State Conservative Leaders: ‘Chilling’ to Watch Republicans Betray Sanctity of Life

State Representative Warren Petersen (Republican-Legislative District 12) posted the following remarks on the passage of the abortion-tainted Medicaid expansion on his Facebook page:

Chilling to witness a handful of Republicans oppose a pro-life amendment on the floor because they think expanding Obamacare is more important.

Long-time conservative leader State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, also of LD12,  also criticized what happened, via his Facebook entry yesterday:

1:30 in the morning and a coalition of 9 Republicans have joined with the Democrats to roll Republican leadership, the Republican caucus and bypass the committee process to bring a budget directly to the floor of the House. With the exception of Doris Goodale, not a single one would answer any questions on a budget that expands Obamacare, unconstitutionally delegates taxing and appropriation authority to the Executive and has a nearly half billion dollar structural deficit. The Governors destructive machinations and policies of tonight cannot be over stated.

The next step is to get out there, folks, and qualify a proposition for the state ballot to stop what some are now calling “OBrewerCare.” Gov. Brewer had been opposing ObamaCare until last winter when she basically said, “It’s legal. Let’s grab the money.”

So alarming was her about-face that National Review strongly editorialized against her betrayal of the pro-life movement.

Also through Facebook, State Rep. Debbie Lesko is equally appalled by the cabal of the governor/RINOs/Democrats:

Governor Brewer worked with all the House Democrats and House Republican Representatives Pratt, Carter, Brophy-McGee, Orr, Robson, Dial, Shope, Coleman, and possibly Goodale to pass a Democrat budget and were ready to take out the Senate President and House Speaker if needed. I couldn’t believe my eyes!!!

Center for Arizona Policy Looking Ahead

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

After a disappointing end to what’s been one of the most challenging legislative sessions in memory, the CAP team and I are looking forward to the future and what’s next for our state. Long ago, I learned the best response to a disappointing legislative session is to simply turn your attention to the future, seeking God’s guidance for what’s next.

And, I always go back to my favorite Proverb: “the horse is prepared for the day of battle, but victory belongs to the Lord.” We were prepared this session. Thanks be to God for the victories we’ve had. We’re not going away; we’ll begin preparations for next year’s session in the next few weeks — after we get some sleep!

Before we close the book on this legislative session, there are a few updates you should know:

The legislature passed Medicaid expansion this week without including any amendments to prevent further taxpayer funding of abortion under the expansion. As I tweeted after the House rejected the amendments, the pro-life legislature refused to address the pro-life issues raised by Medicaid expansion. It’s unheard of to abandon one’s pro-life commitment this way In the coming days, we will be releasing our voting records so you can see how your representatives voted on this issue.

I want to thank all of you who responded to our Action Alert regarding SB 1069, which would have allowed for unannounced, warrantless inspections at abortion clinics. The bill also included provisions to address the pro-life Medicaid expansion concerns. Sadly, this too failed to pass. The fight to pass this important legislation is far from over. Arizona’s women and preborn children deserve better than the abortion industry’s sub-standard care, and CAP is determined to see unannounced inspections signed into law. Just like informed consent, parental consent, and a number of other pro-life provisions that are now law, passing important legislation is not easy and often takes years to get done.

Look for a full legislative recap in the days ahead, along with CAP’s Family Issues Voting Record.

But now that session is done, we can turn our attention to a busy summer ahead, including: Sometime in the next two weeks, the United States Supreme Court will release its decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Be sure to follow me on twitter or like the CAP Facebook page to see the latest updates on these decisions, along with analysis once the decisions are released. There are many city elections coming up in August that CAP will be surveying and reporting on at azvoterguide.com. Look for an update of our Policy Pages: A Guide to Family Issues. While this was a tough legislative session, I’m grateful for the CAP-supported legislation that was signed into law. Several bills await action by the Governor. Most of all though, I’m looking forward to where we’re going in the future, and what we can continue to accomplish by God’s grace.

News Hits

The Arizona Court of Appeals has rejected the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s lawsuit against the Arizona Day of Prayer.

Live Action has released another undercover video, this time from a New Mexico abortion clinic.

Rep. Schweikert Makes the Case against Gov. Brewer’s Abortion-Tainted Medicaid Plan

Arizonans, including Republican leaders, are dividing in a debate over whether Arizona should expand Medicaid services pursuant to the federal Affordable Care Act — alias ObamaCare.

Governor Jan Brewer and others are rallying for passage.

Cong. Trent Franks announced previously he is taking no position on the controversial issue.

The Center for Arizona Policy issued a fact sheet indicating that the expanded Medicare plan covers abortion.

And today, Cong. David Schweikert, a Scottsdale Republican, came out in opposition to the proposal. Citing the fiscal risks and structural problems with the plan, Rep. Schweikert announced his opposition to the proposal to expand Medicaid currently being debated in the Arizona Legislature:

“While I understand the desire of some of our state leaders to address uncompensated medical care, this proposal is simply too fiscally risky and should be voted down.

“Specifically, this proposal relies upon a provision of federal law that allows states to effectively double-dip when collecting the provider tax, the first time from hospitals and then again from the federal government during the reimbursement process.

“Unfortunately, this provider tax reimbursement provision is currently being eyed by members of both parties to either be eliminated or substantially reduced.  Should this happen, and there are indications that it will, Arizona taxpayers would be on the financial hook for the shortfall.

“That fact drives my opposition to this proposal. Unfortunately, this proposal is not a ‘freebie’ for Arizona taxpayers as some have claimed. It is structurally flawed and will very likely become actuarially unsound in the very near future.

“I would strongly encourage legislators considering this proposal to fully understand the financial implications of what passage would mean for our state and more importantly for Arizona taxpayers.”

This is the kind of principled leadership Arizona needs. We expect more from Cong. Franks — a solid pro-lifer — than to waffle on the fence over this abortion plan.

Cultural Rot: (Don’t) See Springer, Jerry … and ‘Baggage’

We started skipping merrily down the hill in the 1960s with The Dating Game. Witty one-liners and mini-skirts indicated there was more at play here than marriage and the baby carriage. Clever come-on lines led to the hopes of one-night stands and short-term exhilaration. So it was not surprising that the late basketball great Wilt Chamberlain – who claimed to have had sexual relations with 20,000 women – was one of the guest datees.

In the Seventies and Eighties came jiggle TV, along with Love American Style, the Love Boat (“exciting and new”), and Hotel. Adult happiness and sexual adventure were the themes. These programs were not always about being the right person and finding the right person to settle down with for nesting and family life.

Next came a temporary turn in the opposite direction with Chuck Woolery and Love Connection in the late Eighties. Chuck kept it clean and relationship oriented. The message was about finding the love of your life and making a long-term commitment.

Fast forwarding to today, we arrive at a new cultural low with Jerry Springer hosting “Baggage.” This is one small plunge for Springer and his guests, a giant cultural leap over the ledge headlong into the moral abyss for mankind. This is what cultural rot looks like in the 21st century.

The object of this seedy game is not to pick the best potential date, but to eliminate the two worst. Ladies and gentlemen of the cultural jury, I give you:

  • A woman whose baggage, among others, includes a passion for sex in public. Who knows how many partners … and diseases … she’s had? And so much for private, intimate moments at home.
  • A woman who shares her toilet with a cat. TMI! Springer said he prefers to share a litter box with his cat.
  • A man who is a member of an orgy club in Portland, and who “hates marriage and children.” In a time of greater modesty, this kind of thing would be kept secret. Now it’s a “bragging point” for the whole nation to know. And not a real good thing to normalize for children.
  • A woman who describes herself as a “seasonal bisexual.” Spring, fall, winter, or summer? Or all of the above?
  • A man who got fired for having sex on the boss’s desk. Yikes!

Get this. Springer told the left-winging Huffington Post that “Baggage” is a “family-friendly show.” Who knew! “Ward, would you please call Wally and Beaver down? Baggage is on the tube!”

So how much further can we as a culture sink? We’re not at the bottom yet, but we’re in a freefall and well on our way down.

President Says Gov’t Spying on Citizens “a Modest Encroachment on 4th Amendment Rights”

John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

Folder2 104Reports this last week that the federal government is compiling records of every phone call made in America and securing copies of every email and Internet posting stunned those who took then 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama’s promise to “end spying on citizens who are not suspected of a crime and to stop tracking those who do nothing more than protest a government policy they disagree with” seriously.

A leak from a career intelligence officer to the Washington Post broke the news on the PRISM project—a covert program to collect and mine data from a slew of Internet service providers. The source justified leaking the information “because of its gross invasion of privacy. Without a court order or ‘probable cause’ federal agents are literally reading people’s words as they type.”

President Obama insists that “the consternation over this revelation is overwrought. We’re not listening to everyone’s phone calls. We’re not reading everyone’s mail. We’re only trying to hone in on those elements that pose a danger to our government. What we’re doing is trading off a modest encroachment on Fourth Amendment rights against the goal of keeping us safe.”

“People need to take a deep breath and calm down,” Obama continued. “The notion that their government might use any of the information gathered to intimidate dissidents is too farfetched. Only those designated as potential terrorists need be concerned that we are watching. And that’s a good thing.”

Not everyone is likely to agree with the President on this. For one thing, the Department of Homeland Security has included gun owners, ex-military, anti-abortionists, and tax protesters as “potential terrorists” worthy of extra scrutiny. For another, the IRS discriminatory harassment of groups with the words “patriot” and “TEA Party” in their names may be cause for concern.

Aiming to bolster the President’s position on this issue, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) urged that “people shouldn’t get bent out of shape over this. The spying has been going on for years and as far as we know no one has been harmed by this invasion of privacy.” Feinstein credited the program with “gathering information that helped fend off an attempt to bring down the Obama Administration last November.”

A measure of bipartisan support came from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who said he is “glad that the government is listening in on my calls and reading my emails. Sometimes I wonder whether anyone cares what I say. It is reassuring that someone in the government cares enough to spy on me. It makes me feel important.”

In related news, the FBI is demanding that all communications software build in a “backdoor” so that it may “surreptitiously intercept transmissions of interest to the Bureau.” FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman called the “backdoor” option “essential, otherwise there could be conversations we’d have no way of obtaining. All kinds of plots and schemes against the government could be hatched without us being any the wiser.”

Miss World Pageant Announces Wardrobe Change

This year for the first time the contestants in the annual Miss World Pageant in Jakarta, Indonesia will face off in burkas rather than the more familiar bikinis. The move was prompted by protests lodged against “the despicable parading of the devil’s whores that has characterized previous Pageants.”

Adjie Soeratmadjie, one of the Pageant’s local organizers said “it’s simply a safety precaution. The new garb deviates from the traditional attire, but it was either that or face the risk of the contest being the target of a suicide bomb attack. We think the participants would prefer bucking tradition to being blown to bits.”

Whether the “compromise” selected by the Pageant’s organizers will be sufficient to ward off a violent reaction is uncertain. Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, a hardline Islamic group, demands that the Pageant be canceled. “The very idea that women should compete for recognition in any fashion is against Allah’s will,” declared Ata Abu Rashta. “Allah has created these creatures to service men. They must be quiet and obedient until called upon to perform this service. Once we have installed a worldwide observance of sharia law blasphemous foolery like this will be strictly forbidden.”

In related news, in order to avoid offending Muslims, Britain’s public schools are dropping the history of the holocaust from its curriculum. Education Secretary Michael Gove explained “to many Muslims, Jews are seen as the source of the world’s evils. Consequently, Hitler’s efforts to exterminate them are seen as heroic. Rather than attempt to balance this alternate perspective with what is considered the mainstream view we thought it best just to drop the subject.”

Weiner Rebuffs Contention that Sexting Scandal Disqualifies Him

Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner rebuffed the contention that his sending of lewd photos of himself to under-aged girls ought to disqualify him from becoming Mayor of New York City. Challenged by the assertion that a public school teacher who behaved similarly would be barred from continuing his profession, Weiner argued that the comparison was inapt.

“The
same line of reasoning would’ve also insisted that President Clinton wasn’t fit for office because he dallied with an intern in the Oval Office,” Weiner said in his defense. “Should the country have been deprived of a great leader just because he fell short of the moral standards we would apply to a teacher? Likewise, should the people of New York City be denied the opportunity to elect a great leader because I fell short?”

Weiner pointed out that “unlike a teacher, a mayor isn’t charged with tending to children. My opportunity to prey upon youngsters would be severely limited. So, I think electing me would be worth the risk. To shunt me aside because of one lapse in judgment would deny the citizens of the City a chance to benefit from my extraordinary gifts for governing them.”

Disrespect for Police on the Rise

In California a truck driver refused to sign a traffic ticket before reading it. California Highway Patrol cops were forced to severely beat him. The charges cited in the ticket were eventually dropped. A spokesman for CHP said “incidents like this could be avoided if people would simply comply with the orders given to them by police.”

In Federal Way, Washington police beat Megan Graham, a hearing-impaired woman, for disobeying a verbal order to get back in her car. The woman called 911 to report she was being assaulted. Another police officer arrived and punched the woman several times in the face.  Eventually, Graham was knocked to the ground,  hand-cuffed, and taken to police headquarters where she was charged with “resisting arrest.” No grounds for the initial police stop were stated. Federal Way Chief of Police, Robert Outlaw blamed Graham for “bringing it on herself. Her notion that it is up to the police to explain why they are stopping her rather than her just complying with the orders she was given is the root cause of the confrontation.”

In New York the State Senate passed a bill that would make annoying a policeman a felony. State Senator Joseph Griffo (R-Rome) said “Police cannot do their jobs if everyone is going to dispute their authority. We hope that by making it a felony to annoy an officer those accosted by the police will learn that the easiest path for them is to just do as they are told. If there are any legitimate beefs to be dealt with they can be taken up later by the lawyers.”

IRS Misses Document Deadline

Under investigation for its discriminatory treatment of conservative organizations, the IRS was asked by the Senate Finance Committee to turn over documents related to the case and given a May 31 deadline to meet. The IRS has failed to meet the deadline.

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel explained that “the IRS doesn’t respond to deadlines. We issue them.” Werfel said “the agency is working on a detailed list of questions that the Senators will be asked to answer before we can even consider their request for information from us.”

Werfel hastened to remind the Senators that “their office doesn’t make them immune to audit or other enforcement activities should that appear necessary to us.”

Democrat Blames TEA Party for IRS Scandal

Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA) blames the TEA Party and similar conservative-oriented groups for the IRS scandal, saying “they wouldn’t have been targeted if they weren’t opposed to the President’s reform agenda.  If they were playing or trying to play a constructive role in the transformation of this country they wouldn’t have been singled out by the IRS for intimidation. So, in a way, it’s their own fault.”

McDermott suggested that “if these people genuinely want to help make America better they’ll get on board with the push for social justice. In less than a year the Affordable Care Act goes fully into effect. This complex program will be a major jolt to a lot of people. They could try to help ease the transition.”

“If that’s not the right politics for them surely they could help get people engaged with the First Lady’s ‘let’s get America moving’ fight against obesity,” he added. “Encouraging more exercise and eating vegetables is something everyone can support. Why don’t they do that instead of fighting this Administration?”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

Please do us a favor.  If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.

Citizens Organize to Fight Governor’s Push for Obamacare

Recently former Arizona State Senators Frank Antenori and Ron Gould formed a committee named “The United Republican Alliance of Principled Conservatives,” or URAPC. The committee was formed for the purpose of stopping Obamacare and its associated tax on hospital stays. Defeating Governor Brewer’s ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation must be referred to the ballot so it can be vetoed by the people of Arizona.

The Republican Precinct Committeemen of Arizona, united in their effort overwhelmingly passed resolutions opposing the Governors proposed expansion of Medicaid (AHCCS), a key component of Obamacare stating:

Their news release states: “The Voters of Arizona clearly expressed their will to reject implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) when they voted to amend the Arizona Constitution via Proposition 106 in 2010. The State of Arizona cannot afford to be saddled with the costs of implementing this federal program, AND the People of Arizona do not support Obamacare, assisting in the implementation of Obamacare, or subsidizing the Federal Government’s implementation Obamacare with State funds.”

The PC resolutions continued to explicitly reject hidden tax increases and new entitlement programs.

Upon hearing of these resolutions, Governor Brewer openly mocked and ridiculed precinct committeemen, small businessmen, and hard working taxpayers who voiced opposition to her efforts. As a result, they have formed an alliance to thwart the axis of corporate welfare recipients, greedy lobbyists, and rogue Republican legislators, led by the governor. This alliance is motivated and committed to having their voices heard by collecting the required signatures to send this critical decision to the voters of the great State of Arizona in hopes of carrying on with our historic independent spirit.

See the URAPC website

GOP Reaction to Increased Unemployment

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released the following statement in reaction to the May jobs report from the U.S. Department of Labor.  A net total of 175,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate for May increased to 7.6 percent from 7.5 percent in April.

 

“The fact that the unemployment rate remains this high is just more proof that this is the weakest economic recovery in our nation’s history.  And, while families are facing higher costs, many have had their pay frozen or, worse, their hours cut back.  Washington needs to focus on creating a stronger economy.  There is no one silver bullet, but two of the best things we can do is get our long-term debt under control and reform our tax code to make it more efficient and effective for families and employers.”

Sheriff Joe Temporarily Suspends Immigration Efforts

By The Associated Press

An Arizona sheriff who led the way for local police across the country to take up immigration enforcement is reconsidering his crackdowns – and other law enforcement officials who followed his lead are expected to eventually back away, too.

Joe Arpaio, the sheriff for metropolitan Phoenix, has temporarily suspended all his immigration efforts after a federal judge concluded two weeks ago that the sheriff’s office had racially profiled Latinos in its patrols, Arpaio spokesman Brandon Jones told The Associated Press.

Arpaio critics, including the federal government, are gaining ground in their fight to get the sheriff out of immigration enforcement. Even before the ruling, Washington had stripped Arpaio’s office of its special federal immigration arrest powers and started to phase out the program across the country amid complaints that it led to abuses by local officers. The Arpaio ruling is expected to impact state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, where local officers question people’s immigration status in certain instances.

The national mood on immigration also has changed dramatically. Fewer states are seeking their own immigration laws, and proponents for Congress to overhaul the nation’s immigration system have public opinion on their side.

Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law, said the May 24 ruling marks a big blow for Arpaio and the movement for more local immigration enforcement. “It’s a cautionary tale for any other would-be Joe Arpaios out there,” Spiro said. “This is an example that others can hardly afford to ignore.”

The temporary suspension of Arpaio’s immigration enforcement efforts marked the first pause since the lawman launched his crackdowns more than seven years ago and made combatting the nation’s border woes a central part of his political identity.

His immigration work will remain on hold until at least June 14, when lawyers will attend a hearing and discuss possible remedies to the constitutional violations found by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow. It’s not known whether Arpaio will resume immigration enforcement after the hearing. The ruling doesn’t altogether bar Arpaio from enforcing the state’s immigration laws, but imposes a long list of restrictions on his immigration patrols, such as a prohibition on using race as a factor in deciding whether to stop a vehicle with a Latino occupant.

The sheriff won’t face jail time or fines as a result of the ruling. But lawyers opposing the sheriff are expected to seek more training for officers, better record-keeping of arrests and a court-appointed official to monitor the agency’s operations to make sure the sheriff’s office isn’t making unconstitutional arrests.

“We are out of the immigration business until that hearing,” Jones said. “Until that hearing, better safe than sorry.”

After Arpaio lost his federal immigration arrest powers in October 2009, he cited state immigration laws as he continued to carry out enforcement efforts.

It has been almost two years since Arpaio conducted his last signature sweep, in which deputies flood an area of a city – in some cases, heavily Latino areas – over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Even so, he continued enforcing Arizona’s immigrant smuggling law and another state law that bans employers from hiring immigrants living in the country without permission. The sheriff’s office put both enforcement approaches on hold after Snow’s ruling.

Cecillia Wang, a lawyer who pressed the profiling case on behalf of a group of Latinos and the leader of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project, said the Arizona sheriff isn’t the only local official that has violated the rights of Latinos in immigration enforcement, but he’s the most vocal about it. “There are other agencies out there that have been doing similar things more quietly,” Wang said.

The ACLU pointed to several counties in North Carolina, for instance. The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit in December alleging that Alamance County Sheriff Terry S. Johnson and his deputies made unwarranted arrests with the goal of maximizing deportations. Federal authorities accuse Johnson of ordering his deputies to arrest motorists who appeared Latino – even for minor traffic infractions – while letting white drivers off with warnings. They also allege Johnson ordered special roadblocks in neighborhoods where Latinos live.

Chuck Kitchen, an attorney representing Johnson’s office, vigorously denied the allegations and said he didn’t see any similarities between the cases. “I don’t think the ruling has any effect on Alamance,” Kitchen said.

Jessica M. Vaughan, a local immigration enforcement expert for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stricter immigration laws, disputed the notion that Arpaio’s racial profiling ruling will have a chilling effect on local immigration efforts. Vaughan said the prevailing view within local agencies is that it’s their responsibility to work with the federal government on immigration. “They would be derelict in their duty if they did not,” Vaughan said.

In an interview earlier this week, Arpaio said he was surprised by Snow’s ruling, but declined to talk about the decision’s effects on his immigration enforcement. “I respect the courts, but they have a job to do. We have a job to do,” Arpaio said. “The federal justice system also gives you the opportunity to appeal.”

Tim Casey, Arpaio’s lead attorney, said the decision against Arpaio’s office is historic in the world of immigration law. “It will invariably impact individual rights and law enforcement operations throughout the United States,” Casey said. “It’s going to be cited and relied upon for many others for a long time.”

CAP’s Pro-Life Proposal

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

What an amazing rally!

Hundreds of pro-life advocates joined CAP, Live Action, and a number of state legislators yesterday as we gathered outside the Phoenix late-term abortion clinic Family Planning Associates.

As Live Action’s undercover video investigation revealed, Family Planning Associates has little regard for the health and safety of women and the preborn.

This video, coupled with the revelations from the trial of convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell, has highlighted the need for further abortion clinic regulations: namely that state and county regulators must be allowed to perform unannounced inspections at abortion clinics.

Abortion clinics are the only medical facilities in the state that are not allowed to have unannounced inspections. It is unacceptable that these facilities are treated differently than any other organization.

Senator Nancy Barto and Rep. John Kavanagh are sponsoring the CAP-supported SB 1069 to allow for unannounced inspections at abortion clinics. This bill also addresses taxpayer funding for abortion providers through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), our state version of the federal Medicaid program, by:

Clarifying that Medicaid dollars cannot be used either directly or indirectly for performing, assisting, or encouraging abortions and requiring AHCCCS to conduct audits to ensure compliance. Prohibiting abortion providers from performing abortions on AHCCCS members who have come to them previously for family planning services. Enhancing abortion-reporting requirements to include information about which abortion providers are receiving AHCCCS money. It should be clear that these steps will not completely prohibit taxpayer funds from going to abortion providers under Medicaid expansion. Also, the above provisions are not the same as those passed by the legislature last year as HB 2800, the law currently being challenged in court by Planned Parenthood and scheduled for a court hearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals next Wednesday, June 12.

SB 1069 is scheduled to be heard in the House Appropriations committee on Monday at 10:00 a.m. with floor votes anticipated next week.

We need your help to ensure this bill passes. We must carry on the momentum from the rally. The pro-life community is thriving in Arizona, and when we unite behind a cause, we can accomplish significant steps to protect life.

Read our Fact Sheet on the bill, and Respond to this Action Alert!

View pictures from the rally on CAP’s Facebook page.

Australian Study of Children with Homosexual Parents is Down Under the Line of Credibility

By Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Headlines are full of a new Australian “interim report” that studied kids with homosexual parents — one that reportedly shows “children of same-sex couples thriving.” Not surprisingly, the motivation for the research may be more political than academic. Just last year, the Australian Parliament rejected the redefinition of marriage — but the pressure from liberals is still on.

Homosexual activists around the world are desperate to counter the “gold-standard” research released last year by University of Texas sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus. His study, which surveyed upwards of 5,000 people, showed that children with a parent who had a homosexual relationship suffered serious deficits on a wide range of outcomes. (FRC’s Peter Sprigg wrote an analysis and detailed summary of the Regnerus research.) Regnerus responded to the reports out of Australia, criticizing it for its methodological weaknesses. Unlike Regnerus’s survey, the Australian authors refused to use a random sample and instead recruited participants at local gay and lesbian groups.

“Simply put,” Regnerus says, “its participants are likely very aware of the political import of the study topic, and an unknown number of them probably signed up for that very reason. As a result, I’m just not sure I trust their self-reports, which may be subject to considerable ‘social desirability bias,’ or the tendency to portray oneself on surveys as better than one actually is.”

Also, this study is not limited to kids raised by same-sex “couples” — it’s a study of “children… with at least one parent who self identifies as being same-sex attracted.” Ironically, one of the chief criticisms of Regnerus was that his subjects were not necessarily raised by same-sex couples (a point he made clear). If that limited the relevance of Regnerus’s research to the debate over the same-sex “marriage,” as critics claimed, then surely the same is true of the Australian study.