Thomas More Society Files Motion for Immediate Transfer of Parental Notice Challenge to Illinois Supreme Court

Our friends at the pro-life Thomas More Society law firm just delivered the justices of the Illinois Supreme Court a motion to immediately transfer the legal case pending against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court. Arguing that pregnant minors at risk for abortion suffer harm every day that the Act is not enforced, the Society invoked the Supreme Court rule allowing transfer of an appeal when the “public interest requires prompt adjudication.” The pending appeal, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is currently in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, where a decision is not expected for a year or more.

Contact Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to request that she support the motion filed by Thomas More. It is high time to end the delay of enforcing this law that was enacted fifteen years ago. The people of Illinois overwhelmingly support parental notice.

You can also call the Attorney General’s office at the numbers listed below:

Chicago — (312) 814-3000

Rockford — (815) 967-3883

Springfield — (217) 782-1090

Quincy — (217) 223-2221

Belleville — (618) 236-8616

Carbondale — (618) 529-6400

Background
“More than fifteen years ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, parental notice was supposedly made the law in Illinois, but as we sit here today, secret abortions on pregnant minors continue unabated,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel. “With this motion to transfer, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to immediately and definitively decide the constitutionality of parental notice in Illinois.”

Earlier this year, Judge Daniel Riley of the Cook County Circuit Court allowed the Thomas More Society to appear as “friends of the court” as he rejected the ACLU’s Illinois state constitutional challenges to the Parental Notice Act. However, after the decision, both the ACLU and the Illinois Attorney General’s office agreed to an indefinite stay of the law, extending through the duration of the appeal a temporary restraining order entered earlier by Judge Riley.

Since the Parental Notice Act was signed into law in 1995, more than 50,000 abortions have been performed on pregnant minors in Illinois, including almost 5,000 abortions on girls 14 years of age and younger. Illinois is the only state in the Midwest that does not have a law requiring parental notification or consent prior to an abortion, and more than 55,000 abortions have been performed on non-residents in Illinois since 1995, including an unknown number of out-of-state pregnant minors.

While the Act was passed in 1995, it was in late 2006 that the Illinois Supreme Court issued the Act’s required “judicial bypass” rules, which allow a minor a confidential bypass proceeding in court in lieu of notifying her parents. Notwithstanding the bypass rules, the Act also allows a minor to forego notification if she declares in writing that she is the victim of abuse. In early 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the ACLU’s federal constitutional challenge to the Act.

It is not yet known whether the Attorney General and the ACLU will support, oppose or remain neutral on the motion to transfer. A copy of the motion to transfer can be downloaded at www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Tyrannical, Abusive and Unconsititutional

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge’ said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, in response to Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling overturning California’s marriage amendment.

“Marriage was not created by man or governments,” said IFI Executive Director David E. Smith “It is an institution created by God. Civil governments merely recognize its importance. To suggest that homosexual practitioners are being denied certain ‘rights’ because the government doesn’t recognize their relationships is intellectually dishonest.”

“Christians must not ignore the relentless assault on traditional marriage and the natural family any longer,” said Smith. “Radical forces seek to eradicate our right to uphold and live out biblical standards. For example, here in Illinois, liberals are pushing for a homosexual ‘civil unions’ law, which will advance the homosexual activist’s agenda while limiting religious freedoms.”

“The attempts to erode our freedoms through the destruction of marriage and the family relentlessly continue, aided and abetted by out-of-control government, activist courts, and the liberal mainstream media. 

“We cannot cower in fear of tyrants who threaten to destroy this great country. Instead we must assert our rights as American citizens to take back the government from the few who would wrest it away from us and illegitimately impose their corrosive anti-Christian ideology.

AFA’s Wildmon also pointed out that it is “extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial. 

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves,” said Wildmon, “and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior — in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior – and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format

According to a recent Gallup poll, three-quarters of Americans believe moral values in the U.S. are getting worse. Surveyors say Americans have never given U.S. morality a positive assessment, but the latest results are among the worst Gallup has measured in the last nine years.

Most commonly, respondents cited a lack of respect for other people and a more general decline in moral values and standards. Some blame the perceived decline on poor parenting or the poor examples of U.S. leaders in government and business who find themselves embroiled in ethical or moral scandals. Others cite larger societal factors, such as rising crime and violence, Americans turning away from God, church and religion, and the breakdown of the typical mother-father family.

It seems one can hardly watch the television anymore without being bombarded by profanity, sexually explicit content, the homosexual agenda, or barely clothed women prancing around — and the commercials are often worse! The music industry promotes the same. Ironically, many of our government schools affirm these same immoral values.

The United States of America had its founding rooted in the principals of the Bible. British historian Paul Johnson explained:

Hence, though the Constitution and the Bill of Rights made no provision for a state church — quite the contrary — there was an implied and unchallenged understanding that America was a religious country, that the republic was religious not necessarily in its forms but in its bones, that it was inconceivable that it could have come into existence, or could continue and flourish, without an overriding religious sentiment pervading every nook and cranny of its society. This religious sentiment was based on the Scriptures and the Decalogue, was embodied in the moral consensus of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and manifested itself in countless forms of mainly Christian worship (God and the Americans, Commentary, January 1995, p. 31).

At our foundation, the U.S. based its values “on the Scriptures and the Decalogue” — the Bible and the Ten Commandments. More than 200 years later, we are failing to live by biblical values.

Unfortunately, almost half of our nation’s citizens no longer profess religious faith. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 41.6 percent of all Americans in 2009 said they attended church at least once a week or almost every week. (It is not surprising that six of the lowest church-attending states are in New England — Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.)

The fact that respondents indicate that the breakdown of the natural family is a factor in our society’s decline in moral values should wake up elected officials to the need to protect marriage and the need to promote pro-family policies.

To read more about the poll and view its findings, click HERE.

Act today! The Illinois General Assembly will return to the Capitol next week. “Medical” marijuana closer to passage.

The Illinois General Assembly adjourned on May 7th without voting on the “Medical” Marijuana bill. Lobbyists for the Marijuana Policy Project have been working the bill in the Illinois House over the past year and say they are within two or three votes of passing this dangerous bill.

Take ACTION:  Contact your state representative an email or a fax to tell him or her that you do not want marijuana legalized for any reason nor sold in your neighborhood for any purpose. This is your chance to speak up before it’s too late!

The Illinois House will come back next week for two days to vote on a budget, but we are told that there may be a vote on SB 1381 as well. After they adjourn at the end of May, they will not come back until the end of November. This bill passed the Senate last year by a vote of 30-28-1.

Read more: Cannabis toxicity and adverse biological activity by Medicinal Chemist Dr. Ronald Bartzatt M.L.T. (ASCP), B.S., M.S., Ph.D.

Background

IFI lobbyist Ralph Rivera explains lobbying techniques in Springfield and the consequences for Illinois families, if this bill passes:

Advocates of SB 1381 wheel around patients at the Illinois Capitol to gain sympathy for them and SB 1381. However, SB 1381 says “visiting qualifying patients” who have a “registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state….” can also use marijuana in Illinois.

So, although the sponsors admit California and other states have phony “patients”, they can still come to Illinois by the tens of thousands and smoke marijuana on our streets in front of our children and police and no one can stop them!

SB 1381 allows a person, his caregiver or a dispensary, to grow 6 marijuana plants with 3 mature plants at any one time. Consider this: in 90-days, 3 mature plants can produce 1,764 joints. What patient can smoke 20 joints a day?! “Patients” who have testified in Illinois House committees over the years have said they need to smoke 4-8 joints a day to “relieve pain”. That would leave leftovers for mischief and illegal purposes. It would be impossible for law enforcement to monitor this.

SB 1381 says a “patient” cannot drive a car or boat or fly a plane, but says “However, a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of cannabis solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of cannabis that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.” So, if SB 1381 passes, they could drive a car or boat or fly a plance if they smoked or ingested marijuana as long as it is “in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.” How would this be monitored? This caveat also applies to employees.

Property owners cannot refuse to lease an apartment or house to a “patient” or caregiver and the owner of a commercial property cannot refuse to lease to a marijuana dispensary on the basis the tenants will be growing marijuana on the property and the site may attract ciminal behavior.

What message does this send to our children in Illinois when people can smoke marijuana on the streets of our towns and get away with it?

Please contact your representative today, and ask him/her to vote “NO” on SB 1381. In addition to e-mailing your representative, we encourage you to call your representative to tell him/her that you oppose SB 1381, and to ask for his or her “NO” vote on this dangerous bill. Then, be sure to ask all of your friends and family in Illinois to reach out to their representatives.

Please don’t forget to follow up on your email by calling your representative, and by sharing this alert with friends, family, and neighbors who also oppose this dangerous legislation.

Thank you for supporting the Illinois Family Institute and all that you have done to oppose this legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case (Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants) this fall regarding a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The justices accepted the state’s appeal and will decide whether the law is too restrictive in denying access by minors to often-graphic material.

Video game makers say the ban goes too far. They say the existing voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer games. The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children when the industry has failed to do so. At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters.

Illinois and Michigan passed a similar laws in 2005. At the time, Illinois Family Institute was a strong supporter, providing research and testimony to the Illinois General Assembly regarding the harmful effects of violent and sexually-explicit video games. The law received widespread, bi-partisan support and was signed into law by Governor Rod Blagojevich. However, industry groups filed a lawsuit in federal court and the law was struck down.

The outcome of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants could revive efforts to revisit Illinois’ law as well. To read more, click HERE.

Pro-family hero Dr. James Dobson has officially launched his new radio ministry which is called “Family Talk.” The first broadcast of the 30-minute program is scheduled to air on approximately 200 radio stations across the country.

Dobson will host the program along with his son, Ryan, and LuAnne Crane. They plan to address family-related topics and cultural issues similar to those on his previous program with Focus on the Family.

Dobson says he is airing “Family Talk” to continue his battle for righteousness in American culture. “Babies are dying, the very definition of marriage is under attack, the financial underpinnings of families are being destroyed by confiscatory taxation, and children of all ages are being taught wickedness and every form of godlessness.”

Despite his advanced years, Dobson says he is not slowing his pace or toning down his well-respected public voice. “Please don’t expect me to take a ‘softer, gentler’ approach to the issues that burn within my soul. I have never spoken or written without passion for the values in which I believe, and I don’t intend to start now.”

Yet Dobson says the primary mission of his new ministry will be “the raising of Godly, self-disciplined and respectful children.” In that vein Dobson has released his latest child-rearing book called “Bringing Up Girls,” a sequel of sorts to his previous publication “Bringing Up Boys.”

Dobson resigned his leadership position with Focus on the Family late last year, saying that “the time had come to turn over the ministry to the next generation of leaders.”

You can read more about Dr. Dobson’s new ministry by visiting this link: FamilyTalk.

Click HERE to see a list of radio stations airing Family Talk.

The Marijuana Policy Project, which is heavily funded by George Soros — the radically liberal billionaire from Eastern Europe — is pushing hard to pass medical marijuana legislation in Springfield. Thousands of robo-calls are being made into lawmakers’s offices in an effort to get 60 votes for this bill.

The issue of legitimizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes will encourage and increase destructive behavior in users. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. Research has found that adolescent and teen drug use rises as the perception of harm diminishes. If marijuana is classified as medicine, marijuana use among youth would increase.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your state representative an email or a fax to tell him or her that you do not want marijuana sold in your neighborhood for any purpose. This is your chance to speak up before it’s too late and before it gets passed in the legislature!

SB 1381 creates the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, which could be called for a vote at any time in the House. This bill passed the Senate last year by a vote of 30-28-1.

SB 1381 legalizes the growing of 6 marijuana plants and 2 ounces of useable cannabis for each “qualifying patient”. A person does not have to be dying or have a terminal condition to qualify for marijuana use as medicine. In states where marijuana has been legalized for medicinal purposes, it is indiscriminately being given to just about anyone for any health reason. It is even given to children with Attention Deficit Disorder.

SB 1381 allows an unlimited number of medical marijuana organizations (dispensaries) to sell to an unlimited number of qualifying patients.

California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. In late 2005 Los Angeles had four pot shops. One year later, there were 98. Today there are more marijuana shops in Los Angeles than churches — over 800. Legalizing medical marijuana would result in huge growing operations in neighborhoods statewide. Background checks are not required on personnel.

Background

Both the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana and the Marijuana Policy Project want to legalize all marijuana. But the first step in their plan is to call it medicine. “The key to it is medical access, because once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana under medical supervision the whole scam is going to be bought. Once there’s medical access…then we will get full legalization.” Richard Cowen, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana.

Marijuana users have higher risks of numerous medical problems, including cancer, psychosis, strokes, respiratory damage and heart attacks. They increase these risks with increased use. Additionally, increased use will lead to more personal and family problems. Work productivity will decrease as will employability. Such outcomes will put additional pressure on families, communities, businesses, health services and law enforcement.

Legalization of medical marijuana will likely lead more people to try marijuana, especially impressionable, curious, young people, justifying that the government considers it safe. The prospect that more young people will begin a lifetime of drug addiction is deeply troubling.

Those who advocate its medicinal properties often do not mention the fact that marijuana’s pain-relieving ingredient has been available by prescription for years. Moreover, marijuana has multiple toxic chemicals which could interfere with the healing process, putting users at risk for developing additional problems.

Take action today! Contact your State Representative (217-782-2000) and ask him/her to vote NO on SB 1381 to legalize marijuana as medicine.

Read more:

IFI Video: Marijuana Addiction

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana (Dr. Robert L. DuPont)

Springfield man convicted of possession of more than 200 marijuana plants (State Journal-Register)

Editor’s Note: IFI requested comments or clarifications on the AOL article from Focus on the Family. They did not respond.

There has been much speculation about why James Dobson left Focus on the Family (FOTF). The speculation is that he was, in effect, forced out because some in leadership hope to create a kindler, gentler face for FOTF, which seems strange in that it’s hard to imagine someone kindler or gentler than James Dobson.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson writes that “Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.”

A recent AOL article about the shift in leadership at FOTF, although not providing proof for those rumors, does suggest they may be true.

James Dobson’s replacement Jim Daly said:

“When you look back from a pro-life perspective, what were the gains there?…We don’t see the results for the energy, the money, everything else that’s been poured into the political sphere.”

Daly is simply wrong in his assertion that the pro-life position has seen little or no gains. Because of the perseverance of pro-life warriors, polls show that there has been significant decline in support for the anti-life position, particularly among the younger generation.

Daly also said:

“We as a Christian community need to refocus a bit on what’s important in the culture. For us, it’s family. That’s our mission….I don’t know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I’m not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles, [for] 98 percent of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.”

This statement reveals a rather surprising naivete. Perhaps Mr. Daly hasn’t read any of the research done by Stanley Kurtz who found that when “same-sex marriage” was legalized in Scandinavia, heterosexual investment in traditional marriage declined. This makes sense. Legalized “same-sex marriage” embodies and promotes the radical and subversive ideas that marriage has no intrinsic connection to heterosexuality and no intrinsic connection to procreation, so why should 98 percent of the population find an institution that is unrelated to heterosexuality and unrelated to procreation relevant? Why should those who do not hold orthodox Jewish, Muslim, or Christian views find traditional marriage relevant?

If the family is FOTF’s mission, then they better figure out how to stop the pro-homosexual juggernaut — nicely, of course — because soon every child from kindergarten through high school will be taught about “diverse family structures” and Heather’s two nice mommies.

What FOTF needs to bear in mind is that while it’s easy for the pro-life position to be advanced through emotional appeals to the heart like the Tim Tebow ad that aired during the Super Bowl, it’s very difficult for the pro-traditional marriage and anti-homosexuality position to do that. The other side has the clear narrative advantage. It’s much easier to create a touching film about a little boy with two mommies or a picture book about cute furry homosexual animals than it is to create heartstring-tugging picture books and films that show the immorality and societal devastation of homosexual practice and “same-sex marriage.”

We live, and move, and have our being in a culture that Neil Postman described as a place where “imagery, narrative, presentness, simultaneity, intimacy, immediate gratification, and quick emotional response” reign supreme and where “logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline” resonate little. This means that those who can create compelling stories that pack an emotional punch will win the hearts and minds of Americans. Those who must rely on logic, exposition, and objectivity are at a distinct polemical disadvantage.

As evidence for his claim that a kindler, gentler approach to cultural issues is more effective, Daly claimed that the soft Tebow ad was a “game changer.” What a Barna poll showed was that of those who believe abortion should be legal, 4 percent said the commercial was cause for them to reconsider their opinion about abortion. Oddly, the poll also showed that the ad caused 8 percent of those who believe abortion should not be legal to reconsider their opinion on abortion.

Methinks Mr. Daly overstates the case, but perhaps the ad will be a “game changer.” If so, then FOTF should make a slick and soft game-changing ad about homosexuality.

For the most part the church has long adopted the soft, “We heart homosexuality” approach, dribbling virtually no energy or money into the political sphere, and we see the effects: even as the younger generation of Christians moves to an anti-abortion position, they have moved to a love the sinnerand the sin position on homosexuality.

Mr. Daly also said “I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I’m not going to demean human beings for (sic) the process.” To whom exactly is Jim Daly alluding? James Dobson? Or is he referring to those relatively few stalwart culture warriors who are willing to endure the malignant lies and obscene epithets that a courageous stand for truth in the public square on this issue elicits? The language employed by Mr. Daly here is the kind of language commonly employed by either homosexualists (i.e., homosexuals and those who support their ontological, moral, and political views) or by those Christians who are unwilling to publicly condemn volitional homosexual practice as immoral, even as our public schools affirm homosexuality to children with public money.

Who defines “demeaning” for FOTF? That’s a critical question because those who affirm a homosexual identity believe that public statements about the immorality of volitional homosexual acts are demeaning. And those who support legalized “same-sex marriage” believe that moral opposition to it is demeaning. If FOTF allows the culture to define what is demeaning, then silence is their only option.

Moving forward, how will FOTF oppose “homosexual marriage”?

How will FOTF oppose the widespread cultural embrace of specious ideas about the nature and morality of homosexuality, even among Christians?

How will FOTF work to stop the exposure of elementary, middle, and high school students in public schools to homosexuality-affirming resources disguised as “anti-bullying” resources?

Mr. Daly rejects being “highly confrontational,” a commitment with which I would wholeheartedly agree — depending on how “confrontational” is defined. If Daly means that he seeks to confront the culture, but without hostility, his goal is admirable. If, on the other hand, he is rejecting not just hostility but also cultural confrontations, then there’s a problem. To confront means to defy or come up against, which is what will be required if we hope to protect the unborn, children, the family, speech rights, religious liberty, and truth.

Shouldn’t we boldly confront the efforts of homosexualists who are working feverishly to expose our littlest ones to homosexuality and “transgenderism” in our public schools? How perverse does the behavior that our public schools affirm have to become and how young the children to whom and in whom it’s affirmed before the church as well as para-church organizations will become willing to confront the unproven, corrupt ideas promoted in public schools?

It certainly has not been any mythical confrontational tactics of serious orthodox Christians that have rendered our Christian youth vulnerable to the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. Here’s what has led the body of Christ, including our youth, to respect and affirm heresy:

• The cowardice and ignorance of the church which results in a retreat from the public square
• The successful infiltration of homosexual activism in public education through critical pedagogy, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)and its satellite Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, the National Education Association, the American Library Association, schools or departments of education that are dominated by “progressives” who train teachers, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “educational” project ironically named “Teaching Tolerance,” and numerous “anti-bullying” curricula and resources
• Hollywood that uses the powerful media of television and film to transform cultural views by idealizing homosexuality and ridiculing traditional views of sexuality without ever having to make a well-supported argument. Hollywood knows that if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s being uncool.
• Judicial activism
• The biased mainstream news media that celebrates homosexuality through sound bites and imagery
• Advertising that uses imagery to glamorize homosexuality

Far too many churches and para-church organizations are adopting emasculated approaches to the pro-homosexual movement. Not only are we not pro-active in preparing our youth intellectually to understand the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality, but we’re not even sufficiently re-active.

Just when the cultural threat is greatest; when Obama has appointed lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; when he has appointed Kevin Jennings, homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to be the Safe Schools “czar”; when the “Hate Crimes” bill has passed Congress; when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is soon up for a vote; when the Student Non-Discrimination Act has been proposed; when the Safe Schools Improvement Act has been proposed; and when efforts to eradicate marriage continue unabated, we need warriors who are willing to confront lies and protect children.

Let’s hope and pray that Focus on the Family continues to lead courageously, perseveringly, and unambiguously on the critical cultural issues pertaining to life, family, and marriage.

You’ve got to shake your head a little at the exploding number of folks on the streets shouting and holding signs saying, “We’re taxed enough already!” or “Smaller government, less taxes!” or the ever popular “Free markets, not socialism!”

It’s not that they’re not absolutely right to be angry and frustrated about how things are moving in America. They are. It’s not that they shouldn’t be out on the streets. They should be.

The problem is most demonstrators offer no solutions, except to “Throw the bums out!”

Those angry protestors have realized that as a nation, we’re in a mess. Rather than get angrier and angrier about what’s happened, the question should now be what do we do to get out of it?

Over the past few years, conservatives have been hammered to talk about limited government, individual rights and free markets. Okay, we get it — the bigger the government, the bigger the federal and state budgets, the greater the demand for revenue and the more the state dips into our pockets.

The more we pay into the state and federal coffers, the less we have in our family budgets. The less discretion we have in determining where our hard-earned money goes, the harder the family’s members have to work to meet basic needs. We’re forced to pay taxes rather than buy the groceries our growing children need.

How did we get in this mess? Is it all Congress’ fault? If we lived in a country where we had no voice in government matters, we would be justified in placing blame at our lawmakers’ feet.

Instead, we need to own up to where we’ve failed ourselves and our posterity. This is not fun to write, but friends, we really have no one to blame but ourselves.

We say we want smaller government, but we rush to state services to care for our children while we work, to educate them when they are old enough to enter school. In many cases, we take advantage of “free” school breakfast and lunch programs, increasing our and our children’s comfort with the Nanny State.

We ask the state to help us when we can’t afford to buy a house we want and we look to the state to bail us out if we run our credit cards too high. Now we’re asking the state to provide our health care needs and shelter and feed Grandma and Grandpa when they get too old and bothersome.

And when it comes time to vote and voice our opinions to those lawmakers, we stay home, disengaged in the process and contributing directly to our own economic distress.

Everyone can excuse their need for turning to the state rather than the family or the church when things get tough. The state is there, accessible, and there’s little or no accountability. At the same time, families are sapped and drained, and modern day churches are often more focused on growing programs than helping families through emergencies.

When a family doesn’t provide for its own, and the church isn’t in tune with the body’s needs, in most cases, the state is the only place left to go. The more needy folks turn to the state, the bigger the demand for state’s provisions, the bigger their budget, and the more demands on taxpayers to provide the needed revenue for those programs.

These days, more and more political action groups and non-profit think tanks shy away from discussing traditional family values. They tell us not to write or talk about the value of the traditional family, one-man/one-woman marriage and the sanctity of life because it is divisive and inappropriate. They also tell candidates to focus on jobs and the economy rather than touchy social topics.

The fact is you can’t avoid traditional family values, because they are the basis of a free society. Without a strong traditional family, there’s an urgency for others to step in, increasing the size and grip of the Nanny State and her demands for our hard-earned resources and energy.

We end up serving the Nanny when she’s meant to assist us. And that causes nothing but more and more societal dysfunction.

It’s time for us – traditional family proponents – to speak up and direct the way out of this mess. It’s time for us to extol publicly the values of healthy, nurturing families that raise and train up children to be productive, independent and most importantly, dependent on the Heavenly Father for their wants and needs.

The traditional family is the answer to the frustration so many are voicing these days.

You want smaller government? Strengthen your family. Your want more individual freedoms? Teach yourself and your kids self-control. You want free markets? Teach the value of hard work, competition and the rejection of corruption and greed.

We need to accept responsibility for allowing our nation to get in the mess we’re in. But we also need to boldly proclaim the way out, and that’s with the resurgence of the traditional family and a return to dependence on the one source that can truly provide for all our needs.

By Austin Ruse –The Washington Times

Sharon Slater, a mother of seven, innocently walked into a panel sponsored by the Girl Scouts USA at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women a few weeks ago. Almost immediately she was asked to leave. All non-Scout adults were kicked out of the room, which was packed with adolescent girls.

Her curiosity piqued, Slater lingered by the door and when the panel ended she went immediately back inside to look around. What she found has shocked her and shocked Girl Scout moms around the country. Slater found a stack of brochures produced by Planned Parenthood called “Healthy, Happy and Hot” that among other things explained to the girls, “Some people have sex when they have been drinking or using drugs. That is your choice.”

But it gets worse. The sex guide explains, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse. But there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling. Some people like to have aggressive sex, while others like to have soft sex and slow sex with their partners. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” It tells girls to explore the prostate. Remember, this was distributed in a panel for adolescent girls.

Besides advice about the prostate, the brochure, subtitled “Rights, Sexuality and Living with HIV,” also gives incorrect and even dangerous information about rights and responsibilities. It tells the kids that, “sexual and reproductive rights are recognized around the world.” Sexual rights are hardly recognized around the world. They are not even recognized here in the sexual paradise of the United States. The brochure tells the kids that their rights are violated when governments require them to tell their HIV status to their sex partners.

The Girl Scouts USA have offered various statements to outraged Scout leaders. First they denied they ever passed out the brochure. Then they denied the brochure was ever in the room and that Slater must have fished it out of the trash. Then they said a previous group might have left the brochure. Other users of that conference room on that day were the NAACP for a panel on climate change, the UN for an orientation meeting, and a Dutch poverty group for a panel on counter-terrorism. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the panels on climate change and counterterrorism would distribute Planned Parenthood sex guides for adolescents.

At the same UN meeting, which ended last Friday, the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides produced a document saying young women “demand their sexual and reproductive rights including access to comprehensive sexuality education, and sexual and reproductive services including contraception and emergency contraception, in order to avoid unintended pregnancies” and also called for access to “safe abortion.”

While they have denied it was in their meeting, what the Girl Scout leadership has not done is distance themselves from the message of the brochure and from Planned Parenthood. But they would have a hard time doing that because they have a long time relationship with Planned Parenthood and have passed out brochures like this before.

At a Girl Scout conference in 2004, co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the Girl Scouts handed out a brochure to 700 grade-school girls with the title “It’s Perfectly Normal,” a guide that celebrated masturbation and that featured explicit drawings of couples having sex and a boy putting on a condom. It also listed, no surprise here, the top ten reasons for having an abortion.

The present day Girl Scouts are not your older sister’s Scouts, let alone your Moms. Not by a long shot. They seem to have joined up fully with the anything-goes-ethos of the left-wing sexual buccaneers and for it they are lauded at the UN. Compare that with the Boy Scouts who have remained true to their founding vision and to traditional values and for it they are banned from using public buildings.

Will this be the issue that gets the Girl Scouts back on track? Unlikely. Girl Scout leadership is very dug in on this. But, there is revolt brewing in Girl Scout Land. A group of Mothers in St. Louis intend to ask the St. Louis region to break with the national organization. There likely will be more.

Girl Scout cookies remain awfully tasty, but it seems the moral price to purchase them is getting higher and higher.

Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washington, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy.

On January 4, 2010 the Illinois Family Institute posted an exclusive report titled: Obama’s “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan” Actually Putting Homeowners In Default or Foreclosure. The story detailed how a central Illinois family was told they were eligible for a program which was designed to give financial relief to homeowners in the state, many of whom were either in default or going through the process of foreclosure. However, the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) report revealed some families–who were informed by their mortgage lenders that they were eligible for the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan even though they were not in arrears on their monthly payments to their lenders– were instructed months later they did not qualify for this program.

An estimated one in five mortgage holders in America have lost their homes to foreclosure. The mortgage relief plan was originally created to head off more foreclosures in Illinois and across the nation. The IFI exclusive report revealed that possibly hundreds, if not thousands, of Illinois homeowners–whose mortgages were not in default or foreclosure–were later to learn the program actually put them in danger of losing their homes.

The IFI story brought this issue to national attention. IFI has since learned the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan has expanded the program to possibly include some of those who were deemed ineligible–after months of paying agreed-to lower mortgage payments, due to a decrease in their interest rates.

“It’s unbelievably sad how many people are losing their homes,” said a licensed Illinois real estate appraiser who spoke to IFI on the condition he remain anonymous. “Many banks are actually taking ownership of properties obtained because of foreclosures. This is a departure from the past. When banks take ownership of homes due to foreclosures this shows up as a liability on their ledger sheets, instead of an asset. This is inconsistent with how lending institutions used to operate, and many experts in the field are confounded by these latest developments.”

On Friday, February 26th, 2010 the U.S. Senate failed to extend unemployment benefits for an estimated 1.1 million Americans whose benefit period will soon expire. But Congress is expected to complete negotiations regarding another extension of benefits for the over 1 million who will soon fall off the unemployment roles. However, this extension would only be for a short period of time.

There are over 750,000 homeowners nationwide now participating in the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, many whose only income derives from unemployment benefits. Some recipients have been on the unemployment roles for nearly two years. In the past, recipients were eligible to receive unemployment checks for six months–with a three month extension when unemployment rates were over 6%. In recent years, the federal government has subsidized added weeks of unemployment eligibility beyond 39 weeks.

Currently, the national unemployment rate is at nearly 10%. This figure does not include those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, those who have taken part-time jobs and others who have stopped looking for work entirely. Unemployment benefits were never meant to be paid out on a permanent basis, as is the case with Social Security retirees and the handicapped.

When unemployment benefits eventually run out, many of those currently enrolled in the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan will be unable to meet their adjusted mortgage payments and the rate of foreclosures will go up dramatically. Most agree, despite a possible recovery of the economy, a significant number of jobs lost will never return, due to the fact that companies have moved out of the country in search of cheaper labor.

There have been plans floated by the Obama administration and some members of Congress to put a moratorium in place on mortgage foreclosures. However, such legislation is not yet pending. Some financial experts see an even larger problem on the horizon regarding foreclosures on commercial properties which would have a devastating impact on the economy.

From Parents Television Counsel

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, one of the nation’s leading institutions devoted to research about health-care issues and their impact on the public sphere, this week released its new study Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. The study found that, on average, children and teens ages 8-18 spend more than 53 hours a week using entertainment media — but because most of that time is spent using more than one form of media at once (simultaneously watching TV, listening to music, looking at a MySpace page online, and sending text messages to friends, for example), they actually use more than 75 hours a week with entertainment media — almost double the time they spend in school!

This increase in media use by children and teens is largely caused by the availability of mobile devices like cell phones and iPods. Today, 66 percent of 8- to 18-year-olds have their own cell phones, compared to 39 percent five years ago. And 76 percent of children have their own iPods or other MP3 players. Young people now spend more time listening to music, playing games, and watching TV on their cell phones than they spend talking on them. Online activities also contribute to increased media time, with teens involved in gaming, social networking, and looking at online video. Three-quarters of all 7th-12th graders say they have a profile on a social networking site like MySpace. And African-American and Hispanic children are especially hard-hit by media; the Kaiser study found that children in these groups consume nearly 4.5 hours more media daily than do whites, with African-American children watching almost twice as much TV per day as do white children.

THE IMPACT

Because of the rise of new technology like Internet-enabled cell phones, children have a multitude of ways to access media. This makes it that much more difficult for their parents to monitor what their children are watching, and to limit their child’s exposure to inappropriate programming. Increased time spent in front of electronic media means more exposure to harmful media content, whether Internet pornography, child predators who lurk in chat rooms and sites popular with young children, or sex, violence, and profanity on television.

For decades, television has reached children at a younger age, and for more time in a day, than any other socializing institution except the family. And the new technology has compounded the problem by making it easier for children to media multi-task. Thus, parents are not only spending less time with their children, sharing their beliefs and values, providing them with moral foundation and talking to them about the messages they are seeing on television; the harmful messages children are seeing are instead being reinforced by other media they are consuming.

Based on recent PTC research, those harmful messages include increased depictions of violence against women, and increased depictions of sex outside of the context of marriage (often with themes of sadism, masochism, pornography, prostitution, rape, adult-child relationships and more) on television alone. And on the Internet sites most visited by children, like YouTube, links to hardcore pornography and sexually explicit messages posted by site users are common.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Limiting children’s media use is crucial to reducing the impact of negative media messages on them. Even if the content they are consuming is mostly harmless, time spent with electronic media has been linked to a number of negative outcomes for children, ranging from reduced academic performance, to increased likelihood of obesity, childhood diabetes, problems with sleep, and depression.

Parents should establish and enforce household rules on media use, both with respect to how much time children may spend using electronic media, and with respect to which media products are off-limits. (Only about three in ten young people say they have rules about how much time they can spend watching TV, using the computer, or playing video games. But the study found that when parents do set limits, children spend less time with media. Those with any media rules consume nearly 3 hours less media per day than those with no rules.)

Children should not have TVs and game consoles in their bedrooms. By confining TVs, computers and game consoles to family rooms, parents can significantly limit the amount of time kids spend with such media, as well as easily monitoring children’s activity. Similarly, parents who wish to buy their children cell phones should opt for phones that allow the child to only place and receive phone calls.

To read the Kaiser Foundation’s full report, click HERE.

For more on how media affects your children, click HERE.

The New Jersey State Senate chose to defend natural marriage last Thursday when a vote was taken on a bill to legalize homosexual so-called “marriage.” The 20-14 vote defeating the measure continues a growing string of victories in defense of traditional marriage, including the defeat of a similar bill in New York and the veto by the people of a homosexual so-called “marriage” bill in Maine last November. Same-sex “marriage” activists plan to take their fight to the courts where they hope to find an activist judge. Unfortunately, this route has been the most successful for them.

Meanwhile, the fate of the successful Proposition 8 in California is now before the federal court system. Unwilling to accept the fact that a majority of voters in California have said marriage is between a man and woman, radical liberal activists will try and overturn the law. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys are serving as defense counsel and the Family Research Council (FRC) has filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the voter-approved law.

On Monday, the trial before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco began, and will not only determine the fate of Proposition 8, but could force every state to allow homosexual so-called “marriage.” The case is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court and determine the constitutionality of laws and constitutional amendments in all states protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

Click HERE to read a detailed account of the first day of testimony from Andy Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored Prop 8.

A Look Ahead
Perry – already dubbed the Roe v. Wade of the marriage issue, is expected to last for several weeks. And once a decision is handed down by Judge Walker, it is expected to be appealed and ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court.

By Scott A. Woodruff, Senior Counsel –Homeschool Legal Defense Association

Some government officials have been pushing towns and cities to adopt daytime curfews.

Regardless of how they may be worded, all daytime curfews must be opposed because they limit the simple freedom of moving about. Our young people should be able to enjoy the freedom of normal movement without fear of being challenged by a police officer. So-called “exceptions” for homeschoolers don’t cure the problem. The result would be the same: our kids will be stopped and questioned by police for doing nothing wrong.

The alert citizens of Salem, Illinois, spotted a daytime curfew in the works and jumped in to oppose it. And that battle continues. But we suspect other towns may be in the same position as Salem.

ACTION REQUESTED

I urge you to carefully check the agenda of your town or city government and see if a daytime curfew is under consideration. If so, please notify us at once so a prompt and effective opposition can be organized.

BACKGROUND:

1. Daytime curfews do not deter juvenile crime.

A recent California study compared the juvenile crime rates of counties that enforced curfew ordinances and counties that did not.
The crime rates were the same. The curfews had no effect on juvenile crime.

2. Daytime curfews allow searches without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment forbids any investigation of a citizen without a “probable cause.” The proposed ordinance allows policemen to stop and interrogate a person merely because he looks young enough to be violating the curfew. It is an invitation to harass homeschool families.

3. Daytime curfews assume a person is guilty until proven innocent.

In several incidents where homeschool students were stopped by police, they had done nothing to arouse suspicion. There was no evidence they had committed a crime or intended to. Nonetheless, the police interrogated them and treated them like criminals until they had proved their innocence.

4. The ordinance allows some exceptions. Unfortunately, the only way for a policeman to determine if an exception applies is to stop and interrogate the frightened young person. By then the damage has already been done. The child may be afraid to go outdoors again. The right to homeschool includes the right to be free from fear–especially for young people, who are most vulnerable to feelings of fear.

by Deacon Keith Fournier –Catholic Online

This tragic custody case sets up a conflict of laws issue as a part of a homosexual advocacy agenda.

Lisa Miller lived in Virginia. She had a troubled childhood. Her mother suffered from mental illness and there was abuse in the home. She was deeply affected by a traumatic divorce between her parents. She had a series of substance addictions which began at the age of seven. She sought escape in an ill advised marriage. That relationship ended in divorce. It was that painful experience which finally thrust her into a deep depression with accompanying suicidal thoughts. It was during that period that she was hospitalized for “therapy.”

It was during “therapy” that Lisa claims she was first exposed to the prospect of being a lesbian. In a candid interview with LifeSite news in October of 2008 she told a sad and troubling story of what amounts to recruitment into what many are pushing as an alternative lifestyle. She maintained that she was encouraged in counseling sessions to try lesbian relationships. This happened not just once, but twice; both times within the context of “therapy” as she tried to free herself from the pain and wounds of a difficult life.

After a continuing sad spiral of events which ended with the death of her mother she met Janet Jenkins, who was living a lesbian lifestyle. Janet befriended her. Lisa maintains that she also seduced her into a lesbian relationship. That relationship became abusive and was filled with trauma. However, even after leaving Janet in the late nineties, Lisa went back. She followed the pattern often demonstrated by a victim of abuse.

The two traveled to Vermont in order to obtain a Vermont same-sex civil union license after Vermont passed the law in 2000. They immediately returned to Virginia. The relationship, troubled from the start, did not change. As is becoming increasingly common in same sex relationships, the two determined they should have a child together.

Of course, that is not a physical possibility and it never will be. So Lisa sought the services of a “fertility specialist” in Virginia.

This medical “professional” inseminated her with sperm from an anonymous donor. He followed the growing approach of treating children as a commodity and their creation as an act of medical manufacturing. So Isabella was born in Virginia as the “product” of the misuse of fertility technology, with no father whom she will ever know. However, Isabella is a wonderful child. Lisa Miller now clearly understands that she is also a gift from God for whom she bears a serious responsibility.

Four months after Isabella was born, Lisa, Janet and Isabella relocated to Vermont. While in Vermont, as a result of serious soul searching, Lisa became a Christian. She had a genuine Christian conversion. As a result of this conversion, she began to see all of her life differently as the pieces began to come together. According to Lisa, Janet became increasingly abusive. So, to protect herself and her daughter she left the living situation. She also left the lesbian lifestyle.

She began to change her life and received helpful counseling from people without an agenda. They assisted her in coming to understand her painful past and the effect it had upon her behaviors, her choices, and her addictions. Lisa became increasingly concerned for her daughter and returned to her home state of Virginia to make a new life. Janet remained in Vermont where she remains in an active lesbian lifestyle. Isabella was 17 months old at the time. She did not even know Janet.

Lisa later sought to dissolve the civil union in Vermont because it was the only place she could dissolve it. Virginia’s statutory law and State constitution affirm what the Natural Law reveals; marriage is between one man and one woman. Virginia does not recognize “same-sex” marriage or homosexual civil unions. Janet, who is neither the biological nor adoptive parent of Isabella then sought to obtain custody of Lisa’s daughter.

This tragic case sets up what is called a conflict of laws issue, pitting the law of one State against another. This specter hangs over many such homosexual relationships as the patchwork of court enforced schemes of calling them a “marriage” unfolds. It is a deliberate result of the strategy of cultural revolutionaries in the Homosexual Equivalency movement who are setting up what they hope will be their vehicle for enforcing their cultural revolution Nationally through the Courts.

The Homosexual Equivalency movement seeks to force legal recognition of homosexual relationships as the equivalent of a marriage. In so doing, they end up opposing marriage. Oh, they are verbal engineers, using Orwellian language, calling for “marriage equality” and the “freedom to marry”. It is simply a verbal slight of hand similar to the use of the word “choice” by those early abortion advocates. Such wordsmithing simply constitutes verbal engineering. It is an effort to cover over the truth.

These activists are advancing their Cultural Revolution not by vote of the people but by judicial and legislative fiat in a kind of new alchemy. They are using Courts and, as in Washington, D.C., City Councils who refuse to let the people vote on the issue by referendum. These new Caesars call a relationship which is constitutively incapable of accomplishing the ends of marriage to be a marriage.

They have developed a verbal strategy and a legal strategy. Their goal is to use the Police Power of the State in order to force a new social and legal order whether we all want it or not. A part of that strategy, used increasingly by homosexual legal advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal who involved themselves in this case, is to set up a constitutional law claim – like the one which the Lisa Miller case creates – hoping to change the law through their legal activism.

At all stages of litigation the Vermont court ruled that Lisa is the fit, biological mother of Isabella. The record shows that Isabella is an “A” student in school, a happy, well adjusted and loving child. However, while litigation regarding the sole parental rights of Lisa was pending in Virginia, the Vermont court also ruled that Janet had parental rights and ordered visitation. So, because of a Vermont Court Order, and when Isabella was 5 ½ years old, she first met Janet. This meeting occurred during two or three visitation time periods.

After each visitation Isabella had severe reactions including nightmares and bed wetting. She expressed fears that her mother Lisa was going to be taken from her. Isabella even tried to harm herself. Sources allege that during the Court ordered visits Janet told Isabella that she had two mommies – to which Isabella protested – and read her that notorious homosexual advocacy children’s book entitled “Heather Has Two Mommies.” Janet lived with another lesbian. She is alleged to have told the child that she was going to take her from her mother Lisa.

Lisa could not stand to see what was happening to her daughter Isabella. She stopped fully complying with the visitation order. She urged the court to consider allowing only limited supervised visitation, and only in her presence. Janet refused. Lisa suffered deeply. She could not stand to see her daughter in such torment while the Virginia case was winding its way through the courts.

Since Isabella was 17 months old, the period of time when Lisa left the relationship and the troubled living situation, Janet has never called Isabella, emailed or texted her. She has never sent her a letter, birthday card, Christmas card or any kind of card. She has never attended her church to see her in the church Christmas play. In fact the indications are that Janet has expressed her belief that it is harmful to raise a child as a Christian.

The Vermont Judge ruled on January 1, 2010 that Janet should have custody of Isabella and within 90 days come up with a visitation schedule for Lisa to see her biological daughter. That meant that Isabella would not have been able to see her mother Lisa for at least that long, if there were no Court continuances due to legal motions. Lisa then disappeared with Isabella. She is now a fugitive. In fact, a missing persons report has now been issued. No one, including her counsel, knows their whereabouts.

Lisa Miller is a mother who could no longer stand to see her child force fed what she contended was poison. She felt that after each visit the harm that was being inflicted on her daughter was increasing. The record indicates that even though Lisa asked the Vermont Judge to listen to evidence of the violent reactions of Isabella after each of these few visitations, the Judge refused. He treated this case like an ordinary domestic breakup between a husband and a wife. After all, that is what happens when a State treats such living relationships in a manner equivalent to marriage.

This case presents an opportunity to ask some deeply important questions. The approach taken by the Judge in Vermont comports with what homosexual equivalency advocates seek. This is our future if they have their way. They want the State to treat homosexual partnerships as the equivalent of marriage, thereby denying real marriage and the family founded upon it, the favored legal place it has long held as the first society. They are, in fact, a Marriage Opposition Movement. Does undermining true marriage serve the common good?

Homosexual relationships are different. They are often harmful to the participants. They are harmful to the children. For example, they cause severe confusion to children. Isabella was introduced by order of a Court to a stranger whom she did not know. That stranger insisted she was her mother. Isabella knew her Mom and her name is Lisa, not Janet.

The Lisa Miller Case presents an example of the misuse of Fertility Technology. Science is to serve the person, the family and the common good. Otherwise, as history bears out, it can unleash some very detrimental results. In addition to being immoral, this particular misuse has now also became fodder for the strategy of the new Cultural Revolutionaries in their legal strategy to advance their agenda.

The Lisa Miller case reveals the dangers of judicial tyranny. The Judicial branch used to be called the “least dangerous branch”. Courts were arbiters not super legislatures which could make law. Now, unelected Judges are used as tools for effecting social change. This approach fails to respect the separation of powers doctrine and threatens our Republic.

However, it is even worse in the case of a Court created “right” such as the alleged “right” to kill children in the womb. Court insistence that we treat homosexual relationships as equivalent to marriage is another example of calling something a “right” which is not! In these instances Judges often clothe themselves in self serving claims that they are enforcing the “rule of law” while they are violating the Natural Law which is its very source.

Finally, the Lisa Miller case raises serious questions concerning the Nature of Law itself. Is an unjust law a law? Is the law simply what a Court says it is? Or, is there a Higher Law, a Natural Law to which positive or civil law must render an account?

Who has first legal authority in the lives of our children? Have we come to the hour when children are becoming “mere creatures of the State”? Is Lisa Miller the first of a growing number of mothers, or even fathers, who will form a new underground railroad in this brave new world being foisted upon us by the new cultural revolutionaries of the homosexual equivalency movement?

The Lisa Miller Case brings together the misuse of fertility technology, the new Cultural Revolution, the threat of Judicial Tyranny and the assault on the authority of the Family in a case of monumental societal implications. It sounds a clear warning which must be heard before it is too late.