Tag Archives: policy
I’ll admit that I’m perplexed by news that Google is complying with a government request to yank LGBT apps from their Play Store. I thought Google was a “tolerant,” “inclusive” company that championed the views of the sexual revolution. I thought Google openly mocked and blacklisted anyone that dared to disagree with their corporate code.
The newly reinstated Mexico City policy is being expanded to include many more U.S. agencies and a greater pool of funds.
One of the firsts actions President Trump took after taking office in January was to reinstate the Mexico City policy. This policy says that funds given to organizations for international health care efforts cannot be used to promote or perform abortions. These nongovernment organizations must agree not to promote or perform abortion or support coercive and forced sterilization efforts in the countries they provide health care aid.
One of the very first actions of President Trump surprised me, in a good way. If more actions like this follow I am very hopeful for the unborn in our country.
I will admit that I am cautiously optimistic concerning the “pro-life” claims of President Trump. He has supported abortion in various ways throughout his lifetime and never been considered a pro-life advocate. So when he claimed, on the campaign trail, to be pro-life, I was skeptical.
But you know what they say: actions speak louder than words.
Within the first few hours of his administration, President Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, much to my surprised and the delight of many pro-life Americans. In case you are not familiar with this policy, it is a policy that prohibits the federal government from sending any taxpayer money to a foreign organization that performs abortions. In other words, not one penny of your hard-earned money, or mine, will be used to perform abortions overseas.
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.
Should a Christian school be allowed to expel a student or refuse the application of a prospective student simply because that person has a gay relative? That is the position one school in Kansas is taking; and they are receiving a lot of political and social heat for it.
Trinity Academy, a small Christian school in Kansas says it is “a Christ-centered, college-preparatory education for students committed to spiritual growth and academic excellence.” The school claims test scores are far above average and most kids are involved in the music program.
Trinity also says that it reserves the right to expel any student or prospective student with a gay family member. The school’s policy states:
I never thought I’d see the day when a progressive person, a leader in the ACLU no less, decides to quit over the implementation of a progressive idea. Yet that is exactly what Maya Dillard Smith did after her young daughters were shaken by having men in the women’s bathroom.
What makes this an interesting story is that a self-described liberal is seeing first hand just how bad the transgender bathroom policy really is. Many voices have shared concern for the safety of women in light of Target’s decision to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose. And greater concern was shared when President Obama decided to ask all public schools to allow transgender students to use whatever bathroom and locker room they choose.
The public has pushed back against the idea that grown men should be allowed into the locker room and bathroom with young girls and women. The boycott against Target has grown and Target has watched their stock price drop. Fundamentally, people know that grown men and women should not be in the same bathroom or locker room together. But this progressive, liberal idea has become a central focus in our culture.
The case of the Bronx Household of Faith is a storied one that has spanned decades. It began when the New York City Board of Education changed a city policy forbidding churches to rent public schools for church services. Other organizations may rent public schools, only churches were barred from using them. The Bronx Household of Faith sued the city for unfairly targeting the free exercise of religion.
In 2012 a lower court granted a full injunction which barred the city policy from taking effect, this allowed the churches to continue meeting in schools pending the ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd Circuit reversed the lower court ruling last week and allowed the city policy to take effect. Without intervention by the full 2nd Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court churches in New York City will now be homeless.
The good news is that newly elected mayor Bill de Blasio has said he supports allowing churches to meet in schools like everyone else. In fact he made such statements more than once during his campaign. After the ruling Mayor de Blasio was quoted as saying:
World Vision (hereafter referred to as WV) believes that changing its policy to allow homosexuals in same-sex “marriages” will help to “unite” the church around their mission of serving the poor. This change only affects the US division of WV and not the global umbrella. Richard Stearns, president of the US division, said:
“Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues. It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.”
We all saw this coming. The Boy Scouts are faced with yet another decision regarding homosexuals in their organization. After they caved to pressure to allow openly homosexual boy scouts, pressure is now mounting for the boys group to also allow openly homosexual leaders. Disney has now cut off funding from the organization unless they change their policy to allow the homosexual leaders. A recent article reports:
“Walt Disney World has decided it will stop funding the local Boy Scouts of America chapter beginning next year unless the childhood group allows open homosexuals to serve as Scoutmasters. The Disney corporation said the BSA violates its non-discrimination policy…It is not clear how much money the amusement park provided to the scouts annually. However, that revenue stream may be available again if the scouts change their policy before January 1, 2015. Homosexual groups said the decision is a sign of their growing influence in the culture, especially in the realm of children’s entertainment.”
There is so much wrong with that paragraph. First, Disney states that the Boy Scouts violate the Disney non-discrimination policy. At what point is it appropriate for one organization to demand another organization abide by its policies? But that’s the goal of liberals, progressives, and homosexuals; everyone will affirm one universal, world-wide social policy – effectively removing autonomy and individuality.
Second, the fact that homosexuals believe they are gaining influence in “the realm of children’s entertainment” is scary. They are seeking to “educate,” or rather indoctrinate kids into a particular worldview that celebrates homosexuality. Any gains in children’s entertainment should be a cause for concern for parents.
Supporting Disney at this point is simply not an option for me. They have, over the last several years become a very liberal organization that approves and celebrates a whole host of immoral behavior and views. To say the least, my family won’t be visiting anytime soon.