Tag Archives: Obama
The Obama administration barred states from withholding federal funding from Planned Parenthood with a rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in December of 2016, just a few weeks before Obama left office. This is not terribly surprising, as Obama stands as the most pro-abortion president in American history.
But in his first few weeks in office, President Donald Trump has already made a pro-life impact with several actions, which, according to a recent article include:
The difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom of worship” is very distinct. The fact that our president says he believes in “freedom of worship” over “freedom of religion” is a warning to be taken seriously.
A group of Pentecostals were meeting in a home church group when the local police came and said they would drive them from the home in accordance with a new law. That new law allows “freedom of worship” but severely restricts “freedom of religion.”
Recently in Russia, a proposed law received overwhelming support from lawmakers and was approved by president Vladimir Putin. That law put restrictions on missionary work, teaching, preaching, or seeking to “recruit” people into a religious organization. The law also restricts people from sharing their faith in their home, online, or anywhere outside of a church building.
The momentum caused by a federal judge blocking the Obama Administration’s bathroom policy is having a positive impact. People are mobilizing to put a permanent end to this terrible policy. For anyone who has ever wondered “what can I do” about such a bad policy as the bathroom bill, take a look at the suggestions from a top family advocacy group and determine which of these action points you can do.
The Family Policy Alliance works to defend traditional values with its network of advocacy groups across the United States. Recently, they published an article with four ways you can get involved in the fight to defend privacy against the bathroom bill.
For some reason the Obama Administration thought it would be a good idea to let school students to use whatever bathroom and locker room they choose. This means that boys that “identify” as girls can use the girls’ facilities and vice versa. Anyone with a little common sense can clearly see what a bad decision and policy this is.
Texas, along with 12 other states agreed that such a decision is not safe for students. So a challenge to the mandate began as greater public outcry against the mandate continued. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with the challenge and blocked the mandate saying the Obama Administration did not follow the law in issuing the mandate. Specifically, the judge said the Obama Administration failed to give adequate notice of the impending law and allow for a comment period.
If you don’t think elections have consequences you haven’t been paying attention for the past 8 years. If you think the upcoming election won’t have consequences, you simply have no grasp on our current cultural position.
The most pro-abortion president in American history has had 8 years in the White House. His tenure has produced two staunch abortion advocates on the Supreme Court. With these allies firmly in place for the rest of their lives the high court of our country currently stands firmly with the abortion industry. That realty has had a devastating effect on the efforts of individual states to pass common sense laws to protect women and unborn children from the barbarism of abortion.
The most recent setback to efforts of pro-life advocates came from the Supreme Court ruling in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case. The court decided that requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals and requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers were unconstitutional and “not medically necessary.”
To break this down, which will help understand the absurdity of the pro-abortion position and the court’s ruling, let’s make sure we understand exactly what these two laws were seeking to accomplish.
It looks as though Planned Parenthood will have to find a way to spin yet another damning piece of evidence against their abortion business. After a congressional committee found conclusive evidence that Planned Parenthood in fact did profit from the sale of aborted baby body parts, the world’s largest abortion merchant once again has some explaining to do.
What has become apparent is that procurement companies used their websites to advertise and sell every baby body part imaginable. Clients would go to the site, select the part they desired, and the company would then partner with a Planned Parenthood clinic to supply that part…for a price.
The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has released a 12th undercover video showing that Planned Parenthood actively changes the abortion procedure to harvest fully intact “specimens” to sell.
The latest video features Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, telling undercover investigators how her clinic seeks to harvest fully intact babies in order to sell the bodies to a bioscience company. In case you didn’t know, knowingly altering the abortion procedure is a federal crime. Selling fetal body parts for profit is also a federal crime. The undercover videos released by CMP have proven definitively that Planned Parenthood has daily broken both of those federal laws.
You might be wondering why Planned Parenthood has not faced any criminal charges. Why hasn’t anyone been arrested? The truth is that Planned Parenthood is protected by the most pro-abortion president in United States history. President Obama has repeatedly “blessed” Planned Parenthood for their work and given billions of dollars in tax-money to the abortion business despite objections from Americans. (Hillary Clinton is a big fan of Planned Parenthood as well.)
A recent article carried comments by CMP president David Daleiden regarding the shocking revelations uncovered by the undercover video:
President Obama supports a woman’s choice.
Unless that choice is to be a stay-at-home mom, then he doesn’t want you to make that choice. He would rather you choose your job and earn more money than to stay home with your children.
That’s the main take away from his recent speech at Rhode Island College in Providence, RI recently. It sounds as though our president would like the government to discourage mother from staying home with their kids. As though money, career advancement, and those things the business world offers are more important than raising children. The President said:
After the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate, the administration promised a “fix” to make it all legal. True to their promise a new HHS mandate “fix” was released last week. Unfortunately, the new “fix” does nothing to protect the religious conscience and convictions of business owners and religious organizations.
The following articles provide a detailed analysis of the new “fix” and why it’s really nothing new and doesn’t really fix anything. Stay informed about this very critical issue. At stake is the ability for business owners to live and do business according to their religious convictions without fear of government reprisal. This is important because religious freedom is a cornerstone of our country. If the government can force a business owner to violate his/her religious convictions it won’t be long before every person can and will be made to do the same.
ADF COMMENT ON HHS MANDATE ‘ACCOMMODATION’
I love reading articles like this from the left. This article not only misrepresents the facts by linking religious rights to taking four pills in question in the Hobby Lobby case, it disproves what it is trying to prove.
Here are some issues that should be apparent in the article by a little thought behind the words of the article.
1. They misrepresent teachings of Jewish history. It is clear that an agenda is in the works when this author says it is a religious requirement to support contraceptives. What the article cites is a disagreement among two ancient Jewish Scholars on the role of a form of birth control as it relates to two Jewish Principles. They discussed whether a sponge like material for the prevention of pregnancy is allowed and even use the phrase, “may use” to distinguish it from being a religious obligation, as this article seems to try to advance.
For instance, in my religious tradition I “may use beer.” This does not mean beer is required or part of my religion. Rather, it is something I am allowed to use.