Another large company has recently come out of the corporate closet in support of same-sex marriage. Food giant General Mills has joined a growing list of corporate gay marriage supporters like Target and Starbucks.

Speaking at a Gay Pride event recently, CEO Ken Powell said General Mills opposes an effort to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Minnesota, where the corporation is headquartered.

Tom Forsythe, vice president of corporate communications, echoed Powell’s thoughts claiming the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would hurt Minnesota’s economy.  “For decades, General Mills has worked to create an inclusive culture for our employees. We believe it is important for Minnesota to be viewed as inclusive and welcoming as well. We oppose the proposed constitutional amendment because we do not believe it is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy,” he said.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) blasted the General Mills Corporation for the show of support.  “Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is profoundly in the common good, and it is especially important for children,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage, which is what the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment does.”

A national survey conducted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) last year showed that 63 percent of people with children living in their home, “believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” Just thirty-five percent of people with children at home disagreed with the statement. Overall, the ADF survey found that 62 percent of adults believe marriage is only the union of a man and a woman.

“This will go down as one of the dumbest corporate PR stunts of all time,” said Brian Brown. “It’s ludicrous for a big corporation to intentionally inject themselves into a divisive social issue like gay marriage. It’s particularly dumb for a corporation that makes billions selling cereal to the very people they just opposed.”

The maker of cereals such as Cheerios, Chex and Cinnamon Toast Crunch joins St. Jude Medical as one of two companies based in Minnesota who have taken an anti-amendment position. Most companies have pledged neutrality on the issue.

“It is very disappointing that General Mills has decided to play PC politics by pandering to a small but powerful interest group that is bent on redefining marriage, the core institution of society,” said John Helmberger, Chairman of Minnesota for Marriage. “Marriage is more than a commitment between two people who love each other. It was created by God for the care and well-being of the next generation. The amendment is about preserving marriage and making sure that voters always remain in control over the definition of marriage in our state and not activist judges or politicians.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, previously the Alliance Defense Fund, has filed suit in federal court against Planned Parenthood of Iowa. The lawsuit claims repeated false, fraudulent or ineligible claims for reimbursements to Medicaid and suggests Planned Parenthood Iowa failed to meet acceptable standards of medical practice.

Michael Norton, senior Alliance counsel and a former U.S. attorney, tells OneNewsNow his group is representing former Planned Parenthood clinic director Sue Thayer.

“Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” Norton asserts. “People may hold different views about abortion, but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else. It certainly isn’t entitled to any public funds, especially if it is defrauding Medicaid and the American taxpayer.”

Thayer, former manager of clinics in Storm Lake and LeMars, sued under whistleblower laws, alleging that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud by improperly seeking reimbursements for products and services not legally reimbursable. The lawsuit contends nearly a half-million false claims were filed with Medicaid, resulting in Planned Parenthood of Iowa retaining nearly $28 million.

One of the focuses of the Planned Parenthood Illinois investigation is more than $3 million in reimbursements in 2009 to one abortionist, Caroline Hoke.  Judie Brown of the American Life League is appalled by Hoke’s response so far. (Listen to audio report)

“I think it’s very interesting that Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Hoke has the unadulterated gall to say she has no comment after being reimbursed by the state for more than $3 million in so-called ‘medical fees,'” Brown comments. “She must be working 24 hours a day, seven days a week in order to earn that kind of money — and you and I both know that is not the case.”

She commends several state legislatures for denying funding to the nation’s biggest abortion-provider, despite the fact that the federal government since 1970 “has been wedded to Planned Parenthood at the hip, and they are not going to deny money.”

“You know, it’s like a siphon,” the pro-lifer compares. “The money continues to go to Planned Parenthood no matter what the public is being told, and the only way that’s going to change is for American taxpayers to get smart about this and demand that their money no longer go to an organization that specializes in killing babies.”

Illinois Supreme Court accepts brief filed by ADF, allied attorneys in defense of parental notification law

Parents matter when their minor children seek abortions, according to the arguments of the Alliance Defense Fund and ADF-allied attorneys with the Chicago firm of Mauck & Baker in a brief filed with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Tuesday the high court accepted the friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Medical Association in defense of an Illinois law that requires parents to be notified if their minor child seeks an abortion.

Illinois Family Institute is proudly co-sponsoring Mauck & Baker’s efforts.

“Parents matter in abortion decisions,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “If abortionists truly cared about young girls, they wouldn’t be pushing to make sure parents stay in the dark while a clinic takes advantage of their daughters’ bodies and desperate situation–not to mention the life of the child in the womb.”

The brief argues that “parental involvement laws protect young women and their physicians, ensuring that full informed consent is given and a proper medical standard of care is met.”

Mauck & Baker, LLC, is lead counsel for the medical groups filing the brief. Richard Baker, Amy Parish, and Noel Sterett are three of nearly 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance.

American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing an abortion clinic and an abortionist filed the lawsuit The Hope Clinic for Women v. Adams in an attempt to tear down the Illinois Parental Notice Act. A federal district court found the law constitutional in October 2010 and dismissed the ACLU’s case, which is now on appeal.

“A young child’s well being is worth much more than an abortionist’s bottom line,” Sterett said. “This law balances the needs of desperate young girls with the rights of the parents who care most about them. The Illinois Supreme Court should allow this protective law to go into effect and reject the arguments of those who want to shut parents out of their children’s critical health decisions.”

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. 

Nurses in a New Jersey hospital who refused to participate in abortions will be able to keep their jobs under an agreement reached in federal court. The twelve nurses had been threatened with termination from their jobs by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey if they failed to assist in abortion procedures. TheAlliance Defense Fund (ADF) had filed suit on behalf of the pro-life nurses in defense of their conscience rights under federal law.

Under the agreement reached with hospital administrators, the nurses will no longer be required to undergo abortion training or assist in any way in the performance of abortions. They will only be called upon to be involved in an abortion procedure if a mother faces a life-threatening emergency. The University of Medicine and Dentistry may not discriminate or retaliate against the nurses because of their pro-life convictions by replacing them or reducing their hours.

In September the group of nurses were abruptly informed without warning that they were to undergo abortion training in order to assist in abortion procedures. When they objected to having any involvement in the destruction of unborn children based on moral grounds, they were informed that their religious convictions were of no consequence.

Fe Esperanza Vinoya, who spoke out on behalf of the nurses, says they were heartbroken by the edict. “We don’t consider nursing our jobs, we consider it our calling. Ours is a profession of caring. We felt betrayed–we felt a great sense of sadness in all of us.”

Vinoya was further repulsed when she was curtly told by one of her supervisors: “All you have to do is catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.” Vinoya found the explanation revolting. “As a Christian, I don’t believe in abortion. I think it’s murder.”

Pro-life U.S. Representiative Chris Smith (R-NJ) applauded the outcome. “[The hospital’s] coercive abortion policy was a blatant violation of the civil rights of its health care professionals. The right to conscience is a federally protected fundamental right that cannot be abridged, undermined or violated in any way.”

Federal laws prohibit any health care facility which accepts federal funds from compelling any medical professional from participating in abortion if it violates their individual conscience. New Jersey state law also includes similar conscience protections.

U.S. Rep. Smith commended the nurses for putting their jobs on the line to stand up for their personal convictions. “Due to the brave voices of these twelve nurses, the hospital has finally agreed to respect their rights. These nurses may now continue to provide
compassionate life-affirming care without being complicit in the destruction of innocent human life.”

Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union isn’t happy. A spokesman for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project says they do not support civil liberties for medical professionals. Brigitte Amiri says that nurses have a responsibility to place their duties over any personal “ideology,” and that failure to perform abortions amounts to “discrimination” against women.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares had issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the University of Medicine and Dentistry from requiring the nurses to assist in abortions or taking any adverse employment action against them for their refusal to do so. Linares says he will retain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the agreement is enforced.

The nurses expressed relief over the settlement. “I’m a nurse so I can help people, not help kill people,” said Beryl Otieno-Negoje. “No health professional should be forced to choose between assisting abortion or being penalized at work.”

Vinoya says she was sustained through the ordeal by the prayers and support of her fellow church members at Life Christian Church. She says she was especially encouraged by her own children. “The day we received the new orders my eight year old son was learning about the Ten Commandments in church. He recited the Sixth Commandment — that we are not to kill anyone. I just cried. I knew that God had given me hope and that He was on our side.”

Vinoya says she was also encouraged by her thirteen year-old son who was working on a school project on the subject of religious freedom. “I realized that that was exactly what this was all about, and that it was being violated right in front of us. We knew this would be a David versus Goliath battle. But we all know who won.”

A great way to help IFI protect the time-honored values such as the sanctity of life, natural marriage and religious liberty is to become an IFI Sustaining Partner. By pledging $10, $25, $50 or $100 a month (or whatever you can afford) to IFI, you will be ensuring that our work and ministry stays strong so that we can staunchly defend and strengthen your values in the Land of Lincoln.

Click HERE to make that pledge.

Thank you!

Mainstream media reports would have you believe that America is trending more in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Homosexual activists and their allies in the media and in Hollywood have been working overtime to promote their social agenda, leading many to believe that homosexual so-called “marriage” is inevitable.

But new, comprehensive, scientific polling coupled with analyses of marriage amendment voting patterns show that a vast majority of Americans still believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

The survey found that 62 percent of Americans believe marriage is only between one man and one woman, with 53 percent strongly agreeing with that statement.

“These numbers are not surprising,” said Public Opinion Strategies partner, and the survey’s director, Gene Ulm. “More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all — 63 percent of total voters — have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Sixty-three percent of voters in the nation have already voted in favor of traditional marriage. And if you add in the fact that the voters of Maine repealed a homosexual “marriage” law passed by its state legislature in 2009, the number of Americans that reject the redefinition of marriage increases. Regardless of what the gay-friendly media wants you to believe, those voters have made their decision — and it recognizes the truth of God’s institution of marriage!

The survey was sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by the nationally known public opinion research firm Public Opinion Strategies between May 16th and May 19th of this year. Public Opinion Strategies is a nationwide firm that has provided polling for Fortune 100 companies, 80 representatives, 19 senators, six governors, NBC, the Wall Street Journal, and NPR.

According to ADF, the poll’s sponsor, “The survey was part of a broad and comprehensive effort examining American attitudes toward marriage. In addition to the national survey, the effort included 14 focus groups completed across the country.”

IFI’s school issues director, Laurie Higgins, says that,

Public opposition to both civil unions and the oxymoronically named “same-sex marriage’ would be even greater if Americans had not been exposed to relentless homosexuality-normalizing messages through our entertainment media and public schools for decades. Fallacious analogies (e.g. that homosexuality is equivalent to race or skin color), ad hominem epithets, and sentimental emotional appeals from homosexual activists and their accomplices have supplanted sound reasoning. A public increasingly uninterested in intellectual discourse and complacent about censorship in public schools are succumbing to propaganda.

Same-sex “marriage” advocates and their allies in the national media and government are not going to give up their relentless assault on marriage. Here in Illinois a lame duck session of the Illinois General Assembly passed “civil unions” — a counterfeit version of marriage. Homosexual advocates continue to push their radical political agenda through non-discrimination policies in state government, policies that are unnecessary, violate the Constitutional principle of equal protection of the law, and threaten religious liberty.

This report should be a bit of a shot in the arm for all of us and remind us that we cannot be deceived by media reports that led some to believe that the marriage issue is lost. Indeed, we are the majority on this important, society-defining issue.

A federal judge has struck down a law adopted by the city of Baltimore regulating pro-life pregnancy resource centers. The ordinance required that crisis pregnancy centers post signs stating that they do not offer abortions or birth control services and do not have licensed medical professionals on staff.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis ruled that the ordinance infringed on the freedom of speech of pregnancy resource centers and amounted to viewpoint discrimination.

“Whether a provider of pregnancy-related services is ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ it is for the provider — not the government — to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth control methods,” Garbis wrote.

Matt Bowman, attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, says Judge Garbis made the right call. “This is a huge win for the health of women and a defeat for the profiteering abortion industry that passes laws like this in order to restrict women’s choices in obtaining free abortion alternatives.”

“In sharp contrast to the law-breaking abortion industry, pro-life pregnancy centers have a stellar record of integrity and their opponents can cite no examples of abuse or so-called ‘lying.’ To the abortion industry, saying that abortion is bad is defined as a lie.”

Bowman adds that there is a distinction between the Baltimore ordinance and pro-life informed consent laws. “Laws governing informed consent for abortion rightly regulate information given by a licensed doctor prior to an abortion. Laws against pro-life pregnancy centers attack private unlicensed citizen speech solely because they speak on the issue of pregnancy from the pro-life perspective.”

Under the provisions of the Baltimore ordinance, pregnancy resource centers who failed to comply would have been subject to fines of $200, plus $50 for each day of continuing noncompliance.

It was clear that the ordinance was targeted to harass pro-life pregnancy support centers. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have required abortion clinics to post a sign saying they do not provide abortion alternatives was soundly defeated.