Idaho Chooses Life

The now notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell is in prison for the rest of his natural life. Given the difficult judgment facing him, one could imagine that he is hoping that prison time lasts for a long, long time. He was held accountable for but a fraction of the crimes committed, but we can give thanks for the fact that a jury of ordinary men and women had the strength of character to endure a horrific trial to render a guilty verdict.
Imagine for a moment the dire social consequences had they failed to find such a man guilty.

Now our attention can turn to the possible fallout from the Gosnell trial.

Many on the Left would have you believe that he was an evil aberration. Some would have you buy the notion that abortionists are simply kind, gentle souls rendering a public service. But abortion is, by its very nature, a grisly and bloody business. Gosnell is no by means an “outlier”. (In fact, several abortion operations have come in for public scrutiny since the Gosnell trial began – Texas and Delaware come to mind).

What is genuinely unique about the Gosnell case is that it has forced the public to see and hear the sordid details of America’s abortion culture. The nation, including media personalities impersonating journalists, have been cornered into actually seeing behind the dark curtain which surrounds abortion mills. We are collectively nauseated, our hearts hurt over the evil we silently tolerate.

Will the revulsion last? No. The nation is all too anxious to move along, to think of more pleasant things. But a deep crack in the foundation has nevertheless developed. For all our denial, somewhere in our minds the images and descriptions of industrialized child murder linger. Seeds of doubt have been planted in even the most virulent defenders of abortion. Some abortion supporters have even publicly changed their minds on the matter.

The fact that Gosnell was even tried proves that the nation’s conscience still exists, that there are boundaries of decency left.

We must take encouragement from this demonstration of decency and nurture the seeds into mighty shade trees of relief from this national scourge.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

U.S. Federal Judge Edward Korman (New York) issued an order on Friday making “Emergency Contraception” available to girls without restriction. His order was a direct answer to the Obama Administration’s attempt to limit easy access to girls 15 and older.

By the terms of Korman’s order, girls of any age can purchase the potent drug without identification or prescription from the shelves of any drug store. By the terms of his order, parents will, of course, be cut out of the process. And so will medical personnel, including pharmacists. Girls will have easier access to “Plan B” than adults do sinus headache medicine.

As we’ve noted before, this imperious social engineering will have devastating implications for the health and safety of America’s daughters. Allowing grade school girls to ingest these dangerous and powerful hormones without adult supervision is simply madness. Which is to say nothing about the deaths of untallied preborn children and the further erosion of parental authority.

Nearly every profound social ill is on display with this story: the abuse of power by our federal judiciary; disregard for the family; and an evil agenda by the American Left to destroy the lives of America’s youth by imposing a dysfunctional and degrading sexual ethic upon the culture.

With our federal and state authorities so compromised by this whole dynamic, pro-Lifers must focus significant prayer time on behalf of our nation’s vulnerable daughters.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The unrelenting campaign to allow children free and unaccountable access to the “Morning After Pill” is nothing short of an effort by evil to destroy the innocence of children, particularly female children. The manufacturer of “Plan B” has been pushing for years to allow unsupervised and unrestricted access to their deadly product in the cause of greater profits. They have been joined by zealots in the Abortion Rights movement who seek to unfetter America from any moral concerns about sex or its consequences. Those forces have recently gained invaluable allies in the Obama Administration and the federal courts.

The first victims of their campaign to make Emergency Contraception as easily available as Luden’s cherry cough drops will be the new human beings destroyed by the drug’s powerful chemical make-up.

But the collateral victims will be the girls who use their new “Green Cards” to engage in premature sexual activity. By order of the federal government, these children will now have official permission – even encouragement – to engage in self-destructive sex before they could ever possibly appreciate the emotional, spiritual or physical consequences. Parents will be officially banned from interfering in the matter. Even doctors won’t be allowed to obstruct access to the pills painted by the media as the “solution” to whatever consequences might follow premature sexual activity.

Could anyone concoct a more heinous plot to destroy innocence and future well-being?

Sadly, the dire consequences of this policy shift don’t end there. Not by a long shot.

Official permission to access the Morning After Pill – which, again, acts as an abortifacient – will almost certainly lead to higher rates of sexual activity among the nation’s children. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that this increased rate of premature sex will lead to higher numbers of STD’s, and higher rates of teenage pregnancies. With each destructive sexual encounter, innocence is wounded. Denigrated self-esteem and guilt is sure to follow, leading to other sexual encounters as a band-aid for the spiritual and emotional pain.

And we haven’t even touched upon the ‘predator dynamic’ – the easy availability of this deadly drug without medical and parental supervision is cause for celebration among those family members or neighbors who would prey upon the vulnerable and innocent.

And then there is there is the deadly matter of the health impact of the Morning After Pill itself. No long term studies have been performed on the consequences of ingesting these mega-dose hormones into the bodies of girls right in the midst of the most profound developmental changes. During the very period when they are maturing into women, the abortion-drug cabal would allow girls to freely add powerful hormonal cocktails into their bodies.

That cocktail contains mega-doses of the standard contraceptive pill, already shown to produce heart problems and even cancer in women who use the pill for extended periods of time. What happens to a young girl who uses “Plan B” on a repeated basis? No one knows. And no one – at least in official Washington circles – seems to care.

One could go on and on about the dire implications of this movement to normalize sexual activity among children. But be assured that countless future mothers, sisters, daughters, spouses will be forever changed by this sinister plot.

But there is one more dynamic which must be added to your consideration: the Idaho Legislature.

Last month we sought to insert a “Religious Liberty Amendment” into the language creating Idaho’s new Obama Insurance Exchange. It would have prevented the exchange from forcing any employer or individual from paying for insurance covering abortifacients – like the “Morning After Pill” – if that employer had moral or religious objections to participating in the destruction of the innocent(s).

Our efforts failed. A majority of Republican senators were more interested in helping Blue Cross build an insurance monopoly in Idaho than they were in protecting human life or our religious liberties.

As a result, it is entirely possible that not only will a 12 year old child be able to walk into an Idaho Falls Wal-Mart and purchase Plan B off the shelf – she may be able to do so without a dime in her pocket. Those deadly drugs may be “free” to her under the terms of her father’s group health insurance plan.

Lord have mercy upon those children we are publicly and willfully betraying.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The Gosnell trial in Philadelphia is coming to a close. But the trial is no longer just about a murderous abortion doctor who long ago abandoned any pretense of the Hippocratic Oath. The public revelations of what happens behind the heavy dark curtain has put the abortion industry on trial.
And make no mistake: Gosnell’s horror show is not some aberration.

Planned Parenthood has long fought for abortion at any place, anytime. They fought President Bush tooth-and-claw when he supported the Born Alive Infants Protection Act some ten years ago. It was their public policy to ensure that a doctor should have as many swings at the defenseless baby as necessary in order to guarantee a corpse is produced.

And don’t be deceived that the unhealthy, contaminated, barbaric treatment of women at Gosnell’s shop is unique. As a by-product of the Gosnell trial, nurses at a Planned Parenthood clinic have come forward to describe an abortion factory in Delaware as “ridiculously unsafe”. Former Planned Parenthood employee Joyce Vasikonis told reporters, “They were using instruments on patients that were not sterile.”

This is the way that these supposed “advocates for women” treat those they claim to serve; imagine the barbarity they use in treating those innocent babies, deemed “enemies” of their world view.

The Gosnell trial has also put members of the media on trial. They have been weighed and found wanting. Most of the main stream media simply turned its back on the story. Liberal writer Marc Lamont Hill admitted as much in a posting on the Huffington Post:

“I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights… there’ a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left… I think it’s dangerous.”

Yes, dangerous for women and babies, certainly. But the failure of our nation’s 4th Estate to perform its basic function is dangerous to the nation on a very basic level.

But despite that unspoken conspiracy, the truth is leaking out. The conscience of the nation is being challenged. Even the ethics of journalists are being challenged by the facts of this Gosnell trial, hearts are being reached. (See the heart-moving interview of a journalist by Governor Mike Huckabee on his Fox News Show).

The truth shall set us free.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Sen. Marco Rubio has come under gentle pressure from some conservative quarters over his adoption of the term “undocumented ” in his bid to persuade Americans that the Rubio/McCain/Schumer plan to deal with illegal immigrants is good for the country.

The left has been using the power of language to manipulate Americans for many years, and this debate gives us an opportunity to examine how it is done, why it is done and the impact on public policy.

Breitbart traces the fight by the left wing to cleanse the media of the term “illegal immigrant” because it is “offensive”: As far back as 2004, academics have been pressuring the Associated Press to drop the terminology. For years, the AP resisted, saying that the term was accurate because it described a “person who resides in a country unlawfully”. But politics is everything.

Just this month, the AP announced that it would no longer use the term.

The same cleansing has occurred in the abortion debate, though over a much longer period of time. The media refuses to call groups like Idaho Chooses Life as “pro-life” – while having no trouble describing Planned Parenthood as “pro-choice”. Of course that is frustrating because it drains so much of the debate of its importance.

But the manipulation of language by the Left often has real-world consequences. During this past legislative session, abortion advocate John Rusche – Democrat leader in the Idaho House – “officially objected” to the use of the term ‘abortifacient’ during floor debate because “Emergency Contraception doesn’t cause abortions”.

Of course, what Rusche would not admit is that the Left – including members of the medical profession – have conspired to change definitions so that pregnancy no longer means what we all understand it to mean. By their cynical cleansing of the abortion debate, a new life simply doesn’t exist until the fertilized ovum manages to attach itself to the uterine wall. Since Emergency Contraception is specifically designed to interfere with that process, pregnancy doesn’t happen. And you can’t have an abortion if you don’t have a pregnancy to begin with.

Pretty slick, right? So slick in fact, that it is very difficult to even address Emergency Contraception in legislation because of the intentional abuse of language by operatives like John Rusche and the liberal media.

Even more important: Manipulation of language, words, has profound consequences because it is the medium of rational thought. An idea generally requires words to exist, and we certainly need words to communicate our ideas to another. Win the battle for the dictionary and you can sometimes deprive your fellow citizens of truth altogether.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Just when we think the secular assaults against the nuclear family unit can’t get any worse, we disturbingly learn that they can. Now a host on a minor cable news network claims that we have to get over the idea that our children are ours, and accept the fact that they belong “collectively” to all of us.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a host for a weekend show on scarcely watched MSNBC, was taped in a “lean forward” (euphemism for “lean more left”) promo for the network, said that children don’t belong to their families they belong to the collective.

The host declared, “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

The context seems innocuous enough; continue to engage in insanity (doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results) by throwing more money toward education. The answer to our educational inadequacies and failings is always more funding, to some. Heaven forbid that we should consider using what resources we have more efficiently and effectively, and focus on teaching content that increases academic performance, instead of all the social engineering, and politically correct indoctrination that is so pervasively “taught” in our public schools.

Some don’t even think her terminology, referring to collective ownership of our kids, in the promo is controversial. The New York Times, and other media and extremist organizations have leapt to her defense. What should not be lost on us is that such entities are ideological compatriots to the host, and are firmly predisposed to the collectivist ideals of the left.

I’m sure the folks over at NAMBLA would rejoice over such a concept of collectivist ownership of our kids! And what about all those unborn children that are never given a chance to take their first breath? Should that not likewise be a grave concern to the collective?

In free societies, as America was originally founded to be, private property ownership is sacrosanct. The second line in our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Lockean Creed, upon which that statement is based, equates private property with pursuit of happiness.

While children are not considered property, and are not “owned,” the responsibility for rearing, teaching, and nurturing them is a private one, owned by the parents who brought them into the world. For those who lack the temporal means to support those children, there are safety nets that allow for community support of such disadvantaged children. Even that, however, does not diminish or transfer the very personal and private responsibility of rearing children to the state, or to the collective.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should. Last year in the midst of the presidential campaign Team Obama posted a slide show on the campaign website, with much fanfare, about the Life of Julia. It revealed the Obama Team dream of governmental (in this context, euphemism for “the collective”) involvement at every stage of life, from birth to death, and how the government would be the nurturing parental surrogate through each stage.

Karl Marx said, “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” Ms. Harris-Perry mirrors this sentiment: the children are not ours, they belong to the collective, and we need to abolish the notion that they are ours. Marx also said, “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” The MSNBC host would make Marx proud.

Who has the right to dictate how a child is to be reared? Certainly not the “collective,” and certainly not the government. It’s a private parental, and familial matter. Or at least it should be. The more government encroaches into health care management, social-engineering dictates, and redefinition of fundamental roles in society, the less control parents have over something as fundamental as the rearing of their children.

It is not just the economic aspects of socialistic and fascistic collectivism that must be resisted and repulsed, but perhaps even more significantly, the social and cultural collectivist agenda must be rejected. We have to recognize this steady encroachment for what it is, and that it is clearly antithetical to a free America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

It’s been about a week since the new Legislature finished the work they intended, with legislators returning to their districts.

So how did Idaho fare?

Democrats and powerful lobby groups are clearly happy with the session, to judge by their public comments and other press reports which show that Democrats have a new sense of power in the 62nd Legislature. That is particularly true in the House, where Democrats and moderate Republicans combined to impose Obama’s Insurance Exchange upon the people of Idaho.

Despite fierce protests from Idaho business leaders, citizens, pro-Life groups, agriculture and the Idaho Republican Party, Idaho is now a full-fledged junior partner in an unconstitutional scheme to remake the economy and culture under the guise of “health care”.

Idaho Chooses Life strenuously fought ObamaCare coming to Idaho, but we were simply overwhelmed by the immense resources Blue Cross and their allies brought to bear. We were further hamstrung by the large number of freshmen in the building who seemed dazzled by the attention given them by some of the state’s most powerful lobbyists. It proved nearly impossible to reason with some of these folks, who clung to the mythology that, somehow, Idaho would be able to protect its sovereignty by submitting to federal control of our health care industry.

Particularly disappointing was the failure of the Legislature to adopt our “Religious Liberty Amendment” – which would have at least pushed back at the Obama Administration’s evil plan to force Christian employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs as part of their company insurance policies. Many of those voting against our amendment proclaim pro-Life values, some even voted for a “memorial” to Congress just last year on this very topic; but when it really mattered, too many were apparently intimidated by the power of the insurance lobby or the federal government or both.
Idaho’s religious liberties, as guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, remain unguarded.

All in all, it was a very disappointing session for the pro-Life movement. Not only did we suffer defeat on the Obama Exchange – this legislature failed to pass a single pro-Life bill. That has not happened since the late 1990’s.

We will have more to say about all this in coming days. But know that our resolve is strong to move Idaho forward in defending the innocent and their mothers from the scourge of abortion. It is too early to give up on this Legislature, despite its horrible beginning.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Two cases were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week addressing the issue of same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of rights, as proponents maintain, nor is it an issue of Biblical marriage, as opponents contend. It is, rather, based in natural law, and is an issue of seismic significance to our culture, our society, and our civilization, and cannot be cavalierly “redefined.”

Dr. Patrick Fagan, a sociologist and psychologist has said, “The family is the fundamental building block of society and predates the state and even the societies it builds…At the heart of the family is the mother and father who bring their children into existence.” This is a self-evident truth, regardless of who said it, and anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, and politicians have reiterated that very sentiment. The family is the building block of society and civilization, and the cornerstone to that foundation, or the genesis of it, is a mother and a father.

Foundations must be strong, and built to withstand the elements, corrosion, and the test of time. Otherwise, the structure built thereon will inevitably crumble. If a foundation is made with unmixed cement or just water, as same-sex marriage tries to do, the foundation is weak, and the structure (our civilization) built thereon will crumble. When we tamper with, and attempt to socially-engineer the foundational elements and institutions to civilization and our society, the results will be destructive.

Redefining marriage based on who one purportedly loves, is a spurious dilution of our societal foundation. Rarely in human history, has marriage been based on who one loves, but has always been about perpetuating the species, and forming familial units that construct the foundation to civilization. Sometimes it’s included multiple spouses of one sex or another, but always it has been based on propagational properties, whether age or fertility exceptions apply or not. Any semantic change to the definition is only that, semantic, and does not change the biological or anthropological verities etymologically embedded in the term. Such a change to accommodate same-sex “marriage” would therefore be nothing more than creating a verbal counterfeit to the real thing. Simply calling my Tahoe a Hummer is a lie, and does not change the fact that it’s still not a Hummer.

Nor is there a “right” to marry whomsoever or whatsoever we please, or profess love for. Such a right is as most other “rights” claimed by those in our society who feel somehow shortchanged, slighted, or disadvantaged. The “right” is not codified in any legal document, much less our founding documents, just like the “right” to health care, or the “right” to a good job. Heterosexual marriage, however, is codified in natural law, as attested by biological and anthropological fact. The test is simple: try building a civilization or a society from scratch with anything other than natural law, heterosexual marriage.

Marriage, historically, has always represented the legal, moral, and cultural recognition of the binding relationship of opposite sexes. Merely definitionally reducing marriage to nothing more than a state legitimized relationship between “people that love each other” is antithetical to the factual basis to our existence as a civilization. The fact is, marriage has always been about protecting society, at least in part, through the possibility of propagation, protection and the creation of family units.

The law of unintended consequences has certainly been manifest elsewhere as natural law, social mores, and societal conventions and institutions like marriage have been redefined and engineered to accommodate exceptions.

Scandinavian countries that have redefined marriage are experiencing a meltdown of traditional marriage. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that “marriage is becoming a minority status” in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life and poses a significant risk to the future stability of Danish society.

There are undoubtedly exogenous contributory factors for the Scandinavian states. But the eradication of natural law and social mores in favor of a politically correct or supposedly amoral redefinition of basic social conventions indisputably are the incipient causes to the unraveling of the family unit.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”

Pastor Rick Warren made a fundamentally true and valid observation in this regard. He said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” Many are the arguments against same-sex marriage, and none of them frankly have anything to do with discrimination or homophobia.

Doug Mainwaring, an avowed homosexual, proves Warren’s assertion. “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together…Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Words have meaning, and marriage, as the cornerstone to civilization, is copiously imbued with it. I have yet to hear a logical or cogent explanation as to why a binding homosexual relationship must be a marriage as opposed to a civil union or legal partnership. Rather than weakening and diluting the foundation to our society, we should be strengthening and encouraging it. After all, our future, and stability, as a society is dependent on it.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho Senate gave final approval to Obama’s Exchange on a 23-12 vote Thursday. The last act of the drama will be Governor Otter’s signature in the next week or so.

Voting for Obama Exchange: Sens. Steve Bair (R-Blackfoot), Les Bock (D-Boise), Bert Brackett (R-Rogerson), Cherie Buckner-Webb(D-Boise), Dean Cameron(R-Rupert), Bart Davis(R-Idaho Falls), John Goedde(R-Coeur d’Alene), Jim Guthrie(R-McCammon), Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian), Lee Heider (R-Twin Falls), Brent Hill (R-Rexburg), Shawn Keough (R-Sandpoint), Roy Lacey (D-Pocatello), Todd Lakey, (R-Nampa), Patti Anne Lodge (R-Huston), Fred Martin (R-Boise), Jim Patrick (R-Twin Falls), Jim Rice (R-Caldwell), Dan Schmidt (D-Moscow), Jeff Siddoway (R-Terreton), Michelle Stennett (D-Ketchum), John Tippets (R-Montpelier) and Elliot Werk (D-Boise).

Voting No (the pro-Life position): Sens. Cliff Bayer (R-Boise), Branden Durst (D-Boise), Russ Fulcher (R-Meridian), Dan Johnson (R-Lewiston), Curt McKenzie (R-Nampa), Dean Mortimer (R-Idaho Falls), Bob Nonini (R-Coeur d’Alene), Sheryl Nuxoll (R-Cottonwood), Monty Pearce (R-New Plymouth), Steven Thayn (R-Emmett), Steve Vick (R-Dalton Gardens), and Chuck Winder (R-Boise).

Here is the Senate vote on our Religious Liberty Amendment (Nuxoll/Fulcher):

Voting to Amend the bill: (the pro-Life position): Sens. Cliff Bayer (R-Boise), Branden Durst (D-Boise), Russ Fulcher (R-Meridian), Dan Johnson (R-Lewiston), Curt McKenzie (R-Nampa), Dean Mortimer (R-Idaho Falls), Bob Nonini (R-Coeur d’Alene), Sheryl Nuxoll (R-Cottonwood), Monty Pearce (R-New Plymouth), Steven Thayn (R-Emmett), Steve Vick (R-Dalton Gardens).

Voting Against the Religious Liberty Amendment: Sens. Steve Bair (R-Blackfoot), Les Bock (D-Boise), Dean Cameron (R-Rupert), Bart Davis (R-Idaho Falls), John Goedde (R-Coeur d’Alene), Jim Guthrie (R-McCammon), Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian), Lee Heider (R-Twin Falls), Brent Hill (R-Rexburg), Shawn Keough (R-Sandpoint), Roy Lacey (D-Pocatello), Todd Lakey (R-Nampa), Patti Anne Lodge (R-Nampa), Fred Martin (R-Boise), Jim Patrick (R-Twin Falls), Jim Rice (R-Caldwell), Dan Schmidt (D-Moscow), Jeff Siddoway (R-Terreton), Michelle Stennett (D-Ketchum), John Tippets (R-Montpelier), Elliot Werk (D-Boise), Chuck Winder (R-Boise).

And here is how the Idaho House of Representatives Voted on the Obama Exchange, which passed by a vote of 41-29:

Voting yes: Reps. Anderson(01), Anderson(31), Anderst, Bedke, Bell, Bolz, Burgoyne, Chew, Clow, Collins, Erpelding, Eskridge, Gannon, Gibbs, Hancey, Hartgen, Henderson, Hixon, Horman, Kauffman, King, Kloc, Malek, Meline, Miller, Morse, Packer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Ringo, Romrell, Rusche, Smith, Thompson, VanOrden, Ward-Engelking, Wills, Wood(27), Woodings, and Youngblood.

(13 Democrats + 28 Republicans)

Voting No (the pro-Life position): Reps. Agidius, Andrus, Barbieri, Barrett, Bateman, Batt, Boyle, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Denney, Gestrin, Harris, Holtzclaw, Loertscher, Luker, McMillan, Mendive, Monks, Moyle, Nielsen, Palmer, Patterson, Shepherd, Sims, Stevenson, Trujillo, Vander Woude, and Wood(35)

Here is how the House voted on our Religious Liberty Amendment (Barbieri/ Boyle), which failed on a 32-38 vote:

Voting Yes (the pro-Life position): Reps. Agidius, Andrus, Barbieri, Barrett, Bateman, Batt, Boyle, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Denney, Gestrin, Harris, Hartgen, Holtzclaw, Loertscher, Luker, McMillan, Mendive, Monks, Moyle, Nielsen, Palmer, Patterson, Shepherd, Sims, Stevenson, Thompson, Trujillo, Vander Woude, andWood(35).

Voting No: Reps. Anderson(01), Anderson(31), Anderst, Bedke, Bell, Bolz, Burgoyne, Chew, Clow, Erpelding, Eskridge, Gannon, Gibbs, Hancey, Henderson, Hixon, Horman, Kauffman, King, Kloc, Malek, Meline, Miller, Morse, Packer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Ringo, Romrell, Rusche, Smith, VanOrden, Ward-Engelking, Wills, Wood(27), Woodings, and Youngblood

(13 Democrats + 25 Republicans)

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Catholic Charities testified before the Senate Commerce Committee this week, urging legislators to impose ObamaCare upon the citizens of Idaho by creating Obama’s insurance exchange.

In so doing, the Church-affiliated organization gave some political cover to legislators grasping to maintain their pro-Life credentials while helping President Obama expand his attack on the sanctity of human life.

In essence, Ms. Tiddens told committee members: Our priority is helping the poor with more government money. We may feel bad about that abortion stuff … but that is really a federal problem. What’s important here is the money.

To say the least, this is troubling – particularly because many legislators believe that Ms. Tiddens was/is speaking for the Bishop of Idaho.

Ms. Tiddens is factually incorrect when she argues that there is nothing Idaho legislators can do about the Obama Mandate to provide free abortifacient drugs under a health insurance exchange. We have been pushing a “Religious Liberty Amendment” all session, and continue work behind the scenes to secure this basic protection for Idaho citizens and employers. We have done so, by the way, without any help from Ms. Tiddens or Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities is also apparently oblivious to the fact that the threats posed by ObamaCare go well beyond abortifacients.

For example, what will their rationalization be when health care is restricted for certain citizens deemed “unworthy” of communal resources? When the Death Panel begins imposing rules and regulations upon the people of Idaho?

The Catholic Church has long taught the doctrine of refusing to cooperate with evil. It is indisputable that much evil is loose in ObamaCare – which is more about imposing a foreign value system than it is health care. But it seems that Catholic Charities is blinded by a different doctrine – a “social justice” agenda that is often nothing more than whitewash for social activists at war with traditional Catholic values.

The Lord himself declared that we cannot serve God and mammon.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.