Category Archives: Culture

RFRAs have NEVER Harmed a Homosexual Person

By Casey Mattox
The Federalist

It has been 22 years since President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. For two decades it has applied to every law in the District of Columbia and the federal government. In the intervening decades, 20 other states have followed suit with their own state RFRAs. These RFRAs hold government to a high burden of proof when it burdens religious exercise. Under RFRA, there are no guaranteed outcomes, but the government cannot take burdens on religious exercise lightly.

In two decades of RFRAs, the world has not ended. In fact, not a single person who identifies as homosexual has been harmed by these RFRAs. None. This may come as a surprise to you if you have watched any of the media coverage or been on social media for the last several days. The unhinged claims from the Left have been entirely detached from the reality that these laws have actually existed for decades and have never resulted in any of the things they worry will happen. This is not new. Dire warnings that are unsurprisingly not confirmed by future events have been a common theme in arguments from the Left in recent years.

Prophesying Doom that Never Materializes

The Equal Access Act is the reason your child can have a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at school. Most Americans would think that permitting students to voluntarily get together before school to pray is a good thing. But when Congress considered the act in 1984, some Democrats, including then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, opposed it because allowing Christian students to gather to pray “could usher in KKK and Nazi” student groups. More than 30 years later, it is clear Boxer was on the wrong side of history. Her worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to “Mein Kampf” has not been realized.

Boxer’s worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to ‘Mein Kampf’ has not been realized.

When the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006, abortionists argued that approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions per year were necessary for health reasons. This was important because the law lacked any health exception (except to save the mother’s life). When the Supreme Court issued its opinion eight years ago in April 2007, it held that the law was generally constitutional.

However, the Court invited any abortionist or woman filing a new challenge to show why a partial-birth abortion was necessary in one of those 2,200-per-year instances. Planned Parenthood warned of consequences for women’s health from the decision, just as Justice Ginsburg wrote in a dissent: “One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.”

Eight years later, no such complaint has been filed. I’m not aware of a single example of any woman who was harmed by not being able to have a partial-birth abortion procedure in that time.

There are three possible reasons: (1) by incredible fortune, the threats to women’s health making partial-birth abortion necessary ceased on April 18, 2007; (2) Women are harmed daily, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry lack the resources to file the invited lawsuits; (3) the claim that partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect women’s health was a lie.

Finally, when Texas passed HB2, the pro-life law that brought stardom to Wendy Davis, a primary focus of abortion supporters who opposed the bill was its prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, when the unborn child is capable of feeling pain. This provision was the centerpiece of the controversy, and Davis opposed it at length. But while virtually every part of the Texas law has been challenged in the intervening two years, the prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks has never been challenged. It has been Texas law since October 2013.

Time to Stop Listening

And Texas isn’t alone. Laws like it have been enacted in 13 states. But despite their cries of harm to women’s health, abortionists have only challenged these laws in the Ninth Circuit and in a now-pending Georgia state court case. At least 10 of these laws, including Texas’s, are in effect without legal challenge. As MSNBC reported, there is

a strategic reason to avoid challenging that [20-week] ban…. [A] Texas challenge would go to the conservative Fifth Circuit. Not only would that court potentially uphold the law…, the combination of decisions would create a split in the circuits that would make the Supreme Court likelier to hear it.

This is their choice. But at some point when your warnings of imminent harm are stifled by your own prudential choices, and none of the bad consequences you warn about ever happen, perhaps your claims just aren’t true. That’s critically important to keep in mind with the needless hysteria happening now over completely mischaracterized state religious freedom laws.

But history need not repeat itself. In the children’s story, when Peter repeatedly cries, “Wolf!” the townspeople finally stop listening. It’s time to stop giving credence to the Left’s cries.

Scottsdale Councilwoman Keeps up Drumbeat for Attacks on Your Religious Freedom

Last week the Scottsdale City Council voted 5-2 to defeat a proposed sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy. Councilwoman Linda Milhaven was one of the two council members who voted for the controversial proposal. Then she wrote the following commentary in the left-wing publication Scottsdale Independent. We took exception with several of her statements and present her commentary for you now along with our objections, FYI:

Milhaven: Why is treating everyone fairly considered controversial in Scottsdale? [THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED FAIRLY IS INCORRECT.]

By Linda Milhaven Apr 3rd, 2015

Why is it controversial to consider a law to treat everyone fairly?” [WHY DON’T WE RELY ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?]

That was the question I got from a citizen after a recent city council meeting. We were considering whether to or not to add sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the city’s non-discrimination ordinances.

At that meeting, the council affirmed their support of the Unity Pledge, [IS THERE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH HOUSING AND HOSPITALITY FOR LGBT IN SCOTTSDALE??? NOT LIKELY.] adopted late last year, supporting LGBT inclusive non-discrimination policies and directed staff to help promote of the pledge.

The next step is to begin the public process to include these principles in our City ordinances. [AT WHAT COST TO THE CONSTITUTION? TO THE CITIZENS OF SCOTTSDALE? TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? ]

We have received many e-mails and have heard from many constituents — many for and some against. While I believe that everyone is acting in good faith, I am still trying to understand the side that argues against including the principles of the pledge in our ordinances. [THEN PLEASE HEAR OUR CONCERNS AGAIN.]

Some argue that less government is better. I agree; however, some laws are good and necessary. This is the basis for our political debate. What is necessary vs. unnecessary regulation? [TAKING SIDES IN THE CULTURE WAR IS ONLY GUARANTEED TO ALIENATE AT LEAST HALF THE CITY’S CITIZENS.]

In my opinion, we currently have non-discrimination ordinances and adding members of the LGBT community to the list of protected citizens is simply the right thing to do. [LGBT ARE NOT IMMUTABLE TRAITS. SO-CALLED “SEXUAL LIBERTY” IS BEING USED TO BLUDGEON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. DON’T LET SCOTTSDALE EXHIBIT PREJUDICE AGAINST CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS OFFENDED BY WHAT THEY CONSIDER BIBLICAL SIN.]

Some argue that there is no evidence of a problem. [IN THIS DAY AND AGE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT DARE SPEAK OUT AGAINST LGBT FOR FEAR OF JOB LOSS, PHYSICAL THREATS, PUBLIC SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND HYSTERIA INITIATED BY MILITANT LGBT. CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL AMERICA IS TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER TO SUBMIT TO EVERY LGBT DEMAND. WHAT MORE CAN YOU POSSIBLY GIVE THEM?] Are they suggesting that members of the LGBT community should publicly share their stories and make themselves vulnerable to additional discrimination/harassment without any protections before we are willing to protect them?

Some assert religious freedom would be compromised. However, religious organizations set their own membership rules [NO. THEY DON’T. STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE CHIPPING AWAY AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S FIRST LIBERTY – RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. CHRISTIANS ARE BEING TOLD TO “CHECK THEIR FAITH AT THE DOOR” AND TO KEEP THEIR BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES, THAT WHEN THEY GO INTO BUSINESS THEY SUDDENLY BECOME “SECULAR.” PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE TELLING CAMPUS MINISTRIES THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE OFFICERS BE PEOPLE OF FAITH.] and hiring practices. They may include or exclude anyone they please from their organizations. Government does not and cannot regulate that. [YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. OBAMACARE AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES ARE BEING ELEVATED ABOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AND CHRISTIANS ARE FORCED TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS IN EXPENSIVE COURT CASES TO LITIGATE FOR THE FREE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS ALL OVER THE NATION ARE ELEVATING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.]

Government does, however, make laws that bind all of us, regardless of our religions affiliations. In fact, non-discrimination laws protect citizens from discrimination based on their religion. [YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE USED AS BATTERING RAMS AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS.] Why would some religious organizations want to exclude anyone from the same protections their members enjoy? [YOU INCORRECTLY CHARACTERIZE THE PRESENT REALITY. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS ARE EXCLUDED FROM FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE BECAUSE OF THE OUTBREAK OF NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS.]

Combining the assertion that we do not have a problem with the assertion that a non-discrimination ordinance will infringe on personal religious rights is puzzling to me. What personal religious rights? The right to discriminate against members of the LGBT community in the marketplace and the workplace? How can one say that there is no discrimination but then argue to protect their right to discriminate? [NO, NO, AND NO – WE ARE OPPOSED TO BEING COMPELLED BY GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH WE HAVE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.]

Some suggest an ordinance will open the business community to frivolous lawsuits. How can one assert that a lawsuit claiming discrimination is frivolous unless one thinks that discrimination is acceptable? [IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS. HUMAN RELATIONS BOARDS, THE ACLU, AND OTHERS ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. “SEXUAL LIBERTY”AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT CO-EXIST. ONE IS ALREADY BEING ELEVATED ABOVE THE OTHER. TOO MANY CITY COUNCILS ARE FAVORING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” AT THE EXPENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. THIS IS AT ODDS WITH AMERICA’S HISTORY AND CONSTITION AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION.]

Members of the business community have been the strongest advocates of a non-discrimination ordinance. They tell us an ordinance is vital to their ability to attract and retain workforce talent and customers. [THIS IS A COMMON TALKING POINT, BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP? THERE IS NONE. BUSINESSES ARE MERELY POSTURING THEMSELVES AS LGBT FRIENDLY, BUT THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE BUSINESS AND CORPORATE WORLD. BIG BUSINESS IS EXTREMELY ACCOMMODATING TO LGBT PEOPLE. THERE IS NO HARM BEING DONE. THERE IS NO LAW, NO LACK OF LAW SHACKLING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FROM HIRING ANYONE WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.] They tell us lack of an ordinance will do us harm. How can one argue that they are protecting the  business community when they ignore the business community’s pleas for an ordinance? [IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. IN THE SCOTTSDALE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. YOU WILL LIKELY FIND LGBT NOT ONLY WORKING FOR THESE COMPANIES, BUT ALSO SOME LGBT ARE IN POSITIONS OF MANAGEMENT AND DOING VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO GOVERN ALL THE CITIZENS, AND NOT TO FAVOR ANY GROUP OVER ANOTHER. LET THIS UNFOUNDED DEMAND GO AND CONCENTRATE ON MORE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.]

I believe the city should study the issue and hear from the public. [MOST DEFINITELY! THANK YOU FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.] Let us know where you stand. Do you think the city should begin the public process to expand its non-discrimination ordinances to include LGBT non-discrimination? [NO. THERE IS NO PROBLEM. MOVE ON TO MORE SUBSTANTIVE NEEDS AND TOPICS TO PROMOTE YOUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR READING. BEST REGARDS.]

COUNCILWOMAN MILHAVEN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: THERE NEVER WAS ANY DEMONSTRATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NEEDED. THE PEOPLE OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI AND FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS JUST REJECTED SUCH MEASURES, AS DID FOUNTAIN HILLS.  BUT THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOM OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESSES ACCORDING TO THEIR FAITH. EVERYONE’S CONSCIENCE COUNTS. SO WHY UNNECESSARILY DIVIDE THE CITY? WHY RESTRICT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF A LARGE CONSTITUENCY OF THE CITY?

Arizona Cardinals: Regarding Adrian Peterson — DNAC

Your Arizona Cardinals are contemplating the addition of Adrian Peterson to the team. They need a good running back.

Peterson is a good one, no doubt about it.

But last year the Cards released a practice team player for domestic violence. Apparently if he’d been a standout player like Peterson … he’d still be on the team today … if skill level is apparently the dividing line here.

Is Peterson a good catch?

Yes, if felony child abuse charges are the method of measurement. Yes, if leaving a path of seven illegitimate children scattered about  the country is among the criteria. Yes, if touchdowns are more important than being a good citizen in the community.

The Cards could take a good lesson from retired NFL coach Tony Dungy, now an NBC football analyst.

In his coaching days, Dungy and his coaching staff carefully scrutinized character and talent as they prepared for the annual NFL draft. If a potential draftee had some character issues, Dungy wrote DNDC next to his name: Do Not Draft Character.

Cardinals, if you’re wise, you’ll write DNAC next to Peterson’s name: Do Not Acquire Character.

Senator Cruz: Stand with the People, Not Washington

IMG_6762

An Open Letter to the Judge Who Disenfranchised 1.2 Million Voters

An Open Letter to U.S. District Judge John Sedwick:

I am one of the more than 1.2 million Arizonans who was disenfranchised last fall when you exceeded your authority and redefined marriage in our state. The nature of highly important issues like marriage is best left to the voice of their people or their elected representatives in the legislative branch. Arbitrary decisions like yours were never intended to be left to the judicial branch. You acted without the authority to do so.

Here’s how your regrettable decision will impact our communities:

More children will grow up without their father. Fatherlessness has wrought a devastating effect on our society.

More children will grow up without the nurturing care of their mother

More children will struggle in school.

More children will grow up in confusion about themselves and their sexuality.

More children will be subject to pornography. More of them will act out what they’ve seen, on other children.

More children will be placed at higher risks of sexual assault and rape. They’ll carry this trauma with them the rest of their lives.

More adults will be subject to domestic violence. This will create a greater drain on public resources left to pick the pieces.

There will be more divorce.

Your actions will reward alcohol and drug abuse.

There will be more STDs and AIDs in our Arizona communities traceable directly to your decision.

And you can’t have more drug and alcohol abuse and more disease without having more absenteeism in our work places.

All of these claims are backed up by decades of social science research in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you doubt that, please scan The Arizona Conservative website or contact us for the data.

Furthermore, you have seriously damaged the democratic process in Arizona. How many Arizonans will now be skeptical about engaging in the proposition process? How many more people are now left with an attitude that asks, “why should I bother to vote when a single judge can just throw my vote in the trash?”

You may never realize the damage you have wrought. But as we wrote to you before: when you come to a gate in the road, stop and ponder why it was placed there in the first place before you remove it.

Arizona, and America, need a strong marriage culture. It can’t be strengthened by redefining it, as you did. Nor can you lightly brush off the disenfranchising of 1.2 million Arizonans who enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment with good intentions and for good reason.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

The Arizona Conservative

Does Abuse Contribute to the Development of Same-Sex Attraction?

You won’t get the following scientific information from the left-stream media or the government schools. They are purposely withholding the truth about same-sex attraction. To be fully informed about the truth, please read below:

Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday. People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the ‘non-exclusively heterosexual” groups. Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.  Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behavior.”

http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/117336/sexual-orientation-link-past-study

Several studies have demonstrated that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual women to report childhood abuse and adult sexual assault. It is unknown, however, which sexual minority women are most likely to experience such abuse. We recruited adult sexual minority women living in the US through electronic fliers sent to listservs and website groups inviting them to complete an online survey (N=1,243). We examined differences in both childhood abuse and adult sexual assault by women’s current gender identity (i.e., butch, femme, androgynous, or other) and a continuous measure of gender expression (from butch/masculine to femme/feminine), adjusting for sexual orientation identity, age, education, and income. Results indicated that a more butch/masculine current self-assessment of gender expression, but not gender identity, was associated with more overall reported childhood trauma. Although one aspect of gender expression, a more butch/masculine gender role, was associated with adult sexual assault, feminine appearance and a femme gender identity also significantly predicted adult sexual assault. These findings highlight the significance of gender identity and expression in identifying women at greater risk for various abuse experiences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758810/

43 percent of males with same sex attraction reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of males with opposite sex attraction.

Source: Manosevitz, “Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males,” Journal of abnormal psychology, 76 (1970), 396-402.

A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became same sex attracted, versus opposite sex attracted.

Source: Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, Sexual preference: Its development in men and women (1981). 7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.

Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became same sex attracted suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse did not.

Source: Sheir and Johnson, Sexual victimization of boys:… (1988) pp. 1189-93

“This report describes the high prevalence and context of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) among men who have sex with men (MSM) across 3 independent qualitative studies.” ‘Childhood sexual abuse in men who have sex with men: results from three qualitative studies.’”

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY…2008 Oct;14(4):385-90.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954175

One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner. They are only 2-3% of the entire population. And the median age of first contact was as young as 10 years old!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1486514

The Archives of Sexual Behavior: “One of the most salient findings was that 46% of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. 22% of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”

(Marie, E. Tomeo “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons.” Source:Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

..homosexual attraction was greater in pedophiles than in other adults involved with sexual crimes with nearly a 2:1 difference.”

‘Review of 554 Medical Reports on Pedophilia’

Dr. John Hughes D.M.,M.D.,PhD., Medline Clinical Pediatrics: (See here & here).

A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: “More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years.”

Source: Harry W. Haverkos, et al., “The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1737828/

A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:”In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged ‘very often’ in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred ‘sometimes.’”

Source: Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, “Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.

A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people who experienced no victimization as children.”

Source: Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”

Source: Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): pg. 582.

The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that “there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim.”

Source: Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995). p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

Some homosexual activists have argued that sexual abuse shows no causal effects for lesbianism. Feel free to dig around on this point. You will find that is probable that self-identified lesbians have been participants in the samples of these studies, but they rarely have been studied separately from their heterosexual counterparts ( Source: Baker, 2003. Lesbian survivors of childhood sexual abuse: Community, identity, and resilience. Canadian Journal of Community, 22, 31-45).

So the reality is that there hasn’t really been a big effort to study a link between child sex abuse and lesbianism, but it looks like some have more recently…

“Using survey data from 63,028 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study II, we investigated sexual orientation group differences in emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence, lesbian (30%, prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40, 1.84) and bisexual (24%, PR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00, 1.60) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (19%). Similarly, comparing sexual abuse victimization occurring in both age periods, lesbian (19%, PR 2.16, 95% CI 1.80, 2.60) and bisexual (20%, PR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76, 2.98) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (9%).” (2008 May;17)

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447763/

“…lesbians reported a greater incidence than their sisters of childhood physical and sexual abuse, as well as adult sexual abuse.” ‘Sexual and physical abuse: a comparison between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters’”

University of California, Davis, Davis, California, 2009;56(4):407-20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418332

“Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013) presented evidence that childhood maltreatment is related to adult homosexuality, using an instrumental variables regression analysis. Briefly, several instrumental variables—presence of a stepparent, poverty, parental alcohol abuse, and parental mental illness—were related to adult homosexuality, but these relations were statistically mediated by childhood maltreatment. Roberts et al. concluded that childhood maltreatment causes adult homosexuality.”
 

And more independent data found within this link:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/

California’s Embryonic Stem Cell Research a Complete Failure

Investors Business Daily reports what we all knew 10 years ago when Californians foolishly passed an amendment for unproven, unreliable destructive embryonic stem cell research, which treats human life like a mere commodity …

Stand for Life

IMG_0344

Arizona Abortionist Distressed about Having to Adhere to Safety Regulations

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

If there’s one thing you read this week, it has to be this article in the Washington Post from a Phoenix area abortion doctor.

Gabrielle Goodrick has run a private abortion clinic in the Valley since 1999. She penned this article for the Washington Post to explain what it’s been like as the state has passed a number of regulations on the abortion industry.

CAP supported and even drafted these laws to ensure abortion clinics were held to common sense health and safety standards, and were providing women with all the information women deserve on pregnancy and abortion. The laws passed because Arizona citizens rose up and elected pro-life legislators to pass the laws and a Governor – Jan Brewer – to sign the laws.

For the pro-life community, Goodrick’s article is both encouraging and deeply disturbing.

What I find encouraging is that CAP-supported laws are having an impact.

In the article, Goodrick recounts what it was like for her performing abortions in Arizona prior to our state passing these pro-life laws:

“…One of my family practice patients had an unplanned pregnancy. I told her, ‘if you want to come back in two days, we can do it, like any other medical thing.’ So she went home, we did a couple of consent forms, and that was it. Then I started getting referrals.

Literally I needed a pulse oximeter to monitor their vitals, a vacuum machine and staff and a recovery room, and the knowledge and skills to do it.

That could never happen now. You have to be a licensed abortion clinic, and have inspections, and all kinds of things that didn’t exist in the year 2000.”

It’s untenable that clinics like Goodrick’s didn’t have to be inspected or licensed before performing abortions. Yet thankfully today, they are held to these basic standards.

What is also good to see is that because of common sense laws like these, clinics are shutting down. Goodrick writes:

“Even in the last 4 years, we’ve lost a lot of clinics. There’s 3 Planned Parenthood locations that do medical abortions and surgery. But really in terms of private clinics there are maybe 4 or 5. Texas has a lot of press, but we have no rural providers at all.”

But as I said, there are aspects of Goodrick’s piece that are deeply upsetting.

Throughout the piece, there is an overall sense of how casually Goodrick approaches the issue, that this is a procedure that is just a “medical thing,” instead of a life-altering (and ending) decision. 

It’s this casual view of abortion that leads to more than 13,000 abortions per year in Arizona.

January 22 is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v Wade – the U.S. Supreme Court Case that legalized abortion in America. Goodrick’s article and these 13,000 lost lives are a reminder of what we’re facing, how far we’ve come, and what we still need to get done.

This week, take time to re-assess how you can make a difference in the fight to build a culture of life that protects both preborn children and their parents. Consider helping out your local pregnancy resource center. Pray for those working in the abortion industry. Send a note to your elected officials encouraging them to support pro-life measures. 

Senator Flake: You’re Just Wrong

Senator John McCain’s surrogate, Senator Jeff Flake, says opponents of Obama’s Cuba normalization “are just plain wrong.”

But here’s the truth: Senator Flake, you’re just wrong about a lot of things.

You’re wrong about Cuba, and you’ve used this topic to deflect your constituents’ attention away from your support for amnesty.

You’re just plain wrong on the need for amnesty.

You’re also wrong on your support for ENDA — the crown piece of legislation coveted by the radical, left, homosexual lobby. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will force churches and others to employ people who disagree with their belief systems, under excessive punishment. It is intended to directly attack and undermine religious freedom in America.

Gee, Senator Flake, you sure agree with our hard-Left president a lot. In fact, the difference between your positions and those of Barack Obama are getting less and less distinguishable as time goes by.