The infographic below is just a small sample of the larger graphic you can view to see just how home schoolers measure up to their public school counterparts.
This small graphic is very informative, but I really recommend that you click here to see the larger graphic as it is a very detailed analysis of the advantage home schoolers get via their education model. There’s a reason home schooling is the fastest growing model of education in the United States.
Here’s some important statistics you need to know about abortion coverage in state insurance plans:
34 states prohibit public funding of abortions for indigent women.
19 states restrict coverage in insurance plans for public employees.
23 states prohibit coverage in plans offered through the exchanges.
8 states have laws restricting insurance coverage of abortion in private insurance plans.
These statistics show how abortion coverage is restricted in the states so that people will a moral or religious objection to abortion are not forced to pay for it. Here’s one more very important statistic:
West Virginia has no restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance plans. None.
A recent article explains what some states have done: “Obamacare allows health insurers selling plans on exchanges to cover abortion. In response, some states have passed ‘opt-out’ laws, barring insurers participating in their exchanges from offering health plans that include coverage of elective abortion. However, 27 states and the District of Columbia have taken no final action to prevent insurers from covering elective abortion.“
While most states have taken measures to secure the moral, religious rights of pro-life people that don’t want to fund abortion, West Virginia has done nothing. As many of our lawmakers claim to be pro-life and say they will defend life, they have yet to put any action behind those words. For now, every citizen paying taxes in West Virginia is also helping to fund the abortion industry and ensuring that 5-7 West Virginia babies are killed daily in our great state. Let that sink in for a while. Click here for original article.
Are you a he,” or a “she”?
Do your gender and your sex agree?
These might seem like odd, almost absurd questions. And yet they are the very questions that many college students are wrestling with. For example, Skylar Crownover is a female attending Mills College in California, an all-girls school. She is the president of “Mouthing Off!” a campus group for LGBT students seeking to vent their frustrations. Each week when they meet they being by stating their name and the preferred gender pronoun they would like to be identified with throughout the meeting.
Skylar told one interviewer that she prefers to be addressed with the singular “they,” though she will answer to “he.” When asked how she got into an all-girls school if she does not identify as a female she said, “the application asks you to mark your sex and I did. It didn’t ask me for my gender.”
Skylar is just one of many people that are beginning to believe it is possible to divorce your gender and biological sex. In a twisted game of semantics they are seeking to separate two inseparable aspects of human sexuality. While Skylar and her friends play word games the reality is that gender and sex are one in the same. Continue reading
Remember when things like reading, math, science, and history were the primary focus of a well-rounded public school education? If I didn’t know better I would conclude that today the primary focus of a public school education was sexual indoctrination.
When I was in school sex-ed week was just that, a single week in the school year when the school took one class period each day to teach some basic aspects of human sexuality. It was an optional class that parents had to sign a waiver in order to approve their child attending. Except for that one week I can’t recall hearing anything about human sexuality during my time in public school.
Today, however, it appears that human sexuality is a central figure in public school education as those with a liberal agenda seek to indoctrinate students into a worldview that includes casual sex, sexual experimentation at a young age, approval for homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles, and of course abortion. It seems say someone read Lenin’s comments on children and transforming the world. Lenin once said: Continue reading
Planned Parenthood officials are officially “disappointed” by the results of Plan B on the unintended pregnancy rate. They believed this abortion drug would be the answer to their perceived problem but it has not had an impact on the rate, which has stayed steady at 50% of all pregnancies. Planned Parenthood recently said: “While there’s a lot of data to show it can prevent pregnancy in individual women, we’ve all been disappointed that on the population level, it just hasn’t had the effect we hoped…The unintended pregnancy rate hasn’t changed at all.”
It’s almost as if Planned Parenthood cannot understand that many people are pro-life, and taking a drug that will kill a living human being is simply not an option. So whether the pregnancy is unintended or not, Plan B will not be considered. This is a simple way to explain the steady unintended pregnancy rate. It might be too simple for Planned Parenthood to understand. Click here for original article.
Planned Parenthood vehemently opposes any laws requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Abortion advocates often refer to such laws as TRAP laws – Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers – and say their sole purpose is to put undue burden and stigma on abortionists. But is that the truth behind these laws?
First, let’s be clear about what laws requiring admitting privileges are. These laws simply require that any medical professional that performs any type of invasive surgical procedure hold admitting privileges at a hospital close to the clinic where the procedures are being performed. Admitting privileges simply means the medical professional is allowed to attend to the needs of their patient should something go wrong and the person need to be admitted to the hospital.
So, in essence, all these laws are doing is to require a person performing medical procedures be allowed to serve their patient at a local hospital should something go wrong. That seems like an easy to understand, common sense requirement for any medical professional; one that a doctor would gladly endorse in an effort to serve his or her patients.
In fact, so common is this practice of requiring admitting privileges that at least 32 professional medical associations have this requirement for their doctors. A recent article explains: Continue reading
One of the most deceptive attacks on religious freedom has taken place and you might not have even heard about it.
I briefly touched on this subject last week just a couple of days after it happened, but I want to spend a little more time unpacking how a recent decision by a federal judge could significantly impact religious freedom across the nation.
On Friday, November, 22, 2013, federal district court judge Barbara Crabb issued an order declaring the minister’s housing allowance in the IRS Code unconstitutional. Siding with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, judge Crabb agreed that the housing allowance exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The first thing to understand is that this ruling has not gone into effect at this time and will not go into effect until the appeals process has been completed. Almost as if the judge anticipated the outpouring of appeals, she decided to stay her ruling until after that process. So for now nothing has changed and pastors and churches don’t have to worry about the impact of the ruling. On this aspect of the ruling senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom Erik Stanley noted: Continue reading
The Washington Times posted an article highlighting the push to end a federal ban on gay men from giving blood. The article states: “Supporters of the policy say politics, not science, is driving the proposed change, which would heighten the risk of spreading HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, when the medical demand for blood donations is decreasing. Under Food and Drug Administration rules, men who have had sex with men (MSM) since 1977 are ineligible to donate blood. An acknowledgment of having male homosexual relations at any time in one’s life is enough to disqualify a potential donor.”
Is it time to end this ban and allow the group primarily responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS to add their blood to the nation’s blood supply? The one fact that homosexual men cannot deny or overcome is that they are primarily responsible for transmitting HIV and AIDS; a fact even the CDC confirms. So is it wise to allow this group to donate blood? Would such a decision open the nation’s blood supply to contamination and risk infecting others? Those difficult questions must be addressed before a decision is made. Click here for original article.