This week the U.S. Supreme Court hears a critically important religious freedom case. The Court will determine whether Hobby Lobby must provide contraceptive coverage to its employees, which would entail violating the religious beliefs of the company’s owners on a matter of no small import: the killing of the unborn.

Judy Waxman, a vice president of the National Women’s Law Center, asserts that “The key question is whether a corporation can have a religion.”

That strikes me as a dishonest framing of the question in that the “corporation” consists of individuals for whom their faith is central.

I would argue that the key question is whether the free exercise of religion protects the right of citizens to allow their faith to shape the means by which they make a living. The key question is whether an individual has the right to have their religious beliefs inform their livelihood decisions. Many Americans spend most of their waking hours working. For Christians, every aspect of life should be lived in submission to God and shaped by biblical truths. Christians should not lose their right to freely exercise their religion in all areas of life just because they have used their gifts and labor to create successful businesses.

The First Amendment does not merely protect the right of people of faith to freely exercise their religion within the confines of their churches. It protects the right of people of faith to exercise their religious convictions in all areas of life, not the least of which is our work. Shaping business decisions in accordance with one’s faith does not constitute a violation of the separation of church and state. Not subsidizing the provision of abortifacients to women does not constitute establishing a religion or imposing a religious practice on others. If the government declares that commerce is an area of life in which individuals have no right to exercise their religion, the First Amendment is gutted.

Take ACTION:  Our friends at the Pro-Life Action League are asking that we join the “Tweet Storm for Religious Freedom” from 8 a.m. to Noon.  People of faith across the country will be tweeting with the hashtag #ReligiousFreedomForAll during that time, when the Justices will be hearing oral arguments in this case.

 Click HERE to support the work and ministry
of Illinois Family Institute.

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.

To wit:

• Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?
• Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?
• Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?
• Should a “progressive,” environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?
• Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as “gay”?
• Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes so-called “marriage equality”?

If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.

To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.

I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”

And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.

No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.

It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.

Freedom, man.

Because ‘Merica.

While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.

Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, “gay” or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.

As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph “gay weddings,” then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.

And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.

See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re “pro-choice,” right?

Starting to get it?

Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.

No debate. No question. No compromise.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.

Poo paper for puppy.

So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.

I rarely agree with “gay” activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:

I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.

And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”

Why indeed?

Yuck.

Written by Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council

Kim Dae Jin recalls the day when, as a prisoner in a North Korean labor camp, an informant betrayed a small group of prisoners who were Christian, which to be was forbidden.

“I watched as they (prison officials) grabbed hold of my friend’s arm so tightly that it died and had to be amputated,” he said. “After that, he and the other Christians were sent to an even stricter camp. You do not get out of a camp like that alive.”

Sadly, Kim’s tale is all too common in North Korea’s brutal regime. In its newly released annual report on Christian persecution, Open Doors notes that up to 70,000 Christians are being held in horrific conditions in the North Korean prison “gulag.” In them, everyone, from small children to the elderly, is subject to sub-human treatment, often for simply believing in Jesus.

One of the great tragedies of our time is that the situation in North Korea is by no means unique. Open Doors “works in the world’s most oppressive countries, strengthening Christians to stand strong in the face of persecution and equipping them to shine Christ’s light in these dark places.” Such places are far too common in the 21st Century.

In its annual “World Watch List,” Open Doors lists no less than 27 countries where persecution of Christians can be considered “extreme or severe.” These include such “mainstream” nations as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as long-time religious liberty violators like Iran and Somalia.

Ministries like Open Doors, Voice of the Martyrs, China Aid and Christian Solidarity Worldwide do brave and vital work in helping persecuted believers, reminding us in free countries of the pain they face, and motivating international action on their behalf. Family Research Council (FRC) has worked and will continue to work with these organizations to educate and equip Christians in America to stand with the persecuted church and advocate on their behalf. 

Our persecuted brothers and sisters should continually be in our prayers. But praying is not enough. We need to be financially supporting these vital ministries that are helping persecuted and imprisoned Christians around the globe. We must also call upon our governmental leaders to advocate for those who are being persecuted for their faith.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s record on defending Christians persecuted for their faith has been embarrassingly weak. Under Mr. Obama’s watch, the State Department’s international religious freedom department has “missed some of the biggest crises of our day,” according to leading advocate for the persecuted Nina Shea.

Dr. Tom Farr was the first State Department international religious freedom director. Now at Georgetown University, Dr. Farr has spoken several times at FRC about the current administration’s ineptitude and indifference regarding those persecuted for their faith. His tentative judgment after nearly five years of the Obama administration? In his words, “The administration does not see international religious freedom as a priority.”

This international indifference to religious freedom should not surprise us when here at home we see hostility toward religious freedom from the Obama administration. As FRC has documented extensively, erosion of religious liberty in American public life and in our military are increasing.

This hostility to religious freedom has been evident in the president’s hallmark legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under a provision of the ACA, Christian colleges and hospitals and Christian-run businesses would be required to provide their employees with health insurance plans that cover potential abortion-inducing drugs. This is a massive violation of their right to live out their faith in the marketplace, in the health care system, and in the academic world.

These policies flow from a truncated view of religious liberty. In his own words, President Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the freedom of worship, not the freedom of religion. The freedom of worship is the ability to choose the church, if any; you want to attend on Sunday morning. The freedom of religion is the ability to live your life according to the religious teachings of your choice.

To be sure, American Christians experience nothing like the gruesome punishment Christians undergo daily around the globe. Yet the precursor to persecution is always repression, the forcing-down of Christian faith into quiet corners where its visibility is limited and its impact is weakened.

We are witnessing that kind of growing repression in the U.S. today and it is fostering or at least giving rise to the spread of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities around the world. Even as we stand with believers like Kim Dae Jin, we have to be vigilant in defending religious liberty where it’s always been most sacred – our own country.

On January 16, we will commemorate our annual “Religious Freedom Day.” Let’s hope, work, and pray that our “first freedom,” religious liberty, will not only remain our first freedom, but also become a freedom that people around the world will experience.

This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com.

From the Liberty Council

Washington, DC—Two federal courts of appeal have dealt a setback to the ObamaCare Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. Yesterday a federal appeals court in Denver, sitting en banc, sided with the preliminary injunction request of Hobby Lobby, a Christian, family-owned arts and crafts chain with 500 stores in 41 states.

Hobby Lobby Founder and CEO David Green drew a line in the sand and said, “We believe people are more important than the bottom line and honoring God is more important than turning a profit.” The court of appeals sent the case back to the lower district court to review the request for the injunction, but based on how the opinion is written, the lower court will almost certainly issue the preliminary injunction.

Last week a federal district court in Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction for Geneva College, the first relief granted to a nonprofit college. Federal Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled: “Three Supreme Court decisions support Geneva’s argument that there is a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its assertion that it will suffer a substantial burden under the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] RFRA.”

Based on its religious beliefs, Geneva College refused to provide the so-called contraceptive mandate, which includes abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as sterilization.

Liberty Counsel’s case, on behalf of Liberty University and two individuals in Liberty University v. Geithner, is still pending at the Forth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, presented oral argument in that case on May 17, 2013.

The Liberty University case presents the nation’s broadest challenge to ObamaCare, challenging (1) the entire employer mandate, (2) the HHS abortion mandate for employers, (3) the abortion funding forced upon individuals, and (4) the failure of ObamaCare to comply with the Origination Clause.

“The ObamaCare contraception and abortion mandate is the most serious violation of religious liberty,” said Staver. “ObamaCare is a train wreck with the natural right to the free exercise of religion. ObamaCare forces Christians and people of faith to either violate their deeply held religious beliefs to comply with the law or violate the law to comply with their faith. The government has lost its way when it forces this kind of choice upon its citizens,” concluded Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

Written by Michael Foust

The Obama administration proposed a rule change Friday it says will appease the concerns religious organizations have about the abortion/contraceptive mandate, but legal groups who defend religious liberty called the proposal inadequate and said it fell far short of what is needed.

Religious groups had hoped the Department of Health and Human Services would announce that all religious organizations — universities, hospitals and charities — are exempt from the mandate, which requires employers to carry health insurance plans covering contraceptives and drugs that can cause chemical abortions. Churches, for example, are exempt from the mandate. Instead, HHS issued a rule it says allows for employees to obtain contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs without the religious employer taking part in the process. Religious liberty groups say employers still will be involved. 

The proposal also does nothing to help businesses such as Bible publisher Tyndale House or Christian-owned Hobby Lobby or any other for-profit whose owners have religious objections to contraceptives and/or abortion-causing drugs. 

“Having reviewed this proposed rule, we … have to say we’re extremely disappointed,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a conference call with reporters. Becket Fund has helped lead the legal charge against the mandate. More than 40 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate. Duncan called the proposal “radically inadequate.”

According to an HHS website, under the proposal, the religious employer “would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.” Employees “would receive contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies, without cost sharing or additional premiums.” The insurance company would be required to offer the drugs for free, HHS said. 

Religious organizations that are self-insured would have to contact a third party administrator, which would “work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants.” 

Religious liberty groups had multiple objections to the proposal. First, the groups said, religious organizations still will be required to carry an insurance plan that is tied to coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. Second, religious employers — particularly those who are self-insured — will be acting as “conduits” with health providers to ensure their employees can obtain the drugs. Third, it’s unclear who is paying for the “free drugs.” As some religious commentators were suggesting: Will insurance companies simply raise rates — and thereby pass the cost for the abortion-causing drugs on to the religious organization? 

Duncan said religious organizations are “going to have to carefully consider whether this accommodation really doesn’t change the moral landscape at all. It’s going to be up to them to make that determination. We believe they’re going to have some serious concerns about remaining unacceptably involved in the provision of these drugs and devices.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior legal counsel Matt Bowman said the proposal still infringes on religious liberty.

“Religious non-profits will, in fact, be forced to provide an insurance plan with a provider that gives the religious group’s employees abortion-pill coverage in direct connection with that plan, the coverage is definitely not free, and the coverage is imposed ‘automatically’ even against the objection of many employees who don’t want free abortion-pill coverage for themselves or their daughters,” Bowman said.

To qualify for the proposal, an organization must self-certify that it “holds itself out as a religious organization,” according to HHS. Ironically that could mean that many of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations — despite being non-profits — won’t qualify for the accommodation because they’re technically not religious organizations.

The HHS announcement did nothing to change the coverage by for-profits. Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts store whose Christian owners say they will not follow the mandate, apparently will face fines of more than $1 million each day if a federal court does not step in. Its owners always have made their faith a central part of their business. Their stores play Christian instrumental music and are closed on Sundays. Hobby Lobby contributes to Christian organizations and runs full-page ads in newspapers during the Easter and Christmas seasons with Gospel-centered messages.

The good news for Christian for-profits is they are winning in court, having seen 10 wins and only four losses. Hobby Lobby, though, is one of those losses. The issue likely is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The administration fails to understand,” said Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical Association, “that many employers and individual Americans, regardless of a religious label or not, maintain strong conscience objections to participating in any way, shape or form in a plan that promotes pills that the FDA says can cause the demise of a living human embryo — a developing baby in her earliest stage.”

Covered under the mandate are emergency contraceptives such as Plan B and ella that can kill an embryo after fertilization and even after implantation. Pro-lifers consider that action a chemical abortion.

The mandate was announced by HHS in August 2011 as part of the health care law championed by President Obama. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law last June, the justices’ ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the abortion/contraceptive mandate. That means the nation’s highest court could yet strike down what has been for religious groups and some business owners the most controversial part of the law.

Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

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!

A young woman was fired from the Macy’s San Antonio Rivercenter department store for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy’s is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.

When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female’s fitting room. Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “Macy’s policy which allows men to use the women’s dressing room is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant problems and will alienate the majority of Macy’s customers. Macy’s has essentially opened women’s dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.”

Liberty Counsel encourages readers to contact Macy’s and politely let them know that this is completely unacceptable. You can reach Terry Lundgren, the CEO of Macy’s at macys_execs@macys.com or call their corporate offices at 800-264-0069 or 513-398-5221, or you can fax them at 513-573-2049.

By Bob Kellogg

The Thomas More Society is appealing a decision that allows Illinois to discontinue its contract with Catholic Charities’ foster and adoption care services.

Tom Ciesielka, spokesman for the legal society, says action in this appeal is urgently needed. “Basically, Catholic Charities wants to put a hold on any possible transition of moving the children out of Catholic Charities into other foster-care providers,” he explains.

At issue is the new Illinois law that recognizes same-sex civil unions. Since Catholic Charities does not license same-sex or unmarried couples for adoption or foster care, referring them instead to other agencies, Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled on August 18 that the state could stop working with the organization.

“People who may not agree with the moral issues for or against same-sex ‘marriage’ will see that the core of this is doing what’s right for the children, and that’s what Catholic Charities and Thomas More Society is focusing on,” Ciesielka assures.

So the Thomas More Society is asking Judge Schmidt to reconsider, rehear, and vacate his order.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

This week, the Thomas More Society filed a “friend of the court” brief available here in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of more than 60 members of the Indiana General Assembly, in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s assertion that defunding abortion providers imposes an “unconstitutional condition” on physicians’ alleged right to perform abortions.

The brief states that “abortion providers have no constitutionally recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions” and that funding restrictions would not “interfere with the ability of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Accordingly, because the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions have not been violated, neither has the asserted right of their providers.”

In the trial court, the Thomas More Society scored a partial victory when U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Planned Parenthood’s request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm” (previous media release here).

Society attorneys had also filed a “friend of the court” brief available here in the trial court on behalf of the Indiana legislators, defending both this provision and the provision of the law defunding Planned Parenthood.

“We’re proud to represent the members of the Indiana General Assembly in doing the will of the people, both in preventing tax dollars from being used to support abortion providers and in ensuring that women considering abortion are fully informed about the nature of the procedure,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of Chicago’s Thomas More Society.

For more information or comments, please contact Tom Ciesielka at 312-422-1333 or tc@tcpr.net.

About the Thomas More Society
Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, traditional family values and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of Thomas More Society, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.com.

via Christian Newswire

Yesterday, IFI wrote about the decision by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to terminate all contracts with Catholic Charities in four Illinois dioceses. There is some good news to report: Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt has issued a preliminary injunction that will temporarily permit Catholic Charities to continue to serve children and families as per existing contracts. DCFS will not be permitted to terminate contracts between Catholic Charities in these four Illinois dioceses as it sought to do last Friday.

Also yesterday, IFI learned that State Senator David Koehler’s office sent out the following email in response to our article:

Sen. Koehler did not intend to force religious organizations to compromise their own beliefs. He introduced an amendment in the Senate that exempted faith based organizations such as Catholic Charities from the civil union law. The amendment did not receive enough votes to pass committee.

Kyle Dooley
Office of Senator David Koehler

Kyle Dooley’s response is somewhat misleading, whether intentionally so or not. It seems to suggest that without the religious exemption amendment passing, religious organizations are not protected.

The civil union law is actually titled the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Senator Koehler’s legislative intent clarification (the dialogue between State Senator Bill Haine and Senator Koehler) that was included in yesterday’s article took place during the debate about this very bill. The clarification of legislative intent that Koehler read was not exclusive or original to discussions of the religious exemption amendment that didn’t pass.

At the hearing to discuss the subsequent proposed religious exemption amendment, Koehler read aloud from the transcript of the original floor debate on the civil union bill. The religious exemption amendment should be unnecessary because the sponsor of the civil union law, David Koehler, made it perfectly clear during the original debate that the Religious Freedom Protection part of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union bill was intended to protect religious child welfare agencies.

This adoption/foster care debacle points to the fact that religious protections will never suffice to protect religious liberty in the face of homosexuality-affirming activists who will use any means available — including even deceit — to achieve their pernicious ends. Here is what the homosexual activist organization Equality Illinois has posted on its website regarding the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act:

How would the Act affect religious affiliated adoption agencies?

Answer: The Act would not impact faith-based adoption agencies or adoption procedures. The Act does not amend the Adoption Act, which governs both public and private adoption agencies.

This adoption/foster care mess also exposes the disastrous consequences of allowing the contrived euphemism “sexual orientation” to be allowed into laws and public policies. The use of the term “sexual orientation” is a deceitful rhetorical machination that falsely equates heterosexuality with homosexuality, suggesting both ontological and moral equivalency. The fanciful notions that homosexuality and heterosexuality are ontologically and morally equivalent are radical, unproven, subjective beliefs that have no place in law or public policy. And the term “sexual orientation” ignores the objective biological realities that inhere heterosexuality and render it utterly distinct from homosexuality.

Whenever homosexual activists and their ideological accomplices insert the term “sexual orientation,” into public policies or laws, they’re really referring only to homosexuality — not heterosexuality. To see the truth of that, replace “sexual orientation” with “heterosexuality,” which homosexual activists claim “sexual orientation” includes, in any anti-bullying policy or anti-discrimination law and see if it makes sense.

Removing the term “sexual orientation” from public policies and laws does not mean it’s open season to mistreat those who make their sexual desires central to their identity. Similarly, the absence of the term “polyamory,” another condition constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual conduct, from anti-bullying policies does not mean it’s open season to mistreat polyamorists.

So, conservative friends, strike the term “sexual orientation” (along with the terms “gay,” “transgendered,” “gender nonconforming,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression”) from your vocabulary. Then work to strike all of them from public policies and laws. Everyone has the right to discriminate, that is, to make distinctions between and judgments about homosexuality (and cross-dressing). It is that act of making moral distinctions about volitional conduct that the sexual anarchists among us seek to eradicate.

Take ACTION: Contact Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn and DCFS Director Erwin McEwen asking them to cease their attacks on religiously based foster care agencies. Politely point out that Catholic Charities are within their First Amendment rights to disqualify those applicants who self-identify as homosexual.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

On July 8, 2011, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) director, Erwin McEwen, sent a letter to a Catholic Charities director in which he said that DCFS is denying Catholic Charities foster care and adoption contracts because Catholic Charities “does not intend to comply with the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection Act and Civil Union law” which McEwen asserts “applies to foster care and adoption services.”

That seems a peculiar statement in light of the exchange below between State Senator William Haine (D-Alton) and the bill’s sponsor, State Senator David Koehler(D-Peoria), during a floor debate on this bill. Senator Koehler reads Senator Haine’s question from the hearing transcript, which begins with Haine quoting the civil union law:

Haine: “‘Nothing in this Act shall interfere or regulate with (sic) the religious practice of any religious body.’ Any religious body is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate civil unions. Now, I take it from your comments that the intent of this bill is not to make that one item but two separate intents: the solemnization of civil unions is one sphere; the second sphere is religious practice, which includes a wide variety of things. Is that correct?”

Koehler: “Yes, that is correct.”

Haine: “So, we should not read them together as just referring to the act of solemnization of a civil union, right?”

Koehler: “If I understand your question correctly, yes.”

Haine: “Therefore, and this is part of the intent, this has been the worry of these institutions of faith of all denominations, Christian and Jewish. Go to their various agencies providing social services…adoption agencies, a wide gamut of things–so that’s covered under the first sentence (of the civil union act)?”

Koehler: “Yes. The intent is not to at all impede the rights religious organizations have to carry out their duties and religious activities.”

DCFS’ unethical decision will affect more than 2,500 children.

McEwen also said “There is no meeting of the minds” regarding the foster care and adoption contracts. McEwen is right: There can be no meeting of the minds between Catholic Charities, whose leaders think rationally and morally, and those at DCFS who evidently do neither. No child welfare agency–religious or secular–should place children in homes in which the caregivers embrace and affirm sexual immorality.

McEwen’s fatuous and absurd claim is that since Catholic Charities will not agree to violate their religious convictions by placing children in the homes of self-identified homosexuals, they are in violation of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Seriously?

The law is called The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Did McEwen not notice that the protection of “religious freedom” occupies the primary position in the law’s title?

Homosexuals, their ideological allies, (and the cowards who refuse to oppose them) exploit children yet again in the service of advancing their selfish goals. They make the patently deceitful claim that they’re centrally concerned with the welfare of children in desperate need of homes — all the while displacing 2,500 children.

As I wrote earlier, Benjamin Wolf of the ACLU argues that “limiting the pool of prospective foster care parents because certain religious traditions believe same-sex relationships are sinful is irresponsible when children are in need.”

What Wolf conveniently omits is the fact that homosexuals constitute between 2-3 percent of the population; the number of those who are in stable relationships is smaller; and the number of homosexuals in stable relationships who want to foster or adopt is smaller still. By allowing a few Christian agencies to prohibit homosexuals from fostering — homosexuals who may foster through other agencies — will result in a negligible impact on the pool of foster care parents.

What does DCFS’ decision mean for Illinois? It means religious liberty loses; children lose; and the integrity of Illinois lawmaking (if that’s not oxymoronic) loses.

So, who wins? Homosexuals win. Homosexuals’ narcissistic desires take precedence over religious liberty, children, and the integrity of the lawmaking process.

In a short article titled “How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps” that appears on the First Things website, Joe Carter writes about the ways policy issues can move from politically unthinkable to radical to acceptable to sensible to popular and then finally become enshrined in policy.

This process, Carter contends, can be reversed, so that something entrenched in policy can become unthinkable. Carter warns, however, that such a reversal “requires a people who have courage and conviction and a willingness to be despised for the truth. Do current generations have such virtues? Probably not. But I’m holding out hope that our grandkids will be born that way.”

Let’s hope that we don’t have to wait that long. Let’s hope and pray that conservatives muster the willingness to be despised rather than continue seeking ways to rationalize cowardice.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn and DCFS Director Erwin McEwen asking them to cease their attacks on religiously based foster care agencies. Politely point out that Catholic Charities are within their First Amendment rights to disqualify those applicants who self-identify as homosexual.

Read more:

Illinois Moves to Shut Down Catholic Charities’ Foster Care and Adoption Services (Illinois Review)

Homosexual Agenda Engenders Discrimination (IFI’s Dave Smith)

Many Christians are familiar with the apologetic work of Dr. Frank Turek. Many, however, are unaware that he was recently fired by Cisco Systems because of his religious and political beliefs about homosexuality — beliefs that Dr. Turek did not bring to the workplace.

A homosexual manager of Cisco Systems discovered that Dr. Turek has written on same-sex “marriage” and reported his discovery to Cisco management, requesting that Dr. Turek be fired. Dr. Turek was summarily fired in violation of Cisco Systems own diversity policies and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that states that “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s…religion” and further that “The term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief” (emphasis added).

No one from Human Resources investigated the situation, nor did anyone even talk to Dr. Turek. Apparently, if a homosexual dislikes the moral beliefs of a co-worker that in no way affect job performance and tells human resources to jump, they say “How high?” Fairness, integrity, equality, tolerance, and diversity be damned.

Conservatives need to speak publicly about homosexuality to neighbors, friends, co-workers, public school teachers and administrators, and their local press, even if such speech results in intolerance and scorn. When the topic arises, we must stop retreating from it because it’s uncomfortable. Homosexuality — which the liberal organization SIECUS defines as attraction, fantasies, and sexual behavior — is not analogous to race, and opposing its normalization is not hateful. The fact that some believe otherwise is no justification for allowing liberty and truth to be erased from the public square.

And all Christians who value religious liberty and real diversity should not only oppose this outrage with vigor, tenacity, and courage, but also ask their church leaders to provide teaching on the topic. Christians need to understand the specious secular arguments that are used to legitimize homosexuality in order to participate effectively in the cultural debate and so that they are not deceived.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a fax or an email message to Mr. John Chambers, Cisco CEO to politely express your concerns about the intolerant way in which they treated Dr. Frank Turek for exercising his religious freedoms.

Please read Mike Adams’ compelling story of the firing of Frank Turek below:

Part 1 — The Cisco Delusion of Diversity
by Mike Adams, Townhall.com

Mr. John Chambers
Office of the President
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mail Stop SJC10/5/4
300 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134

Dear Mr. Chambers:

I am deeply disappointed that I have not yet heard back from you in reference to your company’s firing of Dr. Frank Turek. I know that many of my readers are interested in hearing a direct response from you. I also regret that I must write to you with additional concerns about possible systematic religious and political discrimination at Cisco.

Those additional concerns stem from statements made by Ms. Marilyn Nagel, your Senior Director of Inclusion and Diversity. Dr. Turek spoke with her recently by phone regarding his firing — a firing that was not based on his work but on his religious and political beliefs.

To her credit, Ms. Nagel apologized for the firing of Dr. Turek. Dr. Turek was told that he could apply for another job with Cisco, but that there are “no guarantees.” (Translation: he can always buy a lottery ticket). Of course, there are no guarantees winning the lottery. And I think Frank’s chances of winning the lottery are better than getting hired back by a company that is trying to cover its backside while appeasing the Gaystapo.

But to her greater discredit, Ms. Nagel not only refused to do anything to address the cultural factors that contributed to the firing, she refused to even consider the possibility that the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted toward intolerant political correctness — the soil from which the firing sprouted.

Ms. Nagel was made aware of the fact that I was present on that call to make a record of what I heard over the speakerphone. Below I have reprinted portions of that conversation. The portions in italics are the unaltered words of Ms. Nagel. My un-italicized comments are interspersed between hers.

Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.

I was encouraged to hear this from Ms. Nagel. But if that’s true, as Dr. Turek asked, “How could a Cisco leader and a seasoned HR professional possibly think its right to fire someone for his conservative political or religious beliefs on same sex marriage unless the Cisco culture has become drastically tilted toward political correctness?”

Ms. Nagel refused to answer the question directly and denied the culture was tilted. Instead, she offered an endless stream of platitudes about how inclusive and diverse the Cisco culture is.

Because we believe that it has to be an employee environment where everyone is welcome, we do discourage discussions around strongly held political beliefs or religious beliefs in group settings within Cisco other than certain forums, and so we’re very sensitive about protecting our culture of acceptance of everyone, we don’t want anyone to ever feel excluded and that means all opinions, and I really believe that’s what inclusion is all about.

She also said:

There is a reason that we don’t have political discussions on our campus, and that is because we find that they can be divisive and so we choose to allow people to have those conversations informally or off campus.

So, according to Ms. Nagel, discussions of important political or religious beliefs are so divisive that they must be confined to certain forums at Cisco. I am sure that you would agree that the word “forum” suggests equal representation of different perspectives, especially since Ms. Nagel asserts that “all opinions” are welcome and that “We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.”

Then how does Ms. Nagel explain this one-sided Cisco-sponsored “forum” in favor of same-sex marriage, led by a Cisco Vice President just last week on the Cisco campus?

This forum raises the question of how you can “make progress on issues that are divisive and controversial.” What does Cisco mean by “progress?” Does it mean firing people like Dr. Turek in order to advance the cause of same sex-marriage? Is the firing of those opposed to same-sex marriage deemed an acceptable way to reduce divisiveness within Cisco? I’m not trying to be divisive. I’m just asking.

Forgive me for raising another potentially divisive issue, but I could not help but notice that the Honorable Boris Dittrich was one the panelists at this one-sided “forum.” He helped lead the Netherlands to be the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage. He did this as a Member of Parliament. In other words, he is a gay activist and politician.

I’ll let this sink in before I write back to discuss Cisco’s further commitment to advancing the cause of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the evidence included in my next letter will also show Cisco’s lack of commitment to the cause of religious and political diversity.

…To be continued.

Part 2 — Cisco Sinks to Dishonorable Low
by Mike Adams, Townhall.com

Mr. John Chambers
Office of the President
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mail Stop SJC10/5/4
300 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134

Dear Mr. Chambers:

In my last letter to you, I pointed out the one-sided nature of a same-sex marriage forum led just last week by a Cisco Vice President on the campus of Cisco Systems. This despite the fact that your “Inclusion and diversity” officer, Ms. Marilyn Nagel, assured us that:

Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.

I noted that one of the speakers at your one-sided “forum” was a gay activist who helped Holland become the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage. In my research, I also noticed that the Honorable Evan Low was a panelist on that one-sided “forum.”

At age 26, Mr. Low was among the youngest Mayors in the United States. As a gay man (your own website says) “he brought unique perspectives to the office” of mayor. He certainly brought a pro-same-sex marriage perspective. This link (now disabled) from the Cisco website shows more on his political crusade in favor of same-sex marriage. Pay special attention to the “Vote NO on Proposition Eight” picture at the bottom left of your screen. Would you consider that “divisive,” Mr. Chambers? Or does it simply depend on your perspective?

By now Cisco must certainly be prepared to admit that there was no one on the forum representing the other side of the issue. Don’t you think it’s odd that a forum ostensibly talking about “collaboration” on “conflicting points of view” would not collaborate but only offer one particular point of view?

So Cisco, which claims to take no position on same-sex marriage, invites in and pays gay politicians and gay activists to speak in favor of same-sex marriage. You do this in a “forum” held on the Cisco campus and led by a Cisco Vice President — a “collaboration forum”, which does not collaborate with a speaker from the other side of a politically divisive issue. And yet those who have spoken against same-sex marriage, off campus and not in any way representing Cisco, are fired.

Of course, I am talking about Dr. Frank Turek. And I am specifically calling you out on your company’s boastful assertions that Cisco is inclusive and diverse and doesn’t take sides on divisive political issues. And I am beginning to believe that I am talking to someone who has no interest in responding to reasonable inquires about matters of fundamental fairness.

Cisco’s real position is contradictory: We don’t sponsor a particular political perspective or even permit discussion of a divisive political topic such as same-sex marriage unless we choose to sponsor a forum that presents only one particular political perspective on a divisive political topic such as same same-sex marriage. So you’re not sponsoring it but you really are. Now, let us return to our conversation with your “inclusion” expert Marilyn Nagel.

I don’t think your position is in any way reflective of a position that’s not included in our dialogue. We have leaders who have every type of belief and we encourage that kind of diversity at Cisco.

That’s great to hear from Ms. Nagel. Now, please send me the link to any Cisco-sponsored “forum,” led by any Cisco Vice President, with the link to your website displaying “Vote YES on Proposition Eight!” pictures. After thoroughly searching I have yet to see such a thing on your website. I suppose it is possible that have you have already fired all the people who supported Proposition Eight. But I think it is more likely that your “inclusive and diverse” culture has intimidated them into remaining silent. Ms. Nagel also said:

We appreciate that people bring differences as long as they don’t make others feel unwelcome or act in a manner that’s disrespectful toward others, so I appreciate your feeling about this and your concern and I can only suggest that you take a look at some of the stuff that we put on our website.

Mr. Chambers, we’ve taken a look at your website. But we’re still looking for a little inclusion and we’re still craving a little diversity. Dr. Turek’s firing certainly did not sprout from the soil of true inclusion and diversity. Your shareholders and fair-minded Americans await your response:

adams_mike@hotmail.com. We are simply tired of being excluded from the dialogue by experts waving the multi-colored banner of inclusion and diversity. In the meantime, my readers may choose to contact you HERE.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts “Womyn” On Campus.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

A group of religious denominations that provide chaplains to the U.S. military are calling for the establishment of new conscience protections for members of the chaplain corps.

Twenty-two chaplaincy endorsers have sent a joint letter to the chief chaplains of the Army, Navy, and Air Force calling for “broad, clear, and strong protections for conscience” for chaplains who believe in traditional sexual morality.

The letter comes on the heels of the action by the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to open the ranks of the Armed Forces to those who self-identify homosexuals. The religious groups state that this “protected status…creates an environment that is increasingly hostile to the many chaplains whose faith groups and personal consciences recognize homosexual behavior as immoral and unsafe.”

“Chaplain are instructors of conscience,” the letter states. “Chaplains have a moral responsibility to insure that when they preach, teach or counsel, they do so in accordance with their conscience and in harmony with the faith group by which they are endorsed…No American, especially those serving in the Armed Forces, should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs or be marginalized for holding to those beliefs.”

The religious denominations signing the joint letter included, among others, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Free Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the National Association of Evangelicals.

The concern of Bible-believing chaplaincy endorsers was heightened recently when Navy officials announced that they would allow Naval facilities to be used for same-sex union ceremonies. Navy Rear Admiral Mark Tidd has temporarily suspended that new policy in the wake of Congressional outrage led by Missouri U.S. Representatives Todd Akin and Vicky Hartzler.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently made it clear what he thinks of the conscience rights of military personnel. At a recent informal session with a group of combat Marines in Afghanistan, he was asked the following question:

“Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. Now we have gone and changed those values. We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact that their moral values have not changed?”

Secretary Gates had a one-word answer: No. “You’ll have to complete your enlistment just like everybody else.”

Gates’ boss, President Obama, has restated his support for the homosexual movement by declaring June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. The Federal Reserve Bank in Richmond, Virginia, has chosen to “honor” the presidential proclamation by flying the rainbow flag of the homosexual movement underneath the American flag outside its offices.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Catholic Charities in Illinois Seek Remedy for Best Interests of Children, Families

(SPRINGFIELD, IL) Leaders of three Catholic dioceses – the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Peoria and Joliet – took legal action today as their charities fight to continue their work in serving the best interests of thousands of needy children and families throughout the state.

In March of this year, the Attorney General’s office issued a letter stating that the office “received notice that Catholic Charities … discriminates against Illinois citizens based on race, marital status and sexual orientation” in the provision of foster care and adoption services and demanded that Catholic Charities turn over a wide range of documents in response. The June 1 law authorizing civil unions in Illinois has raised further questions and criticism about Catholic Charities’ longstanding position not to place children for adoption and foster care with non-married couples who live together – regardless of sexual orientation.

This lawsuit, filed in Sangamon County Circuit Court, seeks a declaration that the charities are in full compliance with Illinois law in their current practices and an injunction against further action by Illinois government officials to the contrary. The charities argue both that the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious adoption agencies from the provisions relied upon by the Attorney General’s office and that the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act includes an express protection for the religious freedom of entities like Catholic Charities.

The charities ask the court to declare that they are legally justified to continue their current practices of working only with married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals. Civil union couples are free to choose among dozens of other organizations for these services.

“Child welfare advocates know it is in the best interest of Illinois children for Catholic Charities to stay in this business,” said Steven Roach, Executive Director for Catholic Charities in the Springfield Diocese. “It’s tragic that there are people who believe unnecessarily disrupting the lives of thousands of vulnerable children is an acceptable outcome in this situation.”

Catholic Charities have served thousands of children and families with top-quality, nurturing care since 1921 and handle about 20 percent of the cases in Illinois. Charities’ leaders are extremely concerned what will happen with those children and families if they are forced out of this work.

“Religious and faith-based entities need not check their beliefs at the door when providing vital social services for the benefit of needy and vulnerable children and families in Illinois. Catholic Charities has a clear right under Illinois law to pursue its charitable good works in the true spirit of the Gospels and the Sermon on the Mount, faithful to the essential tenets of its Catholic faith. We will advocate strongly to protect Catholic Charities’ continuing its mission of social service,” said Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, which is representing the charities in the lawsuit.

To read the demand letter from the Attorney General’s office and the complaint in the lawsuit, go to www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Pro-life Victory in Greenland, New Hampshire-Thomas More Society Secures First Amendment Rights of Local Activists

June 6, 2011 (New Hampshire)-After nearly twenty-three years of laboring under the threat of arrest whenever pro-life advocates protested the abortion clinic in the town of Greenland, New Hampshire, the Thomas More Society successfully lifted the injunction that threatened pro-lifers for so long.

Local coordinators of the 40 Days for Life Campaign came to the Thomas More Society for help in their efforts to hold 24-hour peaceful and prayerful vigils in their forty-days for life campaign. Vigil leaders knew they would run afoul of the prohibitions in the injunction that restricted the time of day, days of the week, locations, and manner in which pro-lifers could picket the clinic and seek to help women who enter and leave its doors.

In a forceful letter to the town administrator, town selectmen, and police department of Greenland, the Thomas More Society asserted that any application of the stale injunction on 40 Days for Life and affiliated activists would be unlawful, and the very possibility that the town might arrest them or subject them to contempt proceedings placed an unconstitutional chill on free speech. Within days of receiving the letter, Greenland officials conceded that they agreed with the Society’s position and would no longer enforce the injunction against law-abiding, peaceful demonstrators outside the clinic.

Read the entire story HERE.

Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, the family and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country.

Because of the Illinois legislature’s failure to enact an explicit amendment to the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, Catholic Citizens of Illinois commends the action taken by the Diocese of Rockford to discontinue offering state-funded adoption and foster care services. See:http://www.rockforddiocese.org/

Frank Vonch, director of the Rockford Catholic Charities stated, “The agency is being forced to opt out of contracting with the State of Illinois for these services because of the Illinois legislature’s failure to enact an explicit amendment to the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. The failed Amendment would have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith when the Civil Unions law goes into effect on June 1.”

The Rockford Agency handles approximately 350 foster family and adoption cases in 11 counties in northern Illinois with a state budget of $7.5 million. 58 caseworkers will be terminated due to this decision. The agency is determined to do everything possible to help them find employment.

“Legally, albeit emotionally painful, we determined this was the right decision to make for the moral and financial future of the Diocese of Rockford,” said diocesan general counsel Ellen Lynch.

“The law of our land has always guaranteed its people freedom of religion. Denying this exemption to faith-based agencies leads one to believe that our lawmakers prefer laws that guarantee freedom FROM religion. We simply cannot compromise the spirit that motivates us to deliver quality, professional services to families by letting our state define our religious teachings,” said Penny Wiegert, diocesan director of communications.”

In the encyclical by Pope John Paul II (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons), he stated: “As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”

A spokesperson for Chicago Catholic Charities stated that their agency will continue to work with “married” couples seeking adoption and will continue their policy of referrals to other agencies for those not “married.”

“All faith-based agencies that offer adoption and foster care services will be called upon to make these difficult decisions in keeping with the teachings of their church”, said Mary Anne Hackett, President to Catholic Citizens of Illinois. In the long run, it is the children in need of loving homes that will suffer.”

A Statement on The Catholic Conference of Illinois web site: “Unless more explicit language reflecting the legislative intent of the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act is enacted, faith-based agencies, including Catholic Charities, will be at risk of impending legal action that aims to close their doors. This will lead to an unnecessary disruption in the lives of thousands of children in Illinois foster care.” http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/newsandlegislativeupdates

A call to repeal the Civil Unions Act has been taken up by the Illinois Family Institute. They offer a free TAKE ACTION fax or e-mail to Governor Quinn and our State Legislators.

Americans for Life and Americans For Truth About Homosexuality have launched the Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative www.DefendMarriageIl.org and urges all concerned Illinois residents to join their “Citizens’ Petition to Defend Marriage.”