Hobby Lobby Wins! Supreme Court Rules Christian-Owned Businesses Can Reject Birth-Control Mandate

In a landmark religious freedom case the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties, stating that corporations can refuse to provide certain drugs that may abort a fetus on the basis of religious objection.

In a five to four decision, the highest court in the land ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to privately owned businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties.

The decision was narrowed to only the contraceptive mandate and is not necessarily applicable to all insurance mandates, like blood transfusions or vaccinations.

In September 2012 Hobby Lobby owners the Green family filed a lawsuit against HHS in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma regarding the mandate.

While the Greens were willing to provide most of the mandated contraceptives, they opposed the provision that they must provide “morning after” and “week after” pills, which are considered abortion-inducing and thus in opposition to the Greens’ pro-life views.

Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby told The Christian Post in an earlier interview that “our Founders gave us the religious freedoms that we have today and as a business we have the right to live according to those freedoms.”

“The government is saying we have to provide prescriptions that are abortive and that violate our conscience, because we believe that life begins at conception and it’s something that we have no desire to fully fund, which is what the mandate requires,” said Green.

“We know that some of the freedoms in the First Amendment are available to for-profit companies…But, for some reason, the government says that in the religious freedoms that a for-profit company does not have those rights. I don’t know where they see that.”

Last July, the District Court granted Hobby Lobby its preliminary injunction, leading the federal government to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In October, Hobby Lobby also filed an appeal with the highest court in the land, arguing that they should address the questions raised in their lawsuit.

By late November, the Court agreed to hear the case along with a similar appeal by Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation and scheduled oral arguments for March.

In November 2009, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green purchased his family’s first biblical artifact. Today Green devotes much of his time to what has become known as The Green Collection, among the world’s newest and largest private collections of rare biblical texts and artifacts. The collection of more than 40,000 biblical antiquities features this copy of the first printed English Bible in America, the Aitken Bible, a personal favorite of Green’s.

Oral arguments brought two large protests outside of the Supreme Court building, with supporters and opponents of Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit demonstrating in wintry precipitation.

Barbara Green, a member of the family heading Hobby Lobby, said in a statement read before those gathered outside the Supreme Court building that she was “encouraged” by the arguments.

“We were encouraged by today’s argument. We are thankful that the Supreme Court took our case and we prayerfully await the Justices’ decision,” said Green.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga were two of dozens of entities that had sued the federal government over the HHS mandate.

Several similar lawsuits arguing that the mandate violates religious conscience remain in the lower courts and will likely be affected by the decision.

Protesters pray at the steps of the Supreme Court as arguments begin today to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide coverage for contraception as part of an employee’s health care, in Washington March 25, 2014. The U.S. Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to consider whether business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Pro-Lifers Have Free Speech at Abortion Clinics

In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts buffer zone law prohibiting pro-life free speech outside abortion clinics. The decision is a huge victory for pro-life sidewalk counselors who provide women with abortion alternatives. The decision strikes down a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot “buffer zone” restricting pro-life advocates from speaking with people entering abortion facilities.

Saying the abortion buffer zone is “inconsistent with the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court ruled that that the buffer zone violated the First Amendment because it “restricts access to ‘public way[s]’ and ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech activities.”

Masschusetts Citizens for Life reacted to the decision in an email to LifeNews:

Massachusetts Citizens for Life welcomes the Supreme Court unanimous decision, McCullen v. Coakley, which strikes down the Massachusetts so-called Buffer Zone as a violation of the First Amendment. The court reiterates tradition in this country that the sidewalk is the vehicle for free speech. There are already laws on the books which prohibit blocking entrances, harassing people, etc.​The McCullen decision makes it clear that more restrictive laws may be written only if the current laws are not working – something that the state of Massachusetts failed to prove.

Mark Rienzi, professor of constitutional law at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and lead counsel in McCullen v. Coakley, told LifeNews, “Americans have the freedom to talk to whomever they please on public sidewalks. That includes peaceful pro-lifers like Eleanor McCullen, who just wants to offer information and help to women who would like it. The Supreme Court has affirmed a critical freedom that has been an essential part of American life since the nation’s founding.”

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, told LifeNews:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling in McCullen v. Coakley is wonderful news for all Americans because it upholds our crucial First Amendment rights of free speech but perhaps no more important than for women considering abortion because it frees sidewalk counselors at abortion facilities to be able to offer compassionate and caring alternatives.

“While the ruling is great news for the free speech of anti-abortion advocates, this isn’t about us. This is about giving women the opportunity to be informed of all of their options and isn’t that what the pro-abortion movement is all about? If Planned Parenthood and their allies truly favored choice and not their pocketbooks, they would be elated at this decision as well. Because if abortion is right and harms no one, then why not give the woman a chance at choosing life by presenting her options she may not even know about? Sidewsupremecourt8alk counselors can’t stop women from having abortions, but they can offer information, resources, and just a listening ear to those young women who feel desperate and alone.

“Because of this ruling striking down the buffer zone and upholding our constitutional rights, pro-life students across the nation will continue to be that compassionate lifeline for women in their most desperate hour, helping her to choose life for both her and her child.”

Americans United for Life legal counsel Bill Saunders previously wrote at LifeNews about the scope and magnitude of the case:

For years, the government in Massachusetts has been treating public sidewalks as private property of the abortion clinic, with criminal penalties for anyone that offers life-affirming alternatives. But among the decisions to be issued by the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of June is a case challenging that restrictive Massachusetts law, McCullen v. Coakley. Hopefully, the Court will go further and reverse a 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado, which has been the basis of restrictions on pro-life free speech ever since.

In 2007, Massachusetts enacted a law that prohibits anyone to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent” to a stand-alone abortion facility, but it does not equally apply to all persons. The “no entry zone” is actually a “no pro-life speech” zone, as the Massachusetts government explicitly exempts employees or agents of the abortion facilityacting within their scope of employment.

Americans United for Life has been actively involved opposing this anti-American, anti-speech law, twice filing an amicus brief on behalf of 40 Days for Life. In 2009, we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case (on petition for cert). This past fall, we filed again, urging the Court to overturn the law.

US Supreme CourtThe AUL brief explains how the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of 40 Days for Life by establishing a no pro-life speech zone, where no alternatives to abortion may be offered. Contrary to the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, it forces pro-life speakers to either shout (from 35 feet away) or be silent, effectively foreclosing speech by those who engage in personal, direct, peaceful communication.

An abortion clinic employee, under the law, is allowed to approach women on the public sidewalk and say anything. However, our client, 40 Days for Life, cannot on that same public sidewalk offer, “I can help you” or even stand and pray without facing criminal penalties.

Even if a woman consents to listen or wants to hear what 40 Days has to say on that public sidewalk, that communication is not allowed by the draconian Massachusetts law.

Such blatant viewpoint discrimination should be held unconstitutional, even under the standards of the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado. Important to the Court’s finding in Hill that the “no approach” Colorado statute was “viewpoint neutral” was that it applied to “all” speakers: “That is the level of neutrality that the Constitution demands.” The Massachusetts statute clearly does not meet that test.

But the Court in McCullen has the opportunity to do more than merely correctly apply Hill; it has the opportunity to correct the strained reasoning of the majority in Hill that upheld the Colorado statute.

In Hill, Justice Kennedy poignantly opened his dissent, writing that “[t]he Court’s holding contradicts more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles. For the first time, the Court approves a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.” He continued, “If from this time forward the Court repeats its grave errors of analysis, we shall have no longer the proud tradition of free and open discourse in a public forum.”

It is time to reverse Hill. Let us hope the Supreme Court will do so, thereby restoring the free speech rights of pro-life Americans not only in Massachusetts but throughout the land.

Austin ruling favors pro-life pregnancy centers

Two legal groups in Texas are applauding a federal judge’s decision to throw out an ordinance in the state capital that unconstitutionally targeted pro-life pregnancy centers.

In 2012 the Austin City Council unanimously passed an ordinance requiring pregnancy resource centers – which don’t offer abortions or refer women to abortion providers – to post signs announcing exactly that. It didn’t take long after that for a pro-life pregnancy center to file suit in federal court against the city council.

Attorney Jeff Mateer of Liberty Institute summarizes the issue. “The city of Austin had passed an ordinance that compelled pregnancy resource centers, and only pro-life pregnancy centers, to post a false and misleading sign about the services that they did not perform,” he says – specifically, abortion and contraceptives.

Yet abortion clinics weren’t required under the ordinance to post signs detailing what services they don’t provide.

But after legal arguments and two years of waiting, Mateer says: “We got a great decision from the federal district court down in Austin, Texas, which declared unconstitutional Austin’s ordinance that severely restricted the free speech and religious liberty rights of pregnancy resource centers.”

Attorney Stephen Casey of the Texas Center for Defense of Life further explains the ruling.

“The judge said it’s unconstitutionally void because it’s too vague and it would lend itself towards arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” he tells OneNewsNow. “And what we’ve seen in this case, as in all the other cases across the country, that these are very targeted attacks on pregnancy resource centers. So there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been used in a discriminatory manner.”

The pro-life legal group believes Austin would be wasting money to appeal the judge’s decision.

“One of the city council members, Mike Martinez, said that he hopes that it will go further, but that’s going to take a vote of the city council,” Casey adds. “I would hope that they would recognize that this lawsuit as it is right now stands to use a considerable amount of taxpayer funds on an ordinance that they already knew was unconstitutional before they even passed it.”

Furthermore, courts have struck down as unconstitutional – at least in part – ordinances in New York City and Baltimore, and a similar law has been challenged in San Francisco.

Effects of Legalized Pot in Colorado: Deaths, Infused Student Snacks and Out-of-State Customers

Only a half year away from the first day marijuana became legal to grow, possess, consume and sell in Colorado, groups such as Focus on the Family say the new law has facilitated grave consequences, including deaths, child endangerment, and interstate trafficking.

“In just a few months since legalization, we’ve seen several deaths directly linked to legal marijuana use, children bringing pot-infused snacks to school and law enforcement in neighboring states reporting an increase in the seizure of marijuana traced back to Colorado,” Focus on the Family’s senior director of public policy, Carrie Gordon Earll, told The Christian Post this week.

Often touted by advocates as harmless, it appears there’s a growing amount of evidence against marijuana usage and legalization that proves otherwise. As national policy and politics reporter Eric Schulzke wrote in his article, Dumb and dumber? Teen marijuana use linked to lower IQ in later life, researchers are discovering an increased urgency to do research on the drug’s effects, including on the developing brains of teens, as more states are quickly considering marijuana legalization.

Colorado is joined by Washington in being home to legalized recreational marijuana use and legalization is currently being considered in 14 additional states.

“While none of these states propose making pot legal for minors, destigmatization and greater ease of access have already resulted in heavier use among youths in Colorado,” writes Schulzke. “As marijuana is increasingly normalized and seen as relatively harmless, some experts doubt whether we know enough to justify rapid shifts in policy and behavior in pot usage.”

Focus on the Family continues to oppose legalization of marijuana and will support campaigns to “defeat legalization as we are able.” Earll knows well the damage already done in her state, where Focus on the Family is headquartered. “Sadly, it’s likely that more states will consider making marijuana legal and we hope they will closely examine the impact of legalization in Colorado that we know so far,” she said.

Legalization has led to an increase in edible forms of marijuana and unknown dangerous potency levels. Last march, a 19-year-old student jumped to his death off a Denver hotel balcony after friends said he ate a single marijuana cookie. Tests showed it was the strength of six premium-quality joints. Also, the autopsy cited “marijuana intoxication” as a “significant contributing factor,” as reported by CBS.

In April, a woman called 911 saying her husband had eaten “pot candy” and was hallucinating. CBS reported that the husband shot and killed her before police could arrive, according to Denver authorities.

Despite the opposition of legalized pot by Christian and conservative groups such as Focus on the Family, 58 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, according to a Gallup report this fall. A NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this spring showed that 49 percent viewed tobacco as harmful, while 24 percent said the same of alcohol, 15 percent of sugar, and just 8 percent of marijuana, reported Schulzke.

“Shifting perception is quickly translating to youth drug usage in Colorado, which became ground zero for pot legalization in 2012 when the state voters chose to legalize and tax the drug,” he writes. “The Office of National Drug Control Policy reported last year that one in four Boulder County high school students now use pot — more than three times the national average. And the numbers are shifting fast. In Adams County, a Denver suburb, high school marijuana use jumped from 21 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2012. Middle school pot use in Adams County jumped 50 percent during that period — from 5.7 to 8.5 percent.”

FOTF, which is a non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson and based in Colorado Springs, says there are at least four good reasons to oppose the legalization of marijuana. “We also think it’s important to issue a sober warning to those who are inclined to regard it as harmless recreation or a helpful form of medication,” the group says on its website on the subject.

The reasons to oppose the legalization according to FOTF include first, the reality that illegality remains at the federal level and “people could end up in jail.” Secondly, pot “contains 50 to 70 percent more cancer-provoking hydrocarbons. And pot-smokers tend to inhale deeply and hold their breath while smoking. As a result, long-term marijuana users, like their tobacco-puffing counterparts, are at higher risk than the general population not only for chronic lung disease but also for cancer of the upper respiratory tract and lungs.”

Thirdly, the notion that marijuana is non-addictive is a myth, FOTF states. “It’s true that marijuana-dependence expresses itself differently than alcohol dependence. Unfortunately, the dependence is every bit as real. There’s a reason it’s called ‘the drug of apathy.’ It impairs an individual’s ability to make deep and meaningful attachments. It robs him of the ability to be intimate with other people. This promotes isolation, which feeds the need to smoke pot, which strains more relationships, which causes increased conflict in marriage or with co-workers and friends.”

FOTF explains, “It’s a vicious cycle. Heavy, long-term use of marijuana stunts emotional and social development. It kills motivation and prevents people from moving forward in their lives.”

Fourth on its list, FOTF believes that marijuana truly is a “gateway drug.”

“For adolescents and young adults alike it can become a gateway drug, introducing them to the harrowing world of illegal drugs and the criminals who produce and distribute them. A gateway drug also creates pathways in the brain that invite experimentation with harder street drugs or prescription medications. Studies have shown that 90 percent of those currently using hard addictive drugs like heroin started with marijuana,” the organization states.

FOTF’s current president, Jim Daly, believes that of all the problems associated with marijuana, however, the moral concerns might be the strongest.

“The Bible is very clear in warning against drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18),” Daly wrote on the subject when legalization first went into effect. “Granted, a person might drink a glass of wine at dinner and not become intoxicated, but what about marijuana? Isn’t ‘intoxication’ the main point of using marijuana for recreational purposes?”

He continued, “As a father of two boys who’ll have the legal right to try marijuana when they turn 21 here in the state of Colorado, all these things make me uneasy, but they don’t make me disheartened. My responsibilities as a dad don’t hinge on whether a particular drug is legal or illegal. My job remains the same: to raise young men who know and love God, to teach them to lean completely on Him, and to give them the tools to make wise decisions for life.”

You say I can’t pray? Well, just watch me

During a recent graduation ceremony, a principal in Missouri angered atheists and others who are anti-faith by deriding their demands that God be kept out of graduations.

On May 23, Lebanon High School principal Kevin Lowery opened the ceremony with a brief history of God in public life – then asked for a moment of silence in honor of the graduating seniors because, has he pointed out, the law didn’t permit him to openly pray.

After the silence, Lowery shared that during his moment of silence, he gave thanks to God for the students, their parents, their teachers, and the community. The audience responded with applause.

Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, offers his assessment of the principal’s actions.

“He basically was pointing out the ridiculous state of the law in this area – really, the prohibitions on any expression of faith in the public square, including schools,” he says.

According to Weber, a letter of complaint to the superintendent about Lowery’s comments was riddled with typos and errors. “Then they can’t even accurately cite the Declaration of Independence,” he laments. “It’s kind of ironic when you have them claiming to rest upon accuracy in the law and they make an error like that.”

Christian News Network quotes several individuals who were appreciative of Lowery’s remarks, complimenting him on his boldness and his encouragement to students – through his example – to stand up for what they believe.

Huckabee: History Only Has One View of Marriage; ‘Personal Passions’ Behind Redefinition

WASHINGTON – Only recently out of “personal passions” have people tried to change the definition of marriage, and that is not a valid reason to change such a long-lasting institution, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told The Christian Post while at the Second Annual March for Marriage on Thursday

History has one definition for marriage, said Huckabee, who was a featured speaker at the event.

“If we look at history, history has only one real view and that is marriage is between one man and one woman,” Huckabee explained. “You don’t have a lot of history of any other version of marriage and when you do, it doesn’t last very long.”

He also told CP that he opted to speak at the March for Marriage as a way of showing that he and other social conservatives support something rather than oppose.

“I think it’s so important that people of faith, and frankly even people who believe that marriage is the foundation and cornerstone of society, are here,” said Huckabee. “Not to express what we’re against, because this isn’t about being against something. This is about being for marriage. And that’s why we’re here.”

Held outside of the U.S. Capitol Building, the Second Annual March for Marriage brought thousands of people from across the country to demonstrate for traditional marriage.

Sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, the event was also officially supported by other groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, The Frederick Douglas Foundation, Concerned Women for America, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and the Coalition of African-American Pastors.

Among the diverse audience, a large number of Hispanics were in attendance and the rally reflected this ethnic presence.

Many of the presentations and rally signs were in Spanish as well as English, with hundreds of people from the crowd periodically participating in Spanish chants. “Quien vive?” (who lives?) shouted one of the speakers. “Cristo!” (Christ!), replied the audience.

As busloads of attendees arrived, a contemporary Christian band led worship with NOM President Brian Brown giving opening remarks and introducing the various speakers.

In their assorted remarks, speakers stressed the importance of children having a mother and a father, addressing throngs of attendees on Thursday morning.

After the speeches, the rally concluded and the large number of demonstrators marched to the nearby United States Supreme Court building.

Christopher Plante, spokesman with NOM, told CP before the official start of the rally that they were “thrilled” by the turnout already apparent as they arrived at the site.

“We’re very excited, we came in on the bus just a few minutes ago to see all these people already here an hour early,” said Plante, who stressed that the marriage definition debate was not over.

“It’s absolutely not over. The battle for marriage, family is just beginning here. We will make a stand today,” said Plante. “They can send a message to the Supreme Court, to the Congress that we want marriage defended in the law, politics, and culture.”

In addition to Huckabee, others who spoke below the Capitol Dome included Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage; the Rev. Ruben Diaz, New York State Senator and president of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization; Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., founder and president of the High Impact Leadership Coalition; and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.

U.S. not giving up on Sudanese woman

Efforts in America to win the release of Meriam Ibrahim and her children continue.

Meriam Ibrahim is the Christian wife and mother currently being held in her native Sudan on a charge of apostasy — something that calls for the death sentence in Sudan.

Ibrahim’s accusers claim she was Muslim and became Christian, but Ibrahim’s husband, an American citizen, asserts his wife has never been Muslim. Meanwhile, the couple’s two children, one of them a newborn, are in prison with their mother.

Several different organizations are pushing petitions, and International Christian Concern (ICC) is also working closely with members of Congress on legislation regarding Ibrahim.

“We’re also continuing to press the Sudanese government directly,” reports ICC spokesman Isaac Six.

ICC demonstrated last week outside the White House and the Sudanese embassy. Many other groups participated, as did Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ).

“We’ve already gotten some reaction. Some sources on the ground are saying this is creating a lot of pressure there,” Six relays. “A couple of hours after our protest … in front of the White House last week, Secretary Kerry (D) quietly released a statement mentioning Meriam’s case again, condemning her death sentence.”

At this point, International Christian Concern wants the State Department to go another step further and publicly acknowledge that Meriam Ibrahim’s children are U.S. citizens. Moreover, ICC and other groups want to ensure the family’s safety by bringing them to the U.S.

Group says WH could use pro-gay nondiscrimination order to hammer Christian employers

WASHINGTON (June 17, 2014) – The White House says President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, but it’s unclear if there will be a religious exemption.

Obama hoped that Congress would pass a broader non-discrimination measure that would apply to nearly all employers. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called on the White House to include the same religious exemptions in the executive order that are included in legislation the Senate passed but which is stalled in the House. The bill includes exemptions for churches and other houses of worship, as well as religiously affiliated organizations.

Nathan Diament, Executive Director for Public Policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, says if there’s no religious exemption, some Christian and Jewish charities will have to either violate their faith or withdraw from federal contracts.

AFA: Gov’t could use ‘faith’ to discriminate

In a statement released today, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon emphasized that the move would further threaten religious liberties for Christian business owners.

“This Executive Order will have a sweeping effect on conscience- and faith-driven businesses. If the proposed order is issued, a Christian who owns a business that contracts with the federal government will not be able to use homosexuality or transgender identity as factor in employment decisions, regardless of the business owner’s faith convictions. Meanwhile, the government would be able to use ‘faith’ as the basis for discriminating against potential contractors.

“Furthermore, religious organizations that contract with the government to provide social services such as adoption assistance, disaster relief, health care navigation, preschool education, drug rehabilitation and prison ministry, would be required to hire homosexuals against their convictions. Other ramifications of this order could be that government contractors would be required to provide special restroom facilities for transgendered employees.

“But it goes even beyond this. The existing Executive Order that governs employment nondiscrimination by federal contractors requires that the contractors maintain an Affirmative Action Program actively to recruit members of protected groups. If lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals are now considered a ‘protected group,’ then what’s to stop the government from trying to force Christian businesses to actively recruit them as the price of contracting with the federal government?

“As we have said before, we firmly believe in the right of private companies to hire or not hire whomever they choose, without government coercion.”

Rally to support marriage this Thursday

Later this week, Americans will be in the nation’s capital to make a statement for marriage and judicial activism.

The National Organization for Marriage’s second annual March for Marriage is set for Thursday, June 19, in D.C. Given the climate in the country over the past months, spokesman Chris Plante tells OneNewsNow this year’s march is all the more important.

“It will be a huge statement to the U.S. Supreme Court, to the Congress and to the mainstream media that Americans still stand for marriage as one man and one woman and that every child deserves both a mother and a father,” he says.

Thousands of marriage supporters from throughout the country will take to the streets after a rally where they will hear from noted speakers such as Senator Santorum, Governor Huckabee and many others.

“It will be a day in which America actually takes a stand and tries to turn the clock back on marriage and turn back the tide of judicial activism that has been occurring where individual justices are imposing their own individual wills on entire states in redefining marriage,” he explains.

For those who can’t attend, National Organization for Marriage is conducting a virtual march on the event’s website. People can hold local marriage rallies or at state capitals to make it clear that they also stand for traditional marriage.
– See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/06/16/rally-to-support-marriage-this-thursday#.U58DuihW-1k

Planned Parenthood Lies About Firing Staffer Who Told 15-Year-Old to Engage in S&M Sex

A Planned Parenthood abortion business has lied about being forced to fire a staffer who told a 15-year-old in an undercover video that she should engage in sadomasochistic sexual relations.

As the abortion corporation told the Indianapolis Star newspaper, the employee in question is reportedly no longer working for the abortion giant. But officials with Live Action confirmed Thursday afternoon that the employee is still working at the Planned Parenthood facility. It’s undercover investigators called and confirmed an appointment with the staffer.

Before catching Planned Parenthood lying, Lila Rose of Live Action told LifeNews:

You’re seeing step one of the Planned Parenthood damage control handbook: the token firing.  It’s always a little strange, because Planned Parenthood tries to have it both ways: they announce terminating the employee for violating “professional standards” but never specify what those standards are. Meanwhile, their BDSM training video remains online, and they continue to list “resources” that tell kids that torture sex is totally fine. So what exactly did the staffer in our video do to bring the wrath of Planned Parenthood down on her?

In past releases, step two in the handbook is to ignore the exact same abuses we reveal in subsequent videos from additional Planned Parenthood locations across the country.  We saw this in our sex-trafficking investigation and our sex-selective abortion investigation, and we’ll probably see it here, too.  Planned Parenthood is trying to cast our video as a one-off.

But throwing one employee under the bus does nothing to solve the abortion giant’s organization-wide problem: their promotion of dangerous sexual activity to teens in their online materials and programs.  Lawmakers need to take action immediately to stop forcing taxpayers to support Planned Parenthood, and parents should call their school principals and superintendents to cut off Planned Parenthood’s access to teens in their communities.

In the first video released in its new expose’ of the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Live Action has caught a counselor for the abortion giant urging a 15-year-old to have BDSM sex and to engage in sexual relations as a dominatrix.

The entire video series catches the Planned Parenthood abortion business teaching teenagers about S&M-based sexual relationships and concepts such as gagging, whipping and asphyxiation. In a series of undercover audits, Live Action investigators documented Planned Parenthood counselors and nurses advising our investigators, who the Planned Parenthood staffers thought were minors, on how to practice torture sex.

In this and forthcoming videos, Planned Parenthood counselors encourage undercover investigators posting as 15 and 16-year-old teens, to engage in the sadomasochistic practices, telling the underage teens  “if it’s consensual, it’s OK… it’s totally OK.”

In its response to the video to the Star newspaper, Planned Parenthood claimed that it does not represent how its staff would normally handle a discussion with a teenager and it claims the staffer in question has been fired. From the report:

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky says an undercover video released Wednesday by a pro-life group doesn’t reflect the agency’s training or standards and that the employee advising the fake client no longer works at the Indianapolis Midtown center.

Planned Parenthood president and CEO Betty Cockrum doesn’t dispute the authenticity of the tape, but also said it is not indicative of the type of counseling and information clients are provided.

“While the heavy editing of this video makes it impossible to know the full exchange that took place, this video clearly does not reflect our professional standards or training protocols, and this staff member is no longer employed at PPINK,” she said in a written statement.

“This video does not reflect the work our dedicated employees do every day, nor the experience shared by parents and teens who participate in our programs,” Cockrum added.

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Tammy Lieber said Cockrum was not available Wednesday night to answer questions. Lieber also would not reveal whether the employee was fired or left voluntarily, or when that occurred, due to privacy policies.

In this first expose’ footage, the Planned Parenthood employee explains to the Live Action investigator, posing as a fifteen-year-old girl, several sexually deviant concepts, such as role-play and the use of whips and handcuffs to inflict pain on a sexual partner. “You could be a dominatrix-type of person,” she says, “where you dress in all leather, with the whips and the handcuffs.”

She continued, “It just depends what type of pain you can take.”

LiveAction complains that the video comes in the wake of news that through ObamaCare, an additional $75 million in taxpayer funding will be allocated by the Department of Health and Human Services for sex education. Planned Parenthood, which has received hundreds of millions already to be an ObamaCare “navigator,” is poised to receive a significant amount of this funding.

Lila Rose, Live Action’s president, roundly condemned the Obama administration’s “unbelievable mismanagement” of public funds. “No matter your interpretation of the government’s taxing power, you’d be hard-pressed to justify forcing Americans to give money to an organization that counsels a fifteen-year-old girl to look up porn sites to get ‘ideas’ on BDSM sex, and to get someone over 18 to go into a sex shop to buy whips and handcuffs for her.”

Planned Parenthood, which casts itself as a leading sex educator, regularly implements sexually explicit advertising campaigns and seminars, including a series of metro ads reading, “We’re your one-night stand,” “We’re your friend with benefits,” etc., and a seminar for teenagers on “how a BDSM relationship is successfully navigated between sexual partners.”

“These tapes are so outrageous,” Rose said, “that they are hard to believe – so-called ‘health’ counselors promoting dangerous and violent practices to young girls, recommending porn sites, sex shops, and how to hide these activities from parents.”

Live Action is providing uncensored investigative footage by request but has declined to make it available for public consumption. “It’s a travesty that this is even happening,” Rose said. “We are calling on proper authorities to see this footage as an incentive to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for the dangerous practices this abortion corporation is promoting to our teens.”