation. My concern with Ms. Kagan on the Supreme Court is the same concern I would have if my accountant showed up to perform my heart surgery. It isn’t that she is incapable or can’t offer something valuable to the world; it is simply that her deficiencies make it dangerous for her to perform this particular job.

The statement that best illustrates her lack of qualification were revealed in an exchange with Sen. Tom Grassley. (click here to view) Sen. Grassley asked Ms. Kagan whether she believes the second amendment codified (wrote into law) an existing right or was a right created by the constitution. After looking momentarily confused, Ms. Kagan admitted that she had never really considered that question.

This should horrify you.

If you were to build a shed in your yard, you would have the right to remove or tear down that shed once it no longer served a useful purpose. If your neighbor builds a shed in his backyard, you do not have the right to remove it because you have no authority over it.

So it is with individual rights. If the constitution codified an existing right, it would simply be acknowledging rights that pre-existed the constitution. However, if the constitution created the right, then the government that created the right would also have the authority to take it away.

The idea that a United States Supreme Court justice would have never considered the difference between these philosophies is like a baseball player who has never considered whether to run to first base or third base after hitting the ball.

Unlike Ms. Kagan, our founding fathers thought about this question at length. Their belief that men are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” was fundamental to their understanding of liberty and is the chief reason the constitution was written to control the government and not to control the people. Thomas Jefferson stated his position this way. “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

There are only two options. Either rights come from God or rights come from government. The fact that Ms. Kagan has never considered this question should concern us not only because it could be evidence of intellectual apathy, but because without considering this question you cannot possibly understand the substance of the constitution she would be charged with interpreting.

I am certain there are many things Ms. Kagan can do well. The evidence suggests that understanding the constitution and preserving our freedom is not likely one of them.

Does it Matter if Signatures are Released?

2010-06-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

Thoughts from the Executive Director

Last year, the Washington State Legislature passed a law granting same-sex domestic partnership legal equivalence to heterosexual marriages. Those who opposed the law collected enough signatures to allow the voters to either approve or reject the law. Amid threats of intimidation, a lawsuit was filed to keep the names of those who signed the petition private.

Today the United State’s Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that public disclosure of referendum signatures does not generally violate the first amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The court did not decide the signatures must be disclosed, only that disclosure does not automatically violate the First Amendment. In the coming months, a judge will determine whether the facts surrounding Referendum 71 justify keeping the signatures private.

While the final answer has not been given, this might be the time for those who signed Referendum 71 to ask themselves, “Does it really matter?”

In a myriad ways, we are making decisions as a culture that will define us forever. We are facing unprecedented financial problems. Traditional notions of right and wrong are being redefined by those who find them offensive. Our freedom is evaporating at an unprecedented rate.

This struggle is taking place in a political arena where the victory goes not to whoever has the best arguments, but to whoever is most committed to their beliefs.

Consequently, our commitment to our beliefs is being tested. Our concern over the disclosure of signatures could be an indication of our commitment.
At this moment, those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are in the awkward position of claiming that they will be less likely to speak up if their names are made public. I can’t help but wonder how John Hancock would feel about that argument.

Of course, violence and threats of violence have no place in civil public discourse. To the extent that it has occurred or does occur, it should be dealt with. Still, my true concern is that those who claim to be commitment to timeless truth would wilt at the mere threat that their position would become public knowledge. Didn’t a wise man once say something about not hiding your candle und a bushel?

If mean-spiritedness is sufficient to silence those of us who say we are committed to Truth, principle, freedom, and the family as God designed it, then I submit to you that we were never really committed to those things. Instead, we just claimed to be, while committing principally to something else; perhaps our own comfort.

This country was founded by people who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in pursuit of freedom. If freedom had enemies then, should we be shocked that it still has enemies now? If our forefathers felt obligated to give everything for freedom, should we reasonably expect it to cost us nothing?

In the coming months we will learn whether the names on these petitions will be made public or not. Still, those who stand to be “outed” need to ask themselves if it really matters. For the sake of our future, I sure hope not. If it does, then we have already lost.

Planned Parenthood More Trustworthy than Other Medical Practices?

2010-06-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

Planned Parenthood More Trustworthy than Other Medical Practices?
June 1,2010

Every day in Washington State, people have surgery in office-based facilities. Hundreds of offices perform procedures like oral surgery, foot surgery, and plastic surgery outside hospital facilities.

While I am not personally aware of any crisis, there is apparently concern about lack of regulation of these facilities. Enough concern, in fact, that within the Washington State Department of Health, the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC) is drafting new rules to create standards for office-based surgery centers.

Among the provisions is an accreditation requirement for the office in which the surgery takes place.

Somewhere along the way, the abortion industry realized that they were going to be included in these regulations. And that’s where this story gets interesting, because that’s when the MQAC started treating people differently. After working for nearly two years to create uniformity for all office-based surgery centers, the MQAC inserted language that would discriminate against medical facilities simply because they do not provide abortions:

“In lieu of accreditation or certification by one of the above-listed entities, facilities limiting office-based surgery to abortions or abortion-related services may be accredited or certified by either the Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The MQAC was explicitly telling the abortion industry that they could be self-accredited. The commission charged with assuring quality in medical care was telling the abortion industry, and only the abortion industry, that they could police themselves. If that doesn’t sound right, that’s because it isn’t.

The doctors I have spoken with say there is no precedent in medical practice for self-accreditation, nor should there be. Can you imagine the state giving builders the authority to issue their own permits? Can you imagine the Security and Exchange Commission giving Goldman Sachs the authority to hire their own auditors and report to themselves? If you are accountable only to yourself, you are not accountable.

Every other hospital in Washington is accountable to a third party. If the industry is as concerned with the health and safety of women as they say, they should not want a lower standard.

This situation is particularly troublesome because Planned Parenthood receives more than $23 million a year from taxpayers. Typically, organizations that receive taxpayer funds are subject to more oversight, not less. Then again, Planned Parenthood is not your father’s lobby group.

This is the same Planned Parenthood that, in 2009, was fined $700,000 for habitual illegal billing practices. The Washington State legislature responded in 2010, not by creating oversight and accountability for Planned Parenthood, but by working on behalf of Planned Parenthood to make pregnancy resource centers subject to complaints under the Consumer Protection Act and restrict their first amendment rights. Significantly, pregnancy resource centers do not receive a single penny of taxpayer dollars, but do encourage women not to have abortions.

The conflict of interest intentionally created by this rule raises serious questions about the Medical Quality Assurance Commission’s commitment to public health and safety. If the state believes, as they apparently do, that public safety requires these office-based surgery facilities to be regulated, what possible public benefit could be served by allowing only the abortion industry to policy itself?

One of the challenges in responding to this issue is that the rule is not being created by legislators but by a committee appointed by the Governor. That means legislators do not have official input. However, they do have oversight of the Department of Health and their awareness of this issue is important.

Therefore, we urge you to contact your legislators and tell them you do not want the Medical Quality Assurance Commission creating exemptions from health regulations for the abortion industry. You can also contact the MQAC here and ask them to make sure they apply the law equally and don’t intentionally create conflicts of interest.

As always, please be respectful but please be heard.

Your support of our efforts to stop this from being enacted is greatly appreciated.

This is All Our Fault

2010-04-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

Congress just passed ObamaCare over the objections of the majority of the country. Washington State is awakened to the reality that in Washington a 13 year-old girl can get an abortion without her parent’s awareness but can’t get her ears pierced without their permission. Two long weeks later, the Washington State Legislature finally figures out how to raise taxes amidst high unemployment and a struggling economy.

Meanwhile, American public is fit to be tied. We are angry at the President, banks, regulators, car companies, the media, insurance companies, the Federal Reserve Board, the United Nations, Wall Street, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, Congress, terrorists— even Icelandic volcanoes.

Tea parties have organized across the country to protest the Government and everything associated with it. They yell at the Republicans, the Democrats, the independents, and pretty much everyone and everything that has ever been elected to public office.

However, as the American public continues its rampage, we should arrange for at least one more national protest—in front of a giant mirror. In all the unrest, the public appears to be missing the fact that we are the captains of this ship. Despite our protests, this is still a government of, by, and for the people. We, through our collective voice, still determine how we are governed. And we can take full responsibility for where we are today.

Everything we complain about today was avoidable, but we chose not to avoid it.

If a company fails, we would not think well of the CEO that blames the janitor or the vice-president of marketing. So why should we feel free to blame elected officials that we hired for not acting our best interest. If they were not acting in our best interest, why do we re-elect incumbents 95% of the time?

Legislators don’t think long-term because we reward them for thinking short-term. It isn’t as if the American public has been begging for some delayed gratification. We can blame Fanny and Freddie for writing bad loans, but we took them. We decry unaffordable social programs, but we clapped and cheered, and ultimately voted for the candidates who promised us more government involvement and greater government benefits and took the benefits when they were offered.

Focusing all the blame on our elected leaders is like a heroin addict blaming his dealer for his addiction. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

There is much to be concerned about, but I suggest we stop blaming the prince of fools and start blaming the fools who made him their prince.

Lack of Parental Notification is our Fault

2010-03-30T09:54:00.000-07:00

Monday Minute for March 29, 2010
Lack of Parental Notification is our Fault
Thoughts from the Executive Director

Last week our state came face to face with an unfortunate reality. In Seattle, a fifteen year-old girl was sent to a hospital for an abortion and her parents were never notified.

Sadly, what was done was entirely legal. While a seventeen year-old can’t get her ears pierced or get a tattoo without parental permission, a fifteen year-old can get an abortion without the parents ever knowing it happened.

The girl’s parents had signed a consent form that authorized the school to provide medical services, including birth control. And in our strange way of looking at things, we make no distinction between ending a pregnancy and preventing a pregnancy. But let’s be clear, this consent form had nothing to do with the fact that she was able to get an abortion without notifying her parents.

In fact, an abortion is the only medical procedure that girl could have undergone that day without her parents being notified. They wouldn’t consider setting your child’s broken arm without letting you know. Your child can’t even get on a school bus and go to the zoo without your written permission. But she can be sent to a hospital for an abortion without your awareness.

No harm would have resulted from waiting until the parents were made aware of their daughter’s pregnancy unless you believe, as our policy makers do, that this girl’s parents are the harm that she is to be protected from.

In the eyes of the law, it is not at all tragic that a fifteen year-old would be pregnant and have an abortion. What is tragic is that a young girl, while pregnant, would be asked to consider the life of the baby developing within her. What is tragic is that a young girl would be asked to consider not just the next five months, but the next fifty years. Such a scenario is so offensive, that the law protects a minor from her own parents in order to ensure that it never transpires.

Is the situation wrong? It is more than wrong. Cheating on your taxes is wrong—this is unconscionable. The arrogance evidenced in the attitude that the government gets to decide what parents do and don’t know about their children should frighten each of us. When teenagers are in crisis, concerned, involved parents are not the problem; they are the solution to the problem.

This session, a bill was introduced that would have required parental notification for a minor to receive an abortion. As in prior years, it hasn’t even had a hearing. I hope this changes.

Call your legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and tell them that parents are not the enemy and that parental involvement in kid’s lives is a good thing—especially in a time of crisis. Ask them to support parental notification for abortions.
As always, please be respectful, but please be heard.

Thank God for Bart Stupak

2010-03-15T21:28:00.000-07:00

People who follow politics can become cynical. We joke that lawmaking is the proverbial sausage factory, but we joke because that’s preferable to screaming and cursing. The frustration is real.

Rasumussen says 71% of the public disapprove of the job they are doing. If you are one of those who disapprove, you’ll be encouraged by this fact because misery loves company. But it may not matter.

While all the evidence suggests that Americans have no interest in the current health insurance reform legislation that is being considered, those we pay to represent us are working very hard to pass it. And the individuals who are part of the sausage factory are feeling the squeeze.

Much was made of the Louisiana Purchase and the “Cornhusker Kickback” in which Sen. Mary Landrieu and Sen. Ben Nelson received hundreds of millions of dollars for their states in exchange for their willingness to vote in favor of health care reform. This bothered us because it appears that they are willing to support something they think is bad simply because they received a personal benefit from doing so. No one respects people who can be bought.

That’s why Bart Stupak is such a breath of fresh air. Bart Stupak is a Congressman from Michigan who has emerged as the leader of the pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives. He was responsible for an amendment in the House bill that prohibited the use of federal funds for elective abortions. That language was not included in the Senate version and that is the reason he and other pro-life Democrats stand in the way of final passage of this historic legislation.

Because of his principled opposition he is receiving tremendous pressure to change his position. Since Washington DC is so accustomed to changing people’s minds, it must be confounding when they find someone who won’t play ball. He and the other pro-life Democrats are currently being pressured by their leadership to abandon their principles to vote for something they know to be wrong.

"According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”

I’m sure there are many things Rep. Stupak and I disagree on. But that’s the case for most people on the planet. What is refreshing, and what gives me hope, is that on this issue he will not be moved. He understands that this issue is not a disagreement in which one person prefers to spend more and one prefers to spend less. Nor is it like deciding on the best way to reform education. This is a decision about whether our federal taxpayer dollars should be used to exterminate the lives of our youngest citizens.

Thank you, Bart Stupak, for having guts. Thank you for standing for the defenseless. Thank you for not being for sale. Thank you for giving me a reason to be a little less cynical.

You can express your gratitude by emailing Bart Stupak here or by calling (202) 225-4735.

Best,

Joseph Backholm
Executive Director
Family Policy Institute of Washington

Will Washington Refuse Money for Education?

2010-03-08T16:07:00.000-08:00

Conventional wisdom says that education is underfunded. In fact, lack of funding for education is the primary reason legislators are seriously considering a state income tax. However, on Friday, the House of Representatives proved that there are some things more important than education dollars.

A bill that would make the state more competitive for federal education funding, SB 6696, had already passed the Senate and was being considered by the House. President Obama created a grant program called “Race to the Top” which provides grants to states that have a plan to reform education and close the achievement gaps in failing schools.

In an effort to improve Washington’s chances, this bill creates another accountability system that rewards good schools and punishes bad schools. It also creates another evaluation system for teachers, provides for the demotion of principals in failing schools, and tries to reduce class sizes.

What the bill does not do, however, is allow competition for the current public school establishment. This is relevant to the state’s ability to get funds because President Obama has specifically mentioned innovative schools, like charter school programs, as the type of reform proposals he is interested in funding. However, when Rep. Doug Erickson proposed an amendment that would have created precisely the kind of innovation, it was rejected.

Had it been adopted, the amendment would have given local school districts the opportunity to create innovative school zones with schools that had local control over salaries, school hours, length of the school year, and even waived the requirement that teachers be certified by the state. Similar policies that give principals control over curriculum, personnel, and the budget have been very successful in other states. The amendment also would have made union membership optional.

It would benefit parents by providing new options for their child’s education. It would benefit students by providing alternatives to failing schools. It would benefit school districts by allowing them to innovate if they think it would be appropriate for their community. Everyone involved would have more freedom and more choice. That seems so American. It would even benefit the state because innovative schools always receive less money per student than traditional public schools.

What’s not to like?

If you’re a teacher’s union, quite a bit. Once competition is introduced, students will leave the failing schools for successful schools. Parents and teachers don’t care about the politics or the control. They just want a quality education. As tax dollars follow students from unsuccessful traditional public schools to more successful innovative schools, fewer teachers will be employed within failing schools and fewer teachers will be members of the union. Some would even close. That is the unacceptable risk embedded in this proposal.

With this vote, legislators choose not to create policy that is very likely to be good for education in favor of policy that will maximize the number of teachers employed by the state. This unfortunate choice highlights a fact every Washingtonian should be aware of: the primary goal of our education system is to employ teachers, not educate.
Of course none of this is meant to imply in any way that the teachers involved in the education system don’t care passionately about education. In fact, the teachers I know are more frustrated with the handcuffs from the state’s dogmatic opposition to innovation than I could ever be. Still, decisions like this continue to highlight the fact that the law does not have quality education as its primary goal.

Of course legislators would like a portion of the $4 billion for education—just as long as it doesn’t threaten the status quo.

Bill Encourages Churches to Indoctrinate Young Children?

2010-02-15T13:43:00.000-08:00

We’re told the Separation of Church and State exists to ensure that the church will never use the state to promote its religious beliefs. Does the wall of separation also exist to prevent the state from using the church to teach the state’s values?

This is a question buried deep in the weeds of HB 1329, a bill currently under consideration in the Washington State Senate that would force daycares, including church daycares, to unionize if other daycares in their area decide they want to unionize.

On page 4 of the bill, it says that any agreement between workers and the unions must be “consistent with the provisions of any quality rating and improvement system.” (pg. 4) At first blush, this language appears to be nothing more than a way to track the effectiveness of education.

However, the “quality rating and improvement system” referenced in this bill has already been carefully defined by the Department of Early Learning and contains strong values components that many who do not share the establishment value system of state government will find objectionable. You can read all 216 pages here.

Included, are a series of benchmarks that have nothing to do with whether Johnny knows his letters and numbers. The guidelines encourage caregivers to “share stories about how bias is addressed in community” with 3-5 year-olds. (pg. 49) It also suggests that caregivers “demonstrate and explain to [a]child how to stand up for self and others in the face of bias.” (pg. 61).

Many who read these requirements are confused by the concern over “bias”. As if anyone can be without bias. However, the fact that the concept is nonsensical does not make it meaningless.

In much the same way that the term “medically and scientifically accurate” is being used as a speech code to harass crisis pregnancy centers, those who dislike free thought and free expression frequently frame it as concern over “bias”. You may remember that opposition to “bias” led the administration at Spokane Falls Community College to prohibit pro-life literature from being distributed on their campus before a lawsuit forced them to change their unconstitutional policies. They even had a “Bias Incident Response Team” (BIRT) to deal with violations of their speech code.

I suspect many will I am an alarmist for suggesting that the term “bias” within the Department of Early Learning’s benchmarks indicates an effort to turn small children into leftists. If that is you, let’s look at something that is a little less ambiguous. On page 63, caregivers are encouraged to “read stories with child[ren] and elicit responses to characters, including stories from diverse cultures and family structures (e.g., single parent, same sex parents)”. Raise your hand if you believe the purpose of reading stories about same sex parents to 3 year-olds is to teach them how to love the sinner and hate the sin. I didn’t think so.

The appropriateness of the state including such strong moral statements in its benchmarks for the education of small children is problematic enough. The idea that churches would feel in any way compelled to adopt them should cause all the separation of church and statists to rush to their defense.

HB 1329 is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday February 18th, at 3:30 PM in the Senate Labor & Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee which means in Senate Hearing Room 4 of the Cherberg building.

You are encouraged to contact your legislators through the legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. You can leave a message for your legislators through the hotline even if you don’t know who they are by providing your address. If you would like to contact your legislators individually, you can find them by clicking here.

As always, please be respectful but please be heard.

Whether the state should be. If passed, this bill will require daycares who are forced into the union to abide by state guidelines with strong values components that are likely to be at odds with the values of many (if not most) of those who work in them. Furthermore, to suggest in any way that church organizations would need to even be aware of the state’s goals for Early Childhood Education is problematic.

The idea that these guidelines, underscored by a very clear values based political agenda, would become part of a contract for churches who wish to have daycares should be concerning to everyone.

Understanding that these concepts are buried within the quality rating and improvement system developed by the Department of Early Learning should cause us to stop and consider whether or not we want to compel every daycare to be subject to them.

WA Legislature Threatens Women’s Choice

2010-02-08T15:12:00.000-08:00

Monday Minute

In 2007, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) approached child care centers (not home day care centers) in Washington about joining the union. After learning that the union would not disclose how much membership was going to cost or specify the benefits that the centers would receive, they declined.

For those of you who run businesses, you understand that if someone doesn’t want the services you offer you need to figure out a way to improve what you’re offering. For those of you who love freedom, you might think that you as an individual should have the right to refuse someone else’s service. However, unions are not businesses nor do they apparently respect the rights of women to choose whether or not union representation is best for them. Therefore, they did what you and I can never do.

They went to their friends in the legislature who take lots and lots of their money for campaigns and asked the legislature to force daycare centers to reap the blessings of union membership—whether they like it or not.

What resulted was House Bill 1329, which has already passed the House of Representatives and has moved to the Senate for consideration. Although unclear, it appears that this bill would compel all child care centers to become part of a union if one person from 30% of the centers says they want to join. Therefore, if there were 100 centers with 5,000 employees, 30 signatures (one from 30 different centers) could compel all 5,000 employees to become union members.

As if the threshold wasn’t low enough, the bill requires the state to disclose the names and addresses of day care employees to the unions. Disclosure of personal information to entities outside the government is currently illegal and Washington State has already been sued for doing precisely what this bill mandates. But why worry about things like privacy when there are political favors to give.

To sweeten the pot, the bill makes no guarantees about services that will be offered nor does it tell workers how much of their paycheck will be taken to pay for the union membership. That small detail is to be worked out in negotiations where Governor Gregoire will represent the interest of child care workers against the union. For those of you who don’t follow Washington State politics closely, that would like finding out Al Capone has been appointed to represent you in your negotiations with the mob.

The proponents of the bill are very excited about what union involvement will do for the quality of education in these centers. If enacted, we should all hope the unionization of child care will produce better results for child care than the Washington Education Association has produced for general education. But the early results are not promising.

In-home child care centers were forced into unions in 2007. Workers in those centers are reportedly underwhelmed by what they receive for their mandatory monthly contributions. In committee, no attempt was even made to show that the quality of care in those centers was improved.

The bill would not only compel individuals to join a union over their objections, it would force church child care centers to participate as well. This is problematic because the large majority of churches are philosophically opposed to union positions.

Recently, the SEIU gathered 150 million dollars from their "members" to spend on political campaigns. 85 million was used to fund Democrat candidates.
The SEIU proudly supports gay marriage, abortion on demand and other social agendas that many individuals would object to based on religious conviction.
The National Education Association, who is also supportive of this bill, has taken similar positions.
Unions should be free to exist and they should be free to speak their minds. However, they should not be free to force people who do not want their services or agree with their agenda to be members.
As the freedom loving Thomas Jefferson once said “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”
If you think this anti-choice measure is bad policy, we urge you to call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. This number will enable you to leave a message for your legislators even if you don’t know who they are by providing your address. If you would like to contact your legislators individually, you can find them by clicking here.
Please be respectful, but please be heard.

"We Hate Pro-Lifers" Bill Scheduled for Vote in Senate Committee

2010-02-04T10:45:00.000-08:00

Sen. Rodney Tom's bill (SB 6452) to encourage lawsuits against crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee this morning at 10 a.m.

You are urged to contact your State Senator through the legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 and ask them not to support this bill.

The bill that will be voted on has been amended from the original version. However, the amended bill is, miraculously, even worse than the original.

Originally, the bill allowed someone to file a claim under the Consumer Protection Act if a CPC center did something scandalous like ask you to watch a video about the risks of sexual activity before providing the results of a pregnancy test. While problematic, the Consumer Protection Act actually requires someone to have a legitimate complaint before making a claim.

The amended bill allows an "aggrieved party" to bring a private cause of action against crisis pregnancy centers without limiting who can be be an "aggrieved party". In fact, the amended bill allows someone to make a claim against a CPC and be awarded damages without even proving any damages. Anyone who feels "aggrieved" can sue regardless of whether or not they have been injured.

Of course, this very low standard would apply only to clinics that do not provide abortion.

As a result, if this bill passes, Washington State law will require you to prove damages if you sue an abortion clinic but not if you sue a CPC.

Remember, if someone harms you or violates your rights, you can sue them right now. It doesn't matter if it is a CPC, a grocery store, or your mother-in-law. You don't need permission from the legislature to sue people.

This bill simply eliminates the need to have an actual reason to sue a CPC.

But it gets worse. Really folks, you can't make this stuff up. In the event of a lawsuit, the bill awards attorney's fees to the person who sues the crisis pregnancy center if they prevail. However, it denies attorney's fees to the CPC if they prevail. This eliminates the primary incentive against bringing frivolous lawsuits. Once again, this protection only applies if you sue a CPC. Why not just make pro-lifers use separate water fountains?

In a small victory, the bill no longer contains the Orwellian and unconstitutional requirement that all information be "medically and scientifically accurate." However, it would still require clinics that don't provide abortions to disclose that "the center does not provide medical care for pregnant women". In many cases this statement would be blatantly false because the doctors in the clinics in fact do provide medical services. Imagine requiring McDonalds tell every customer who walks in the door that they don't sell hamburgers.

In reality, this bill is nothing more than a request from the Washington State Legislature for people to sue CPC's. It allows literally anyone to be an "aggrieved party" and eliminates the need to prove injuries. It also guarantees that you will never be required to pay attorney's fees for bringing a frivolous claim.

The proponents of this bill continue to claim that this is about making sure women are aware of all their choices. But does anyone think there are throngs of women in Washington State unaware that abortion is an option if they become pregnant? Isn't the implication that there is just a little bit insulting?

They also claim CPCs are misleading women about the services they provide. Yet, of the 60,000 women were served by CPCs last year (free of charge), none have testified that they were misled about the services they would be provided.

People already have a private cause of action if they are harmed by CPC's. Women know what abortions are and are smart enough to decide for themselves who they want to discuss their situation with. This bill serves no legitimate purpose.

Please contact your legislator today. If it passes through the committee this morning the bill will move to the flloor for consideration by the entire Senate.

Your legislators can be reached through the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Sen. Rodney Tom can be reached at (360) 786-7694. Please be respectful, but please be heard.

The Threat of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

2010-01-28T14:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday in Olympia the Senate committee on Health and Long-Term care held a hearing on SB 6452 which seeks to regulate crisis pregnancy centers in a variety of unnecessary and unconstitutional ways.

The bill, promoted by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Advocacy League (NARAL), would place a series of regulations on crisis pregnancy centers that would not apply to centers that offer abortion. For those of you following along at home, yes, that is probably unconstitutional.

Still, the hearing allows us to hear the horror stories of what is going on in crisis pregnancy centers that simply must be stopped.

One Planned Parenthood employee said she was told that “the HIV virus goes through a condom like rice through a tennis racket.” Their doctor testified that condoms, when used every time, are 70% successful in preventing HIV. I know I felt a lot better when I learned that only 3 out of 10 “safe-sexers” would contract HIV if exposed.

Another Planned Parenthood employee said that she was told that sexual activity was going to lead to depression, STD’s, and possibly even drug and alcohol abuse.

Yet another planned parenthood employee, who admitted to going into a crisis pregnancy center under false pretenses for the purpose of making a documentary, explained that the results of her pregnancy test were not given to her until she had been asked to watch an “outdated” movie. She claimed that it scared her, even though she is “an informed young women.” She summarized it this way. “The underlying message of the video is that teen sexual activity leads to death, suicide, and depression and that you are bound to get an STD even if you wear a condom.”

Their star witness, a doctor from the University of Washington, testified that centers have been telling patients that an abortion will give you an increased risk of cancer. She explained that there was absolutely no evidence and said something to the affect of “the science is settled.” Later in the hearing, Sen. Cheryl Pflug informed the committee that in 2009 a study by the National Cancer Institute and the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center found that an abortion increased your risk of cancer between 20% and 50%.

The entire time I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. I was waiting to hear something scandalous. Surely someone had been kidnapped in an effort to prevent an abortion. But there was nothing.

For the record, I am someone who likes good information. I do not like being lied to nor do I appreciate it when someone tries to manipulate me. So I’ll never defend someone who is knowingly disseminating false information. But no one believes it is the job of the Washington State legislature to ensure that every word that is spoken or printed in Washington State is true (as if that was possible).

Therefore, governments monitor information only to the extent it poses a potential risk to public safety. Companies can’t say paint thinner “tastes great on cereal.” But parents can tell their kid that they’ll look like Popeye if they eat spinach.

So what is the risk of believing the misinformation quotes provided by Crisis Pregnancy Centers? First, teenagers will have less sex. Second, women will give birth to beautiful little babies. If you’re missing the urgency of the situation, join the club.

We have a $2.6 billion budget deficit. The education system fails to educate. Unemployment is almost 10%. Remind me again why we need to spend time and resources regulating the army of volunteers that are providing free medical services, counseling, and support to women in need?

I bet the family of Alexandra Nunez, who died earlier this week from injuries caused during an abortion, would have been ok with someone talking her out of getting the procedure even if non-peer reviewed studies were cited.

Bill Claims Mothers and Fathers are Unimportant

2010-01-25T16:24:00.000-08:00

Last fall, during the statewide debate over domestic partnership, I participated in several debates discussing Referendum 71. In them, we discussed whether there is any difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In support of my belief that there is, I repeatedly suggested that it is preferable for children to have both a mother and a father. To me this is self-evident, but some find it very offensive.

So, what should be done if the idea that mothers and fathers should be together offends you? Eliminate it, of course. That is exactly what HB 2793 does. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lynn Kessler and co-sponsored by nine others, amends the Uniform Parentage Act to eliminate the term "father" or "mother" from Washington state law. The forbidden words would be replaced with the more inclusive term "parent".

This bill is much more significant than the words that would be changed. The state of Washington would be taking the position that moms and dads are interchangeable and neither is essential so long as one is there. Parents are just parents, six of one half-dozen of the other. It doesn't matter if you have one, two, or six. The important thing is just that kids have someone to love them.

These arguments resonate with the committed homosexual rights activists because their paradigm requires them to believe it. The rest of us realize the emperor has no clothes. The problem is that policy is being proposed by those who insist the emperor is well dressed. If this were a matter of personal preference, I could leave it alone. But it is not.

Outside the context of homosexual rights, making policy that suggests biological parents are replaceable and individually irrelevant is completely counterproductive. Fatherlessness is already a legitimate national disaster.

A recent study by the National Fatherhood Initiative found that the federal government spends $99.8 billion on programs that support father-absent homes. Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In 2002, 7.8 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 38.4 percent of children in female-householder families.[1] A child with a nonresident father is 54 percent more likely to be poorer than his or her father.[2]

In light of this reality, does it make sense to imply that fathers aren't important?

The intent of the bill is to suggest that families with "parents" are no different than families with moms and dads. But in doing so, you diminish the importance of moms and dads. Considering the tremendous social costs associated with broken families that legislators are trying to fix, it is a schizophrenic thing to do.

[1]Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, P200-547, Table C8. Washington D.C.: GPO, 2003.

[2]Source: Sorenson, Elaine and Chava Zibman. "Getting to Know Poor Fathers Who Do Not Pay Child Support." Social Service Review 75 (September 2001): 420-434.

Planned Parenthood vs. The First Amendment?

2010-01-18T14:28:00.000-08:00

Legislators frequently propose things that I find redundant, wasteful, or counterproductive. Then sometimes they propose things that make me wonder if I live in America or Iran. A host of legislators led by Sen. Rodney Tom and Rep. Judy Clibborn are sponsoring bills (SB 6452 and HB 2837) aimed at harassing crisis pregnancy centers and revoking the first amendment rights of anyone in them.

Crisis pregnancy centers provide baby items, referrals to adoption agencies and other social services, pregnancy tests, friendship, and sometimes ultra-sounds free of charge. The women they serve are usually unmarried and frequently very young. Those serving in crisis pregnancy centers are usually unpaid. They frequently serve their communities in this way because their own experiences allow them to relate to the challenging life situations the clinics deal with.

Proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished, the supporters of these bills claim these clinics are a threat to public health. How? Well, apparently they don’t immediately disclose that they don’t provide abortions. I have no idea how that is a threat to public health. Nevertheless, the bills would require a center to disclose that it does not provide abortion services and does not give referrals to abortion providers “upon first communication”. So essentially it would be illegal to try to help a pregnant girl without immediately telling her you oppose abortion. Failure to comply would be a violation of the state’s consumer protection act and punishable by a fine of no less than $2,000 per occurrence.

The bills also require clinics to provide “medically and scientifically accurate information.” The clear implication of this provision is that clinics currently provide inaccurate information. I called Sen. Rodney Tom’s office to ask about what kind of medically and scientifically inaccurate information was currently being given that represented a threat to public health and safety. I thought they might still be doing bloodletting or something. However, I was told the real crisis is that individuals in the clinics have told people that abortion causes cervical cancer and breast cancer, ”and that’s not true”.

I’m not a scientist. I have no idea if abortion causes cancer. But I might start telling everyone I know that it does just to exercise my first amendment right to do so. The idea that a handful of legislators are going to decide what is scientifically and medically accurate and fine those who say otherwise is not what free societies do. Someone call the ACLU.

The proponents of this bill will tell you that crisis pregnancy centers are giving medical advice and need to be regulated like hospitals. Don’t believe it.

People working in crisis pregnancy centers don’t claim to be doctors. If someone is practicing medicine without a license, we can deal with that in existing law. This bill is a speech code—nothing more, nothing less. This is the brainchild of the abortion industry that loses money every time someone chooses to give their unborn child life. This is what bully’s do. They use their power to beat up people they don’t like.

If you like freedom you should hate this bill regardless of how you feel about abortion. If they can fine you for saying abortion causes cancer, they can fine you for telling your child their eyes are going to go bad for sitting too close to the T.V.

Unsurprisingly, a press release by NARAL Pro-Choice Washington and Planned Parenthood said that this legislation is long overdue. The irony is that just last year Planned Parenthood of Spokane was audited and ultimately fined $700K for overbilling taxpayers. So who do gets regulated? The crisis pregnancy centers of course. Maybe we can go after food banks next. I’m sure they pass out processed sugars and trans fat.
To help stop this bill, please contact your legislator through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000.
Note: You’ll need to become familiar with the term “medically and scientifically accurate” because it is new leftist speak for “I want to punish people for saying things I don’t like.” It is language the state legislature used to make it illegal for a school to bring a speaker to an assembly to talk exclusively about the benefits of abstinence. And this is yet more evidence that we need to be careful when using the word “liberal” to reference the political left. Many of them despise individual liberty.

Why Do Legislators Hate Single Parents?

2010-01-05T10:00:00.000-08:00

Governments supervise everything. Most of us accept it. Every time someone gets a paper cut, bills get drafted and laws get passed in an effort to prevent it from ever happening again.

Since pain and suffering are a part of the human condition and not necessarily an indication that the government failed to do its job, I cannot help but wonder at what point the government will look at a situation and conclude it is outside their jurisdiction. Or perhaps, as President Obama put it "above my pay grade."

I have generally felt that that parental discretion was something that legislators of every political philosophy could respect. After all, most people are parents and resent it when their in-laws second guess their parenting decisions, never mind the government.

Unfortunately, new legislation would dramatically expand the state's authority to monitor parenting decisions and forever change the current deference given to parents. HB 2421 proposes to give a person who is not the parent of the child the right to petition for visitation with your child if the non-parent believes the child is harmed by not seeing them.

Imagine there is someone in your life that currently spends a lot of time with you and your children. That person might be a relative or simply a close family friend. Then, something happens that changes your relationship with that person. Perhaps your sibling gets a divorce and the relationship with their former spouse changes. Perhaps you learn something about the person that destroys your trust. Perhaps something happens that makes the relationship too painful to continue. It could be a million things. But whatever it is, you decide that it is best for you and your children that your interactions with that person become infrequent or perhaps nonexistent.

If you are old-fashioned like me, you might believe that it is not only a parental prerogative but even an obligation.

However, if HB 2421 becomes law, the person you no longer wish to have a close relationship with could ask the court to force you to let them see your child. The result would be the equivalent of a "parenting plan", except it would include someone who is not a parent. Even if visitation were ultimately denied, you would be forced to explain your decision in open court where public records would result.

Under current law, a court's determination of what is in a child's best interest is irrelevant until the parent's of the child have been found to be unfit. This would radically alter that and allow a court to overrule a parent's decision regardless of the parent's fitness.

Perhaps the most egregious part of this bill arbitrarily targets single-parents by prohibiting such a petition if the child's two parents live together with the child and agree that visitation should not be granted. Apparently, some legislators believe that if your spouse dies or leaves that the remaining parent loses their ability to make good decisions for their kids.

To be fair, we can all imagine a scenario in which parents would cut off certain relationships for reasons that we don't understand or even disagree with. And it is tragic when children are used as pawns by adults. But once again, if we want our children and grandchildren to be able to talk about freedom in the present tense, the government must accept that there are some issues outside its jurisdiction.

Note: I know if I do not clarify one point I am going to get a lot of "fan" email. So for the record, I do not really think the sponsors of this bill hate single parents. I just think the bill has misplaced priorities that create bad precedent for all parents and treat single parents like second class parents.

Best,

Joseph Backholm
Executive Director
Family Policy Institute of Washington

Christmas: The Celebration of One Solitary Life

2009-12-23T11:28:00.000-08:00

This week is Christmas. While we all celebrate it in different ways, consider how improbable it is that we celebrate it at all.
He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another obscure village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never had a family or owned a home. He never set foot inside a big city, he never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never wrote a book, or held an office. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness.
While He was still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends deserted Him. He was turned over to his enemies, and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had--His coat. When He was dead, He was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave.
Two thousand years have come and gone, and today He is the central figure for the human race. All the armies that ever marched and all the navies that ever sailed and all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as this "One Solitay Life"
--author unknown

Merry Christmas

Joseph Backholm
Executive Director
Family Policy Institute of Washington

Can "The Best Interest of the Child" Be a Bad Thing?

2009-12-15T12:23:00.000-08:00

Can it ever be a bad thing for a court to give a child what it believes is in the best interest of that child? I think so. Consider the following real examples.

Two-year old Zak Hassey was removed from the family home because his mother refused to give him chocolate and cake. Zak is a finicky eater and wouldn't eat the food his mother was offering. The doctor told her she should feed him chocolate and cake to help him gain weight. When she decided that was not a good long-term solution, the hospital reported her to social services and Zak was removed for four months. After the court found that they were very good parents and returning the child, a spokesman for the hospital said, "While we understand Mr. and Mrs. Hessey's distress, Zak's welfare was paramount, and we believe we acted in [the child's] best interest."

In Germany, fathers are being sentenced to one-week in jail for refusing to send their children to school when explicit sex-education courses are being taught. Homeschooling is already illegal in Germany. Recently, after convicting parents of the criminal offense of trying to educate their kids at home, a judge stated, "We recognize in our German basic law about philosophical and religious conviction and that parents have rights, but the basic law also includes that it is the state's role to educate all children."

Finally, the British Parliament is considering a proposal that would require a criminal background check for parent's who want to homeschool their children. Parents would need special permission to be a parent during school hours.

The problem is not just that the government prefers state schools and a poor diet. It is the unwillingness to recognize any limits to its jurisdiction. Those who support this degree of government oversight would no doubt be well versed in the dangers of unchecked liberty. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

In the United States we have a "proof of harm" standard. This reduces our risk of the parental rights abuses that are occurring in Europe by requiring the government to prove that the parents are unfit before it gets to say what is in the best interest of a child. This standard recognizes that other people's opinions about how a child should be raised should matter only in rare cases. But some would like to change that.

A United Nation's proposed treaty called the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that "In all matters...the best interests of the child shall be a primary concern." If ratified, it would eliminate the deference currently given to fit parents.

Parentalrights.org is leading a campaign to amend the constitution and ensure we never do.

Of course we all want what is best for kids. But we should all be able to agree that the government is less interested and less capable of taking care of a child than his or her parents. However, unless we are vigilant to defend this right from the tyranny of good intentions, we may one day find that, as in other places, parents have been reduced to the role of guardian for the government's future tax base.

Joseph Backholm
Executive Director
Family Policy Institute of Washington

Is health insurance a right?

2009-12-07T10:43:00.000-08:00

In addition to being thankful, I spent a portion of my Thanksgiving weekend discussing health care reform with members of my family. At one point, one of my relatives got to the nut of the discussion when he said, " I guess it depends on whether you think health care is a right or not. I think people have a right to health care."

I agree that the differences in the health care debate boils down to those who believe health insurance is a basic human right and those who do not. Understandably, those who believe it is a right believe we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that everyone has it. We certainly do not tolerate denying someone freedom of expression. However, if it is simply something good that cannot be guaranteed our expectations change.
There is a long list of rights guaranteed by our constitution. It includes freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to be treated equally under the law, and the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.

Still, there is an even longer list of things that I want my fellow man to have and enjoy that I do not want the government to guarantee for anyone. That list includes a great job, life-long marriages, good health, financial stability, regular exercise, two parents that love you, the chance to travel overseas, talent, children that make meaningful contributions to the world, home ownership, a family that gets along, a road-trip across America, and real friendship. All of these are desirable and the impact of their absence ranges from inconsequential to devastating.

But the simple fact that not having something is unfortunate does not necessarily give you a right to have it.

Basic human rights must apply equally to everyone regardless of intelligence, wealth, citizenship, race, creed, color, age, religion, or historic period. The right to life and the presumption of innocense can be understood and applied in every culture and at all times. On the other hand, health insurance has not existed for most of human history. For billions of people, the fact that they have no health insurance or regular health care is not a social injustice, it is a practical impossibility.

I cannot help but wonder if we would still claim a right to health care if an economic, natural, or nuclear tragedy destroyed our ability to administer the miraculous medical care we currently enjoy. Certainly we would still believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is tragic when a family faces bankruptcy because of an illness. It is also tragic when a child is asked whether they would rather live with their mom or their dad. The government cannot prevent all tragedy. History has shown us that efforts to relieve human suffering through government management is often a cure worse than the disease.

Our health care system has tremendous strengths and some glaring deficiencies. It can and should be improved. But as we do so, let us avoid losing our heads in hyperbole. Rather than referring to medical insurance as a basic human right, we can manage expectations by recognizing how fortunate we are to even be having this debate.