Americans For Truth » Health & Science

Table of Contents of Senate Majority Leader Reid’s Health Care Bill, HR 3590

Peterlab — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:13:34 +0000

SENATE HEALTHCARE BILL — H.R. 3590

“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

November 18, 2009

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

(The version of the Senate Bill on Senator Reid’s website does not include page numbers on the Table of Contents. This document — created by a private citizen who laboriously entered the page numbers on the attached Table of Contents — was provided by Texas education advocate Donna Warner. We apologize that the Page Numbers on the right side are not flush with the right side of the page.)

TAKE ACTION: Call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and click here to reach your U.S. Senators and Congressman: www.congress.org

Page #

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’.

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

2

TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

AMERICANS

Subtitle A—Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All 15

Americans

Sec. 1001. Amendments to the Public Health Service Act. 15

‘‘PART A—INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET REFORMS 15

‘‘SUBPART II—IMPROVING COVERAGE 16

‘‘Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits 16

‘‘Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. 16

‘‘Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. 17

‘‘Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. 18

‘‘Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage 19

documents and standardized definitions.

‘‘Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. 26

‘‘Sec. 2717. Ensuring the quality of care. 26

‘‘Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. 30

‘‘Sec. 2719. Appeals process. 33

Sec. 1002. Health insurance consumer information. 34

Sec. 1003. Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars. 37

Sec. 1004. Effective dates. 40

Subtitle B—Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage 41

Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for uninsured individuals with a preexisting 41

condition.

Sec. 1102. Reinsurance for early retirees. 48

Sec. 1103. Immediate information that allows consumers to identify affordable 54

coverage options.

Sec. 1104. Administrative simplification. 57

Sec. 1105. Effective Date 77

Subtitle C—Quality Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans 78

PART I—HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS 78

Sec. 1201. Amendment to the Public Health Service Act. 78

‘‘SUBPART I—GENERAL REFORM 78

‘‘Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums. 80

‘‘Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. 82

‘‘Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. 83

‘‘Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination 78

based on health status.

‘‘Sec. 2705. Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and 83

beneficiaries based on health status.

‘‘Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. 95

‘‘Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. 96

‘‘Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods. 97

PART II—OTHER PROVISIONS 97

Sec. 1251. Preservation of right to maintain existing coverage. 97

3

Sec. 1252. Rating reforms must apply uniformly to all health insurance issuers 99

and group health plans.

Sec. 1253. Effective dates. 99

Subtitle D—Available Coverage Choices for All Americans 100

PART I—ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS 100

Sec. 1301. Qualified health plan defined. 100

Sec. 1302. Essential health benefits requirements. 102

Sec. 1303. Special rules. 116

Sec. 1304. Related definitions. 124

PART II—CONSUMER CHOICES AND INSURANCE COMPETITION THROUGH 128

HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES

Sec. 1311. Affordable choices of health benefit plans. 128

Sec. 1312. Consumer choice. 153

Sec. 1313. Financial integrity. 160

PART III—STATE FLEXIBILITY RELATING TO EXCHANGES 164

Sec. 1321. State flexibility in operation and enforcement of Exchanges and related 164

requirements.

Sec. 1322. Federal program to assist establishment and operation of nonprofit, 168

member-run health insurance issuers.

Sec. 1323. Community health insurance option. 182

Sec. 1324. Level playing field. 200

PART IV—STATE FLEXIBILITY TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS 201

Sec. 1331. State flexibility to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals 201

not eligible for Medicaid.

Sec. 1332. Waiver for State innovation. 212

Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. 219

PART V—REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT 226

Sec. 1341. Transitional reinsurance program for individual and small group 226

markets in each State.

Sec. 1342. Establishment of risk corridors for plans in individual and small 233

group markets.

Sec. 1343. Risk adjustment. 236

Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans 238

PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS 238

SUBPART A—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS 238

Sec. 1401. Refundable tax credit providing premium assistance for coverage 238

under a qualified health plan.

Sec. 1402. Reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in qualified health 259

plans.

SUBPART B—ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 269

4

Sec. 1411. Procedures for determining eligibility for Exchange participation, 269

premium tax credits and reduced cost-sharing , and individual

responsibility exemptions.

Sec. 1412. Advance determination and payment of premium tax credits and 290

cost-sharing reductions.

Sec. 1413. Streamlining of procedures for enrollment through an exchange and 295

State Medicaid, CHIP, and health subsidy programs.

Sec. 1414. Disclosures to carry out eligibility requirements for certain programs. 302

Sec. 1415. Premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction payments disregarded 306

for Federal and Federally-assisted programs.

PART II—SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDIT 307

Sec. 1421. Credit for employee health insurance expenses of small businesses. 307

Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care 320

PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY 320

Sec. 1501. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. 320

Sec. 1502. Reporting of health insurance coverage. 340

PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES 346

Sec. 1511. Automatic enrollment for employees of large employers. 346

Sec. 1512. Employer requirement to inform employees of coverage options. 347

Sec. 1513. Shared responsibility for employers. 348

Sec. 1514. Reporting of employer health insurance coverage. 357

Sec. 1515. Offering of Exchange-participating qualified health plans through 362

cafeteria plans.

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous Provisions 364

Sec. 1551. Definitions. 364

Sec. 1552. Transparency in government. 364

Sec. 1553. Prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide. 364

Sec. 1554. Access to therapies. 366

Sec. 1555. Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs. 367

Sec. 1556. Equity for certain eligible survivors. 367

Sec. 1557. Nondiscrimination. 368

Sec. 1558. Protections for employees. 369

Sec. 1559. Oversight. 371

Sec. 1560. Rules of construction. 371

Sec. 1561. Health information technology enrollment standards and protocols. 373

Sec. 1562. Conforming amendments. 377

TITLE II—ROLE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS 396

Subtitle A—Improved Access to Medicaid 396

Sec. 2001. Medicaid coverage for the lowest income populations. 396

Sec. 2002. Income eligibility for nonelderly determined using modified gross income. 418

Sec. 2003. Requirement to offer premium assistance for employer-sponsored insurance. 427

Sec. 2004. Medicaid coverage for former foster care children. 428

Sec. 2005. Payments to territories. 430

5

Sec. 2006. Special adjustment to FMAP determination for certain States recovering 432

from a major disaster.

Sec. 2007. Medicaid Improvement Fund rescission. 436

Subtitle B—Enhanced Support for the Children’s Health Insurance Program 436

Sec. 2101. Additional federal financial participation for CHIP. 436

Sec. 2102. Technical corrections. 442

Subtitle C—Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment Simplification 445

Sec. 2201. Enrollment Simplification and coordination with State Health Insurance 445

Exchanges.

Sec. 2202. Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations 451

for all Medicaid eligible populations.

Subtitle D—Improvements to Medicaid Services 453

Sec. 2301. Coverage for freestanding birth center services. 453

Sec. 2302. Concurrent care for children. 456

Sec. 2303. State eligibility option for family planning services. 457

Sec. 2304. Clarification of definition of medical assistance. 466

Subtitle E—New Options for States to Provide Long-Term Services and

Supports 466

Sec. 2401. Community First Choice Option. 466

Sec. 2402. Removal of barriers to providing home and community-based services. 479

Sec. 2403. Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration. 488

Sec. 2404. Protection for recipients of home and community-based services 489

against spousal impoverishment.

Sec. 2405. Funding to expand State Aging and Disability Resource Centers. 490

Sec. 2406. Sense of the Senate regarding long-term care. 490

Subtitle F—Medicaid Prescription Drug Coverage 492

Sec. 2501. Prescription drug rebates. 492

Sec. 2502. Elimination of exclusion of coverage of certain drugs. 502

Sec. 2503. Providing adequate pharmacy reimbursement. 503

Subtitle G—Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments 510

Sec. 2551. Disproportionate share hospital payments. 510

Subtitle H—Improved Coordination for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries 515

Sec. 2601. 5-year period for demonstration projects. 515

Sec. 2602. Providing Federal coverage and payment coordination for dual eligible 517

beneficiaries.

Subtitle I—Improving the Quality of Medicaid for Patients and Providers 522

Sec. 2701. Adult health quality measures. 522

Sec. 2702. Payment Adjustment for Health Care-Acquired Conditions. 526

Sec. 2703. State option to provide health homes for enrollees with chronic conditions. 528

Sec. 2704. Demonstration project to evaluate integrated care around a hospitalization. 538

6

Sec. 2705. Medicaid Global Payment System Demonstration Project. 542

Sec. 2706. Pediatric Accountable Care Organization Demonstration Project. 544

Sec. 2707. Medicaid emergency psychiatric demonstration project. 547

Subtitle J—Improvements to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access 553

Commission (MACPAC)

Sec. 2801. MACPAC assessment of policies affecting all Medicaid beneficiaries. 553

Subtitle K—Protections for American Indians and Alaska Natives 565

Sec. 2901. Special rules relating to Indians. 565

Sec. 2902. Elimination of sunset for reimbursement for all medicare part B 567

services furnished by certain indian hospitals and clinics.

Subtitle L—Maternal and Child Health Services 568

Sec. 2951. Maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs. 568

Sec. 2952. Support, education, and research for postpartum depression. 595

Sec. 2953. Personal responsibility education. 604

Sec. 2954. Restoration of funding for abstinence education. 618

Sec. 2955. Inclusion of information about the importance of having a health 619

care power of attorney in transition planning for children aging

out of foster care and independent living programs.

TITLE III—IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF

HEALTH CARE 621

Subtitle A—Transforming the Health Care Delivery System 621

PART I—LINKING PAYMENT TO QUALITY OUTCOMES UNDER THE

MEDICARE PROGRAM 621

Sec. 3001. Hospital Value-Based purchasing program. 622

Sec. 3002. Improvements to the physician quality reporting system. 652

Sec. 3003. Improvements to the physician feedback program. 658

Sec. 3004. Quality reporting for long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation

hospitals, and hospice programs. 663

Sec. 3005. Quality reporting for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. 673

Sec. 3006. Plans for a Value-Based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities

and home health agencies. 676

Sec. 3007. Value-based payment modifier under the physician fee schedule. 680

Sec. 3008. Payment adjustment for conditions acquired in hospitals. 687

PART II—NATIONAL STRATEGY TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE QUALITY 692

Sec. 3011. National strategy. 692

Sec. 3012. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality. 699

Sec. 3013. Quality measure development. 702

Sec. 3014. Quality measurement. 709

Sec. 3015. Data collection; public reporting. 717

PART III—ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PATIENT CARE MODELS 723

Sec. 3021. Establishment of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

within CMS. 723

Sec. 3022. Medicare shared savings program. 739

Sec. 3023. National pilot program on payment bundling. 751

7

Sec. 3024. Independence at home demonstration program. 764

Sec. 3025. Hospital readmissions reduction program. 775

Sec. 3026. Community-Based Care Transitions Program. 789

Sec. 3027. Extension of gainsharing demonstration. 795

Subtitle B—Improving Medicare for Patients and Providers 796

PART I—ENSURING BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO PHYSICIAN CARE AND OTHER

SERVICES 796

Sec. 3101. Increase in the physician payment update. 796

Sec. 3102. Extension of the work geographic index floor and revisions to the 797

practice expense geographic adjustment under the Medicare

physician fee schedule.

Sec. 3103. Extension of exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps. 801

Sec. 3104. Extension of payment for technical component of certain physician 801

pathology services.

Sec. 3105. Extension of ambulance add-ons. 802

Sec. 3106. Extension of certain payment rules for long-term care hospital services 803

and of moratorium on the establishment of certain hospitals

and facilities.

Sec. 3107. Extension of physician fee schedule mental health add-on. 803

Sec. 3108. Permitting physician assistants to order post-Hospital extended care 803

services.

Sec. 3109. Exemption of certain pharmacies from accreditation requirements. 804

Sec. 3110. Part B special enrollment period for disabled TRICARE beneficiaries. 808

Sec. 3111. Payment for bone density tests. 810

Sec. 3112. Revision to the Medicare Improvement Fund. 813

Sec. 3113. Treatment of certain complex diagnostic laboratory tests. 813

Sec. 3114. Improved access for certified nurse-midwife services. 816

PART II—RURAL PROTECTIONS 817

Sec. 3121. Extension of outpatient hold harmless provision. 817

Sec. 3122. Extension of Medicare reasonable costs payments for certain clinical 818

diagnostic laboratory tests furnished to hospital patients in certain

rural areas.

Sec. 3123. Extension of the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program. 818

Sec. 3124. Extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program. 821

Sec. 3125. Temporary improvements to the Medicare inpatient hospital payment 822

adjustment for low-volume hospitals.

Sec. 3126. Improvements to the demonstration project on community health integration 824

models in certain rural counties.

Sec. 3127. MedPAC study on adequacy of Medicare payments for health care 825

providers serving in rural areas.

Sec. 3128. Technical correction related to critical access hospital services. 826

Sec. 3129. Extension of and revisions to Medicare rural hospital flexibility program. 826

PART III—IMPROVING PAYMENT ACCURACY 828

Sec. 3131. Payment adjustments for home health care. 828

Sec. 3132. Hospice reform. 836

Sec. 3133. Improvement to medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) 842

payments.

8

Sec. 3134. Misvalued codes under the physician fee schedule. 846

Sec. 3135. Modification of equipment utilization factor for advanced imaging 852

services.

Sec. 3136. Revision of payment for power-driven wheelchairs. 857

Sec. 3137. Hospital wage index improvement. 858

Sec. 3138. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals. 861

Sec. 3139. Payment for biosimilar biological products. 863

Sec. 3140. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration program. 865

Sec. 3141. Application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the calculation 867

of the Medicare hospital wage index floor.

Sec. 3142. HHS study on urban Medicare-dependent hospitals. 867

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Part C 869

Sec. 3201. Medicare Advantage payment. 869

Sec. 3202. Benefit protection and simplification. 903

Sec. 3203. Application of coding intensity adjustment during MA payment 908

transition.

Sec. 3204. Simplification of annual beneficiary election periods. 909

Sec. 3205. Extension for specialized MA plans for special needs individuals. 911

Sec. 3206. Extension of reasonable cost contracts. 918

Sec. 3207. Technical correction to MA private fee-for-service plans. 918

Sec. 3208. Making senior housing facility demonstration permanent. 919

Sec. 3209. Authority to deny plan bids. 920

Sec. 3210. Development of new standards for certain Medigap plans. 921

Subtitle D—Medicare Part D Improvements for Prescription Drug

Plans and MA–PD Plans 923

Sec. 3301. Medicare coverage gap discount program. 923

Sec. 3302. Improvement in determination of Medicare part D low-income 943

benchmark premium.

Sec. 3303. Voluntary de minimis policy for subsidy eligible individuals under 943

prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3304. Special rule for widows and widowers regarding eligibility for low income 945

assistance.

Sec. 3305. Improved information for subsidy eligible individuals reassigned to 946

prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3306. Funding outreach and assistance for low-income programs. 947

Sec. 3307. Improving formulary requirements for prescription drug plans and 950

MA–PD plans with respect to certain categories or classes of drugs.

Sec. 3308. Reducing part D premium subsidy for high-income beneficiaries. 952

Sec. 3309. Elimination of cost sharing for certain dual eligible individuals. 961

Sec. 3310. Reducing wasteful dispensing of outpatient prescription drugs in 962

long-term care facilities under prescription drug plans and

MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3311. Improved Medicare prescription drug plan and MA–PD plan complaint 963

system.

Sec. 3312. Uniform exceptions and appeals process for prescription drug plans 964

and MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3313. Office of the Inspector General studies and reports. 965

Sec. 3314. Including costs incurred by AIDS drug assistance programs and Indian 970

Health Service in providing prescription drugs toward the

annual out-of-pocket threshold under part D.

Sec. 3315. Immediate reduction in coverage gap in 2010. 972

9

Subtitle E—Ensuring Medicare Sustainability 974

Sec. 3401. Revision of certain market basket updates and incorporation of productivity 974

improvements into market basket updates that do not

already incorporate such improvements.

Sec. 3402. Temporary adjustment to the calculation of part B premiums. 999

Sec. 3403. Independent Medicare Advisory Board. 1,000

Subtitle F—Health Care Quality Improvements 1,053

Sec. 3501. Health care delivery system research; Quality improvement technical 1,053

assistance.

Sec. 3502. Establishing community health teams to support the patient-centered 1,067

medical home.

Sec. 3503. Medication management services in treatment of chronic disease. 1,075

Sec. 3504. Design and implementation of regionalized systems for emergency 1,081

care.

Sec. 3505. Trauma care centers and service availability. 1,091

Sec. 3506. Program to facilitate shared decision making. 1,105

Sec. 3507. Presentation of prescription drug benefit and risk information. 1,113

Sec. 3508. Demonstration program to integrate quality improvement and patient 1,115

safety training into clinical education of health professionals.

Sec. 3509. Improving women’s health. 1,118

Sec. 3510. Patient navigator program. 1,132

Sec. 3511. Authorization of appropriations. 1,133

TITLE IV—PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASE AND IMPROVING 1,134

PUBLIC HEALTH

Subtitle A—Modernizing Disease Prevention and Public Health Systems 1,134

Sec. 4001. National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council. 1,134

Sec. 4002. Prevention and Public Health Fund. 1,141

Sec. 4003. Clinical and community preventive services. 1,142

Sec. 4004. Education and outreach campaign regarding preventive benefits. 1,150

Subtitle B—Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services 1,156

Sec. 4101. School-based health centers. 1,156

Sec. 4102. Oral healthcare prevention activities. 1,167

Sec. 4103. Medicare coverage of annual wellness visit providing a personalized 1,174

prevention plan.

Sec. 4104. Removal of barriers to preventive services in Medicare. 1,184

Sec. 4105. Evidence-based coverage of preventive services in Medicare. 1,189

Sec. 4106. Improving access to preventive services for eligible adults in Medicaid. 1,190

Sec. 4107. Coverage of comprehensive tobacco cessation services for pregnant 1,192

women in Medicaid.

Sec. 4108. Incentives for prevention of chronic diseases in Medicaid. 1,195

Subtitle C—Creating Healthier Communities 1,203

Sec. 4201. Community transformation grants. 1,203

Sec. 4202. Healthy aging, living well; evaluation of community-based prevention 1,209

and wellness programs for Medicare beneficiaries.

10

Sec. 4203. Removing barriers and improving access to wellness for individuals 1,220

with disabilities.

Sec. 4204. Immunizations. 1,221

Sec. 4205. Nutrition labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants. 1,228

Sec. 4206. Demonstration project concerning individualized wellness plan. 1,237

Sec. 4207. Reasonable break time for nursing mothers. 1,239

Subtitle D—Support for Prevention and Public Health Innovation 1,240

Sec. 4301. Research on optimizing the delivery of public health services. 1,240

Sec. 4302. Understanding health disparities: data collection and analysis. 1,241

Sec. 4303. CDC and employer-based wellness programs. 1,252

Sec. 4304. Epidemiology-Laboratory Capacity Grants. 1,255

Sec. 4305. Advancing research and treatment for pain care management. 1,257

Sec. 4306. Funding for Childhood Obesity Demonstration Project. 1,265

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Provisions 1,265

Sec. 4401. Sense of the Senate concerning CBO scoring. 1,265

Sec. 4402. Effectiveness of Federal health and wellness initiatives. 1,265

TITLE V—HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE 1,266

Subtitle A—Purpose and Definitions 1,266

Sec. 5001. Purpose. 1,266

Sec. 5002. Definitions. 1,267

Subtitle B—Innovations in the Health Care Workforce 1,278

Sec. 5101. National health care workforce commission. 1,278

Sec. 5102. State health care workforce development grants. 1,297

Sec. 5103. Health care workforce assessment. 1,309

Subtitle C—Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce 1,316

Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. 1,316

Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. 1,318

Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. 1,319

Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. 1,324

Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. 1,329

Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. 1,331

Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. 1,333

Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. 1,334

Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned Corps. 1,336

Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps. 1,336

Subtitle D—Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training 1,339

Sec. 5301. Training in family medicine, general internal medicine,

general pediatrics, and physician assistantship. 1,339

Sec. 5302. Training opportunities for direct care workers. 1,346

Sec. 5303. Training in general, pediatric, and public health dentistry. 1,349

Sec. 5304. Alternative dental health care providers demonstration project. 1,355

Sec. 5305. Geriatric education and training; career awards;

comprehensive geriatric education. 1,359

Sec. 5306. Mental and behavioral health education and training grants. 1,368

11

Sec. 5307. Cultural competency, prevention, and public health and individuals 1,374

with disabilities training.

Sec. 5308. Advanced nursing education grants. 1,377

Sec. 5309. Nurse education, practice, and retention grants. 1,378

Sec. 5310. Loan repayment and scholarship program. 1,382

Sec. 5311. Nurse faculty loan program. 1,384

Sec. 5312. Authorization of appropriations for parts B through D of Title VIII. 1,389

Sec. 5313. Grants to promote the community health workforce. 1,389

Sec. 5314. Fellowship training in public health. 1,395

Sec. 5315. United States Public Health Sciences Track. 1,397

Subtitle E—Supporting the Existing Health Care Workforce 1,411

Sec. 5401. Centers of excellence. 1,411

Sec. 5402. Health care professionals training for diversity. 1,416

Sec. 5403. Interdisciplinary, community-based linkages. 1,417

Sec. 5404. Workforce diversity grants. 1,430

Sec. 5405. Primary care extension program. 1,431

Subtitle F—Strengthening Primary Care and Other Workforce Improvements 1,440

Sec. 5501. Expanding access to primary care services and general surgery services. 1,440

Sec. 5502. Medicare Federally qualified health center improvements. 1,446

Sec. 5503. Distribution of additional residency positions. 1,449

Sec. 5504. Counting resident time in outpatient settings and allowing flexibility 1,458

for jointly operated residency training programs.

Sec. 5505. Rules for counting resident time for didactic and scholarly activities 1,461

and other activities.

Sec. 5506. Preservation of resident cap positions from closed hospitals. 1,465

Sec. 5507. Demonstration projects To address health professions workforce 1,469

needs; extension of family-to-family health information centers.

Sec. 5508. Increasing teaching capacity. 1,485

Sec. 5509. Graduate nurse education demonstration. 1,500

Subtitle G—Improving Access to Health Care Services 1,508

Sec. 5601. Spending for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). 1,508

Sec. 5602. Negotiated rulemaking for development of methodology and criteria 1,510

for designating medically underserved populations and health

professions shortage areas.

Sec. 5603. Reauthorization of the Wakefield Emergency Medical Services for 1,514

Children Program.

Sec. 5604. Co-locating primary and specialty care in community-based mental 1,515

health settings.

Sec. 5605. Key National indicators. 1,518

Subtitle H—General Provisions 1,528

Sec. 5701. Reports. 1,528

TITLE VI—TRANSPARENCY AND PROGRAM INTEGRITY 1,529

Subtitle A—Physician Ownership and Other Transparency 1,529

Sec. 6001. Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition

on certain physician referrals for hospitals. 1,529

12

Sec. 6002. Transparency reports and reporting of physician 1,542

ownership or investment interests.

Sec. 6003. Disclosure requirements for in-office ancillary services exception to 1,564

the prohibition on physician self-referral for certain imaging services.

Sec. 6004. Prescription drug sample transparency. 1,564

Sec. 6005. Pharmacy benefit managers transparency requirements. 1,567

Subtitle B—Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement 1,571

PART I—IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION 1,571

Sec. 6101. Required disclosure of ownership and additional disclosable parties 1,571

information.

Sec. 6102. Accountability requirements for skilled nursing facilities and nursing 1,579

facilities.

Sec. 6103. Nursing home compare Medicare website. 1,585

Sec. 6104. Reporting of expenditures. 1,603

Sec. 6105. Standardized complaint form. 1,605

Sec. 6106. Ensuring staffing accountability. 1,607

Sec. 6107. GAO study and report on Five-Star Quality Rating System. 1,609

PART II—TARGETING ENFORCEMENT 1610

Sec. 6111. Civil money penalties. 1,610

Sec. 6112. National independent monitor demonstration project. 1,619

Sec. 6113. Notification of facility closure. 1,625

Sec. 6114. National demonstration projects on culture change and use of information 1,628

technology in nursing homes.

PART III—IMPROVING STAFF TRAINING 1,630

Sec. 6121. Dementia and abuse prevention training. 1,630

Subtitle C—Nationwide Program for National and State Background Checks 1,632

on Direct Patient Access Employees of Long-term Care Facilities and Providers

Sec. 6201. Nationwide program for National and State background checks on 1,632

direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and

providers.

Subtitle D—Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1,648

Sec. 6301. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 1,648

Sec. 6302. Federal coordinating council for comparative effectiveness research. 1,702

Subtitle E—Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Program Integrity Provisions 1,703

Sec. 6401. Provider screening and other enrollment requirements under Medicare, 1,703

Medicaid, and CHIP.

Sec. 6402. Enhanced Medicare and Medicaid program integrity provisions. 1,720

Sec. 6403. Elimination of duplication between the Healthcare Integrity and 1,747

Protection Data Bank and the National Practitioner Data

Bank.

Sec. 6404. Maximum period for submission of Medicare claims reduced to not 1,760

more than 12 months.

13

Sec. 6405. Physicians who order items or services required to be Medicare enrolled 1,762

physicians or eligible professionals.

Sec. 6406. Requirement for physicians to provide documentation on referrals to 1,764

programs at high risk of waste and abuse.

Sec. 6407. Face to face encounter with patient required before physicians may 1,765

certify eligibility for home health services or durable medical

equipment under Medicare.

Sec. 6408. Enhanced penalties. 1,768

Sec. 6409. Medicare self-referral disclosure protocol. 1,773

Sec. 6410. Adjustments to the Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, 1,775

orthotics, and supplies competitive acquisition program.

Sec. 6411. Expansion of the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program. 1,777

Subtitle F—Additional Medicaid Program Integrity Provisions 1,778

Sec. 6501. Termination of provider participation under Medicaid if terminated 1,783

under Medicare or other State plan.

Sec. 6502. Medicaid exclusion from participation relating to certain ownership, 1,783

control, and management affiliations.

Sec. 6503. Billing agents, clearinghouses, or other alternate payees required to 1,784

Sec. 6504. Requirement to report expanded set of data elements under MMIS 1,785

to detect fraud and abuse.

Sec. 6505. Prohibition on payments to institutions or entities located outside of 1,786

the United States.

Sec. 6506. Overpayments. 1,786

Sec. 6507. Mandatory State use of national correct coding initiative. 1,788

Sec. 6508. General effective date. 1,790

Subtitle G—Additional Program Integrity Provisions 1,791

Sec. 6601. Prohibition on false statements and representations. 1,791

Sec. 6602. Clarifying definition. 1,793

Sec. 6603. Development of model uniform report form. 1,793

Sec. 6604. Applicability of State law to combat fraud and abuse. 1,794

Sec. 6605. Enabling the Department of Labor to issue administrative summary 1,795

cease and desist orders and summary seizures orders against

plans that are in financially hazardous condition.

Sec. 6606. MEWA plan registration with Department of Labor. 1,797

Sec. 6607. Permitting evidentiary privilege and confidential communications. 1,797

Subtitle H—Elder Justice Act 1,798

Sec. 6701. Short title of subtitle. 1,798

Sec. 6702. Definitions. 1,799

Sec. 6703. Elder Justice. 1,799

Subtitle I—Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice 1,858

Sec. 6801. Sense of the Senate regarding medical malpractice. 1,858

TITLE VII—IMPROVING ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE MEDICAL 1,859

THERAPIES

Subtitle A—Biologics Price Competition and Innovation 1,859

Sec. 7001. Short title. 1,859

Sec. 7002. Approval pathway for biosimilar biological products. 1,859

14

Sec. 7003. Savings. 1,906

Subtitle B—More Affordable Medicines for Children and Underserved 1,906

Communities

Sec. 7101. Expanded participation in 340B program. 1,906

Sec. 7102. Improvements to 340B program integrity. 1,913

Sec. 7103. GAO study to make recommendations on improving the 340B program. 1,924

TITLE VIII—CLASS ACT 1,925

Sec. 8001. Short title of title. 1,925

Sec. 8002. Establishment of national voluntary insurance program for purchasing 1,925

community living assistance services and support.

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS 1,979

Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions 1,979

Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. 1,979

Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2. 1,996

Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin. 1,997

Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer 1,998

MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.

Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria 1,999

plans.

Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements. 1,999

Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals. 2,001

Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical 2,010

manufacturers and importers.

Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers. 2,020

Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers. 2,026

Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care. 2,033

Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D 2,034

subsidy.

Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses. 2,034

Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance 2,035

providers.

Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers. 2,040

Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations. 2,044

Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures. 2,045

Subtitle B—Other Provisions 2,047

Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments. 2,047

Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses. 2,050

Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit 2,057

(Note – Page 2074 is the last page of the document.)

(11/19/09)

_____________________________

Text of HR 3590: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Who Needs ‘Gay’ Newspapers When You’ve Got the Liberal Media? Washington Blade, Southern Voice Shut Down

Peterlab — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:05:50 +0000

The Washington Blade (above) was the leading newspaper for homosexuals in the United States. It reported a lot of bad news about the realities of the homosexual lifestyle to those practicing that behavior. The Blade, Southern Voice, a homosexual newspaper in Atlanta, and other “gay” newspapers closed their doors Monday when the nation’s largest homosexual publishing company, Window Media LLC, shut down.

The following is reprinted from American Family Association’s news service, OneNewsNow [you can listen to Charlie Butts' audio report by going to the ONN site and clicking the "Hear Report" button at the upper right; also, ONN offers a very useful daily NewsBrief email and topical Web Alert service]:

Newspapers reach end of story

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 11/18/2009

Several homosexual newspapers have closed their doors.

Employees of the Southern Voice in Atlanta and the Washington Blade, among other homosexual newspapers, arrived for work to find the doors locked and a note on the door explaining their jobs no longer existed on account of bankruptcy. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality says he is not surprised by the closings.

“The homosexual media arose from serving the special interests of essentially a perversion movement, a sin movement called the GLBT movement, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, but it arose because they saw a need for it,” he explains. “Now with the secular media, [including] Associated Press, ABC [and] NBC, all doing the gay media’s job of essentially advocating for the homosexual agenda, there is no need for a special gay media.”

The four newspapers in the chain will permit employees to return to their respective offices Wednesday only for the purpose of permanently removing all personal belongings.

‘What’s Fisting?’ Scott Whiteman’s Affidavit on the 2000 GLSEN ‘Fistgate’ Scandal

Peterlab — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:22:21 +0000

Editor’s’ Note: Brian Camenker of MassResistance informs me that Kevin Jennings — President Obama’s controversial appointment to head up the administration’s “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education — gave the keynote speech at the GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) conference that includes the notorious “Fistgate” workshop, below. Ultimately, Jennings as GLSEN’s Executive Director was responsible for overseeing this travesty — for which he never strongly apologized. He should have been banned from working with schoolchildren because of it (and for allowing a “youth” panel on “queer sex” in the first place). That is, if liberal educationists and the media truly cared as much about kids as they do about advancing trendy agendas. Instead, Jennings has been promoted to one of the highest positions in the world of education. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Why would parents entrust their children to adults who proudly call themselves and their sexual agenda “queer”? And are we surprised that such a movement actually has spawned groups built around such vile perversions as “fisting”?

[WARNING: Very Graphic Sexual Language; sex acts and perversions described just as they were in group conversations between adults and underage youth at the GLSEN-sponsored conference in Boston in 2000]

“What’s Fisting?”: That’s the question that a teenager asked an adult at a Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN)-sponsored conference at Tufts University in Boston in 2000. (GLSEN was founded by Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s pick to head up the “Safe Schools” wing at the Department of Education.) What followed from this perverse question was a detailed explanation of this disgusting perversion, including “how-to” advise on how to “fist” (hand/arm-anal and -vaginal penetration) “correctly.” At left is the logo of the Chicago group MAFIA, Mid-America Fists in Action, Inc., a homosexual club that holds “fisting parties” for men into this vile and dangerous perversion. (MAFIA holds “fisting” parties every year at Chicago’s International Mr. Leather.)

TAKE ACTION: Kevin Jennings wants to use schools to “promote homosexuality.” His group has repeatedly exposed children to harmful and promiscuous “gay” sexual behaviors and exhibited a recklessness toward youth that should disqualify him and GLSEN from working in any school anywhere. Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to call for the withdrawal of Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Also call or write President Obama (202-456-1414) and Education Secretary Arne Duncan (arne.duncan@ed.gov; 202-401-3000) and urge them not to reward Jennings and GLSEN with this influential appointment.

_________________________________

The following affidavit is reprinted from the Lambda Report newsletter (April 2000), published by Peter LaBarbera, which preceded Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. On April 18, 2000, Scott Whiteman submitted an affidavit, excerpted below, describing the March 25 conference of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Boston to the Hon. Martha Coakley, District Attorney for Middlesex County, Mass.

LaBarbera and Massachusetts pro-family advocate Brian Camenker had advised Whiteman to secretly tape the “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class” youth panel – presuming that: 1) highly inappropriate discussions would occur; 2) homosexuality advocates likely would deny that the controversial talks actually took place; and 3) the subject matter would be so shocking and outrageous that nobody would believe Whiteman unless he provided proof of the actual GLSEN workshop. Those predictions proved to be right on the money as Whiteman’s “undercover” audiotape –– the basis of what came to be known in conservative circles as “Fistgate” –– provided the most damning evidence to date of homosexual activists’ breathtaking irresponsibility toward children in their care.

Homosexual activists ended up suing Whiteman and Camenker for making the secret recording — incredibly citing the “privacy” rights of the students in the “Queer Sex & Sexuality” workshop. For an even more detailed report on the GLSEN “Fistgate” seminars, see MassResistance’s website.

Following is Whiteman’s affidavit (emphasis added in bold):
_____________________________________

It is my belief that three public servants should be investigated for their involvement in the corruption of minors at a recent student/teacher conference in Medford. Additionally, as the conference was supported by several publicly funded and private groups and the Department of Education, I believe that they may have some liability for the corruption of children.

On the weekend of March 25, 2000, I attended the tenth annual “GLSEN/BOSTON & Project 10 East Teach Out!” conference at Tufts University. GLSEN is a national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, led by Kevin Jennings a former Massachusetts teacher. GLSEN works with teachers and students throughout the nation and claims to fight what they deem “homophobia.” GLSEN/BOSTON is headed by Wallace Bachman and receives some funding from the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the Massachusetts Department of Education through the Safe Schools Program.

I attended two workshops while at the conference that should be brought to your attention. In the first workshop, entitled “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only ages 14-21,” the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters were:

Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed lesbian
Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed lesbian
Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed “gay” man

The workshop syllabus was a follows:

This workshop for youth addresses what is different for glbt (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual) youth when it comes to sex, dating, relationships, HIV etc. Come and discuss the questions you couldn’t or didn’t ask in health class. What’s it like to be young, queer and beginning to date? Are lesbians at rick for HIV? What does it to identify as queer and still be sexually active with the opposite sex? Who can you talk to about these things? And, why aren’t queer issues addressed in Sex Ed classes? We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met.

The workshop opened by the three public employees asking the children how they know, as gay people, whether or not they’ve had sex. Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was “sex,” to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, “If that’s not sex, then the number of times I’ve had sex has dramatically decreased; from a mountain to a valley, baby.” Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. In coming to that conclusion, one student, egged on by the Department of Public Health employee, said in response to the question, “What orifices are we talking about?”:

Michael Gaucher: “Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it.”
Student: “Youth mouth.”
Gaucher: “Okay.”
Student: “Your ass.”
Gaucher: “There you go.”
Student: “Your pussy. That kind of place.”

By my estimation, that child was just about 16 years old.

But since sex occurred when an orifice was filled, the next question was obviously whether lesbians could “have sex.” At one point, Margot Abels asked whether a dildo [fake penis] had to be involved; could one be too big or too small; and where would students go to get these questions answered?

The children were asked to role play at this point. The scene was set up like this: One student was a “young lesbian who’s really attracted to another woman, and it’s really coming down to the with and you’re thinking about having sex.” The other student played the “hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to.” In effect, Michael Gaucher was telling these high school aged children that they should be talking about lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or “carpet munching,” as one student called it, with a teacher. The student asked whether it would smell like fish.

“What’s Fisting?”
At one point in the session, there was a five-minute break so that all of the teenagers could write down their questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland: “What’s fisting?”

A student answered this question by informing the class that “fisting” is when you put your “whole hand into the ass or pussy” of another. When a few of the students winced, Gaucher, the Department of Public Health employee, offered, “A little known fact about fisting, you don’t make a fist, like this. It’s like this,” forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier [this way].

Margot Abels told the students that “fisting” is not about forcing your have into somebody’s “hole, opening or orifice” if they don’t want it there. She said that “usually” the person was very relaxed, and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.

At this point, a child of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He said that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Abels responded by pointing out that although fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” it usually isn’t about the pain, “not that we’re putting that down.” She informed the student and the class that “fisting” was “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Thus Gaucher provided the “how-to” of this lascivious act, and Abels the incentive. When a teen asked the question, “why,” Margot Abels provided comfort to the children, to “put them into an exploratory mode.”

Gaucher then read the students’ next question: “Do lesbians rub their clits [clitorises] together?”

Gaucher and Abels asked if it was possible, and whether someone would do a “hand-diagram” for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who I estimate was 15 or 16 stepped up to the board and draw a three foot high vagina, and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and “put up inside the ‘G’-spot.” While drawing, Gaucher told her to use the “pink” chalk, to which Abels responded, “not everyone is pink, honey.” All of the youths laughed.

After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked about the size of the “clit,” and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then, Abels informed all of the young girls that indeed, you can rub your “clitori” together, either with or without your clothes on, and “you can definitely orgasm from it.” Gaucher told the entire class that “these is a name for this: tribadism.” Which he wrote on the board, and told one girl who I estimate was 14 years old to bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford, where she apparently went to school. Julie Netherland, the other Department of Education consultant, informed the children that this lesbian sex act wasn’t too difficult, because “when you are sexually around, your clit gets bigger.”

Gaucher then read the following from a card: “Cum [semen] and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns.” He informed the children that although he didn’t know the caloric count of male ejaculation, he has “heard that it’s sweeter if people eat celery.” The public employee thereafter asked, “Is it rude not to swallow?” Many of the high school boys mumbled, “No,” by one, about the age of 16, said emphatically, “Oh no!” Another student, against about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex: do not brush your teeth or eat course food for four hours before you “go down on a guy…because then you probably don’t want to be swallowing cum.”

Another question submitted to the presenters was whether oral sex was a better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, “yes,” to which all of the children laughed. Gaucher said, “There you have it,” and said something to the effect that the debate on that issue had ended.

Advising the Teachers
The second session which I attended was far less graphic, but potentially more dangerous. This session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was titled, “Putting the ‘Sex’ Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators.”

The workshop syllabus read as follows:

What does it mean to say “being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn’t about sex?” Where do queer youth get their information about sex and sexuality? How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us? How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth? What about the epidemiology and risk behavior data concerning sexual activity, HIV and pregnancy for queer kids? This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA’s. Data will be presented, exercises from the GSA/HIV Prevention Project will be shared and additional strategies will be discussed.

These three presenters who had just instructed a group of 14- to 18-year-olds on how to properly position your hand for “fisting” now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about “queer” sex with their students. Several of the attending teachers asked to review the questions which the students had submitted earlier.

Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), “We always feel like we are fighting against people who say publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex…We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us, and particularly queer youth.”

Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few “campaigns” that have been used to demonstrate to homosexual youth how to best “be safe.”

The campaign, “Respect yourself, protect yourself,” was praised as effective in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn’t protect themselves feel bad, ultimately it was judged a poor message.

Gaucher asked if children [are] “with an older partner, [whom] they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don’t respect themselves?” My question is why does Gaucher not consider boys having sexual relations with men, either with or without a condom, to be a problem. Let me put this into perspective. If I, a 26-year-old man, were to approach a 16-year-old girl for sexual intercourse, wouldn’t I end up in trouble? Yet public employees, who are bound by law to report abuse under [Massachusetts] rule §51(A), are concerned more with how the young sodomized boy feels that whether he is being sodomized at all. This is absolutely outrageous.

The campaign, “No sex, no problem,” was ridiculed, as it assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, it made those children who had already had sex feel bad, or think they had a problem, since they had sex.

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Abels described the project she works on. The “Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project” goes around five different schools each year conducting up to eight HIV prevention sessions in that school’s gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for “fisting” were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct their workshops for their students.

One participant remarked halfway through that Abels just wasn’t “talking to” her, since she, the participant, was a lesbian-middle school teacher. She wanted to know specifically what she could do to facilitate discussions about homosexuality in middle school. After I left that session, I met a few people and we compared notes. I was told of another session entitled, “Struggles & Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum.” Christine L. Hoyle, Special Education Teacher and workshop presenter, told the story of how she turned the Holocaust portion of her curriculum into a gay affirming section. Ms. Hoyle allowed the group at the conference to watch a video which she had her students produce and which was narrated by a seventh grade girl. This girl told the audience that ancient Greeks “encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover.” In effect, this teacher informed her adolescent students that it is okay if an older man approaches them for sexual gratification.

I have a compendium of resources and information which I obtained at the conference encouraging young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. I approached the Sidney Borum Community Health Center table to obtain a cassette sized “pocket sex” kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic “moist” towelettes, and six bandages, which were for when the sex got really rough according to the high school-aged volunteer behind the desk. I now have a countless supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which was for the taking by any child who wanted them…

I am extremely troubled by what I learned at the GLSEN conference, and even more troubled…that it was led largely by Department of Education employees and was supported by Commissioner [David] Driscoll and the Department of Education, which is demonstrated by [Driscoll’s] attached letter [of support] to participants as well as the Department’s endorsement of the conference by offering six Professional Development Activities hours for teachers attending the conference.

The specific areas in the law I am asking for you to investigate are the abrogation of Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 272, § 2, 4, and 28: Enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse; Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse; and Matter harmful to minors, dissemination; possession; defenses, respectively…

I swear under oath and the pains and penalties of perjury that everything written within this letter, to be best of my knowledge and recollection, is true and factually accurate.

Scott T. Whiteman
Peabody, Massachusetts

The Article that Got Matt Barber Fired by Allstate

Peterlab — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:22:05 +0000

See this WorldNetDaily article for background: “Allstate terminates manager over homosexuality column”

Barber is the keynote speaker at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s fund-raising banquet outside Chicago on Saturday, Oct 24. An AFTAH Board Member and former professional heavyweight boxer, Barber is currently Director for Cultural Studies at Liberty Counsel. Sign up to hear Matt at the AFTAH banquet by using the “Online Banquet Sign-up” link at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (discount rates for students and pastors).

_________________________________________

‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated

Reprinted from: http://across.co.nz/IntoleranceNotTolerated.html

By J. Matt Barber

We were in elementary school — morning recess by the jungle gym. My buddy Kyle presided over the ceremony. I was the groom and Karen Smith was the blushing bride. The mock wedding lasted about three minutes. The mock marriage lasted about half-a-day. Oh, I was faithful — until Christina McCarroll caught my wandering eye during Math class. Of course we weren’t really married — we were fourth graders – but we sure had fun pretending.

Flash forward about twenty-five years — San Francisco, CA — An activist Mayor, Gavin Newsom, taunts the State’s voters and defies both the rule of law and the sanctity of marriage as he cons thousands of “same-sex couples,” including the corpulent Queen of crass herself, Rosie O’Donnell, into taking part in a number of mock weddings held in San Francisco’s City Hall. Of course they weren’t really married — but they sure seemed to have fun pretending.

Webster defines marriage as: “The legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife” – a definition consistent with humanity’s own since the very beginning of recorded time. Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have forever been cornerstones of civilized society. Regrettably, there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones — many who hope to undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and family – many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited, oxymoronic and spurious expression “same-sex marriage” has been forced into popular lexicon.

As more and more Americans begin to unite against the radical concept of “same-sex marriage” we learn that our northerly Canadian neighbors are once again on the cutting edge of societal de-evolution. The Canadian Parliament is considering passage of legislation, which would legalize “same-sex marriage” nation-wide [and has now done so]. To Canada, we offer this sincere admonition: If you pass it, they will come — that is, along with all the Blue-State fringe lefties despondent over our recent Presidential election, expect to see droves of American “same-sex couples” crossing the border in search of their own little slice of “progressive” utopia. But we digress.

As the “same-sex marriage” battle wages on within the larger culture war here in our own Country, it’s important to accurately define the terms. Aside from the obvious, what is homosexuality? Is it a status – a state of being — a word that typifies one’s membership in a suspect, minority class no different than Black or Female? Let’s consider. To be Black or Female, one need only be Black or Female. Membership in either class is contingent upon nothing. It’s a state of being, which represents entirely neutral qualities (i.e., skin color and/or gender). On the other hand, homosexuality is contingent upon something: behavior — a person’s actions — choices made — their “sexual preference.” It’s the end result of choosing to define one’s identity based upon with whom, and how one elects to have sex.

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” — that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up. They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory. They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study. In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda. Additionally, the theory’s proponents have been wholly unable to reconcile its central theme with the so-called “bi-sexual” condition, which on its face would seem to eliminate any illusion of merit.

By the same token, there’s a growing movement among adulterous heterosexual men with estranged wives, who likewise embrace the theory that they were “born that way” — that their genetic makeup precludes the monogamy option, and requires that they have multiple sex partners. Charming, no?

At the risk of being arrested, charged with a “hate-crime” and dragged away to a “progressive” re-education camp, I’ll put aside for a moment the flawed, emotion based, irrational silliness that is “Political Correctness” (in the event I’ve been overly PC thus far). Rather than approaching our analysis of homosexual behavior from the traditional, liberal, PC perspective, let’s look at it from the rarely visited “Biologically Correct” (BC) vantage point. For one to believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular, follows the biological order of things, one must ignore the fact that sodomy violates natural law – you know, wrong plumbing, square hole/round peg. The whole thing really is a testament to man’s creativity. Give us something good, and we’ll bend over backwards to twist it into something else.

Without delving into the overly descriptive mechanics, suffice it to say that, scientifically speaking, the sexual act was designed for procreation — nothing more, nothing less. I know, not very romantic, but we’re talking science here. Further, the design behind the human digestive system was solely and entirely intended for digestion, not for makeshift sexual activity — there’s not a sex organ in the mix. The notion that the act of sodomy is a natural, biological event simply does not square with biological reality. It may be PC but it sure ain’t BC.

Still, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle in general, is its destructive nature. Destructive not only in terms of the emotional harm it may cause, but destructive also in terms of the health related issues that will almost certainly arise as its consequence.

You may have noticed that you’re barraged on a daily basis by the left’s self-righteous indignation, as they wax eloquent about the harm caused by tobacco, pollution, drugs, alcohol — fatty foods — name your poison. Countless lawsuits have been filed under the pretext of recovering damages to cover health care costs relative to these vices. And they are vices, no doubt. But, these vices are fair game; they don’t fall within a PC protected class. Consider this: When was the last time you heard about the dreadful and preventable health related pitfalls, which stem from the homosexual lifestyle? You don’t — you won’t — you can’t — you shan’t — Don’ t confuse the Left with the facts. That’s “insensitive!”

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old – 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year. It’s no wonder that homosexual men account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over 50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1-3% of the population. Homosexual men and women share a markedly increased risk of contracting nearly all forms of STD. The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

All of these things considered, and given that the cost to treat an AIDS patient averages nearly $350,000, the homosexual lifestyle shares responsibility, by no small measure, for this country’s skyrocketing health care costs.

Fortunately, for those who wish to escape the homosexual lifestyle, there is support. A number of homosexual recovery organizations such as Exodus International and NARTH have helped thousands of people who have been addicted to homosexual behaviors, successfully leave the lifestyle. Many have gone on to have happy and fulfilled heterosexual marriages, to include the greatest of all blessings. children.

But the militants don’t want to hear it. In fact, they don’t want you to hear it, and have proposed legislation to ban such recovery organizations claiming that any mention of homosexual recovery is “hate-speech.” But it’s predictable — any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash. It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics. It consists primarily of the ad hominem attack — Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal! — And on and on it goes. It grows old. It wears thin, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Many homosexuals choose not to recognize that the majority of their detractors really do care for them as individuals, hold no animus toward them, and would not presume to dictate what sexual anomalies they entertain behind closed doors, whether self-destructive or not. However, when militant homosexual activists attempt to quell all criticism of their behavior, force society to accept that behavior, and further attempt to alter the fabric of society by changing it to correspond with their own morally relative, androgynous notion of marriage, then those same activists shouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that they’ve angered those who value the sanctity of marriage — they shouldn’t be taken aback to find that they have one h*ll of fight on their hands – to expect anything less would be queer indeed.

___________________________

[NOTE: This was the attribution provided for the piece on this website in 2004:]

J. jmattbarber@comcast.netMatt Barber is a non-practicing attorney, an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer (Matt “Bam Bam” Barber), and a jazz drummer in Chicago, IL. In addition to his Law Degree, Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University. Matt is a Contributing Editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a Contributor to the Washington Times “Insight Magazine,” as well as a number of other top conservative publications. E-mail your comments to Matt, at

Kevin Jennings’ Statement on ‘Brewster’ Incident: Too Little, Too Late

Peterlab — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:33:27 +0000

It’s time for Education Secretary Arne Duncan and ‘Safe Schools’ Deputy Kevin Jennings to go for elevating their radical social agendas above the safety, innocence and education of children

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators and urge them to push for the replacement of Education Secretary Arne Duncan (below, right) and Kevin Jennings (left), the Obama appointee put in charge of “Safe and Drug Free Schools.” Jennings — who raised money for Obama’s election — is an embarrassment to the whole notion of “safe schools,” and is on record advocating the outright “promotion” of homosexuality to schoolchildren K-12. (Homosexual behavior is hardly “safe,” as evidenced by the disproportionately high incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases among homosexuals.) Jennings must go, as should Sec. Duncan for ignoring the appeals of countless American parents outraged at the promotion of his aggressively anti-Christian bigot who presided over the “Fistgate” scandal and used a predatory homosexual seduction of one of his sophomore students to confirm the victimized boy as “gay.” Call/write Congress at: 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org.

_________________________________

The following article is reprinted from Illinois Family Institute:

Help Oust Kevin Jennings — ‘School Safety Czar’

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Sept. 30, 2009

The indefensible decision of [Education Secretary] Arne Duncan to appoint radical homosexual activist and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings, to the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is finally generating the public opposition it deserves.

Criticism of Jennings is coming from multiple sources all over the country. From small and large pro-family organizations to the Washington Times to Sean Hannity — all are calling for Jennings to resign or be terminated. Now is the time to act. Call or email your representatives and senators to politely demand the ousting of Kevin Jennings who is at least as unsuitable and controversial an appointment as the former “Green Czar” Van Jones was.

Jennings began his career in education as a teacher in a private Massachusetts boarding school. He has written and spoken about an incident that occurred when he was teaching there in which a troubled 15-year-old boy confessed to Jennings that he was having a sexual relationship with an older man he had met in a Boston bus station bathroom. Jennings’ response to this troubled teen was to advise him to use condoms. Even more troubling, Jennings failed to fulfill his legal obligation to report sexual activity between an adult and a child under the age of 18. When Jennings’ professional misconduct was reported to the National Education Association (NEA) by the chair of the NEA Republican Educator’s Caucus, Jennings threatened a lawsuit against the teacher who reported it.

For a fascinating expose of this disturbing chapter in Jennings’ disturbing life, read these articles by Grove City College professor, Warren Throckmorton:

“Remembering Brewster”

“The saga of Kevin Jennings and Brewster: Enter Robertson”

Fortunately, Jennings left teaching but unfortunately for the nation went on to found GLSEN, whose mission is to use public funds and public education to normalize homosexuality. GLSEN was the sponsor of the notorious sexuality workshop “Teach Out” held at Tufts University in 2000 where students as young as 14 were exposed to graphic descriptions of deviant sexual practices by adult homosexual “educators.” This workshop has come to be known as “Fistgate” because of one particular [horrific] sexual practice taught to teens. [WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION:"Fisting" is a sadomasochistic perversion emerging from the homosexual subculture -- in which a man inserts his hand and then forearm up the rectum and into the colon of another man (for sexual pleasure); among some lesbians or straight sadomasochists into this dangerous act, the hand and arm are inserted deep into the vagina. "Fistgate" came to light because a concerned parent secretly taped the GLSEN-sponsored workshop. You can listen to the incredible Boston "Fistgate" audiotape and read a transcript of the outrageous discussion with underage students HERE on the MassResistance website. Kevin Jennings never directly apologized on behalf of GLSEN for this this scandal; in fact, GLSEN and other homosexual activist organizations attacked conservatives for "violating the privacy" of the students who were secretly audiotaped by Scott Whiteman, the Massachusetts citizen who taped the workshop, thus providing the world the evidence of GLSEN's corruption of children.]

In addition, GLSEN is the sponsor of the annual Day of Silence, a pro-homosexual protest that takes place in thousands of high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools around the country every year. On this day, students are encouraged and permitted to remain silent all day even during class in support of GLSEN’s view of homosexuality.

On September 30, 2009, twenty-one years after the boarding school debacle and with public pressure mounting, Jennings finally issued this rationalization:

“Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled the situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training and guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.”

How convenient.

His “mishandling” of the incident wasn’t really his fault. Oh no, it was a lack of “training,” “guidance,” and “preparedness.” How could a 24-year-old teacher be expected to know that he should report sexual activity between a teen under his charge and an adult male whom the teen met in a bus station bathroom located almost an hour from the boarding school where the teen lived? If only the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools had existed then with a zealous homosexual activist at the helm, Jennings would have known exactly what to do.

Kevin Jennings violated both professional standards of ethics as well as Massachusetts law. He has publicly expressed contempt for theologically orthodox Christianity and Christians and has spent his entire adult life trying to exploit public education to effect social changes that reflect his sexual preferences and unproven, controversial, and perverse views of homosexuality. His appointment to the Department of Education is an unmitigated outrage that must be opposed.

‘Slavery’ and Public Nudity Return to San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair 2009

Peterlab — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:42:03 +0000

Sexual “progressives” bring back the chains … and the whips while SFPD cops stand idly by

WARNING: Offensive photos depicting San Francisco’s perversion of “tolerance”

Me: Naked Black Slave on leash; You: White Master: Is this what big city liberals and pro-”gay” activists mean when they extol “diversity” and “sexual freedom”? (Note the two cops in the background who took no action against this public nudity.) We covered up the exposed genitals of the African-American man at left, who with his white, female “master” (holding leash) attended the 2009 Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco Sunday afternoon. Despite the SFPD’s promises earlier this year to crack down on public nudity at such events, police and city (and state) authorities again “tolerated” full frontal nudity at Folsom. (More firsthand Americans For Truth photos to come from our man on the scene.)

Consensual “master-slave” “relationships” are just one of the demented perversions that fall under the sadomasochistic (”leather”) umbrella. Powerful homosexual groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force promote such deviance — see our stories HERE and HERE on the Task Force’s annual “Leather Leadership Award.” The same Task Force — which purports to support “monogamous” values for homosexuals as it injects itself into Maine’s current battle over “same-sex marriage” — manages to vilify Christian pro-family groups as “extremists” despite its own promotion of twisted and dehumanizing “S&M” perversions.

Daddy “Master,” Boy “Slave”: Below, another “master-slave couple,” this one homosexual, poses for the camera at Sunday’s Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. Note that the “slave” — who appears to be considerably younger than his “master” — is bound by a leash to the older man. We had to cover it up, but the younger man also is wearing a “sex toy” contraption that hangs from his shoulders and attaches to the base of his testicles.

Homosexual, Bisexual Men 50 Times More Likely to Have HIV: CDC

Peterlab — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:34:34 +0000

So why won’t the government move to close down “gay” sex clubs and teach about the special dangers of homosexual sex in schools?

Close down the gay sex clubs? Homosexual sex is dangerous — the CDC says “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely than other groups to have HIV. And yet homosexual sex clubs flourish across the country. At left is Steamworks, a Chicago homosexual bathhouse where men go for anonymous sex with other men. This is a photo taken at the 2005 “Market Days” street fair, at which Steamworks advertises itself like any other business. Why doesn’t the government move to close down such perversion centers as public health hazards, given the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of male homosexual sex?

____________________

So much for gay “equality.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with “men who have sex with men” (MSM): “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV. This does not mean that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, will take some tough, politically incorrect steps necessary to prevent AIDS — like closing down homosexual bathhouses and gay (male) sex clubs in major cities, and educating teenagers on the hugely disproportionate health risks associated with homosexual sex. The relentless pandering by federal, state and local governments to “gay” activists even as these same agencies fight diseases specifically linked to homosexual sex is one of the greatest public policy follies of our time — indeed, of history itself.

The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

_______________________________

Gay, Bi Men 50 Times More Likely to Have HIV

CDC reports hard data at National HIV Prevention Conference

By DYANA BAGBY, Washington Blade
Aug. 28, 2009

ATLANTA — Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.

Dr. Amy Lansky of the CDC presented research at the Aug. 24 plenary in which the CDC estimated in the U.S. there were 692.2 new HIV cases in 2007 per 100,000 men who have sex with men.

While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest numbers of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.

“They have never converted the numbers into a rate,” said Walt Senterfitt of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project. Senterfitt is an epidemiologist.

“It’s not like this is totally new information. But they are saying now that gay, bisexual and other MSM are 50 times more likely to have AIDS than women and non-gay or bisexual men. This is a new statement. We weren’t able to make that equivalent before. We can now compare apples to apples. We represent the largest proportion.”

The CDC estimates gay and bisexual men make up about four to six percent of the population. When the CDC reports on African-American women, it says black women have an HIV infection rate that is nearly 15 times higher than that of white women. And Hispanics, who make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 17 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, according to the CDC.

According to a 2006 CDC report, 13,230 white MSM were estimated to be newly infected with HIV, followed by African-American MSM at 10,130 and then black heterosexual women at 7,340 new infections. The CDC estimates more than 56,000 Americans become infected each year; throughout the HIV Prevention Conference, the CDC stressed that number represents one person every nine-and-a-half minutes.

“If you ask 10 people in this room,” Senterfitt said at the conference with hundreds of people in attendance, “it’s likely only one person will answer correctly [that white MSM are the hardest hit by HIV].

“I think the CDC is finally trying to put out accurate information so the community can collectively respond — and these numbers help to show that HIV/AIDS never left the gay community.”

Kevin Fenton, director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention at the CDC, said in opening remarks at the conference Aug. 23 that “gay and bisexual men account for half of new infections and are at greatest risk.”

But Fenton, who is gay, also noted that just 20 percent of gay and bisexual men report hearing of HIV prevention campaigns.

President Barack Obama’s new Office of National AIDS Policy has the mission of putting HIV/AIDS in the U.S. back on the radar after, as many speakers said at the conference, the country has become complacent about the disease. …. [continued on Blade website]

Click HERE to read the entire article in the “gay” newspaper, Washington Blade

The Government Is Already Paying for Transsexual ‘Sex-Change’ Operations

Peterlab — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:40:04 +0000

Say No to Taxpayer-Funded “Tranny-Care”: No American citizen should be forced to pay for body-disfiguring “sex-change” operations with his or her tax dollars. In this photo, the (biological) woman at right — her healthy breasts surgically removed to match her desired “male” identity — marches in a Boston “transgender pride” parade. Urge your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121) to oppose Obama-care, which will end up funding abortions and these hideous “trans” mutilations. Photo courtesy MassResistance.

Folks, take a look at the shocking photo at left and the Idaho Statesman article sent our way by conservative blogger Clayton Cramer — about a transsexual prisoner who received a state-funded “sex-change” operation. I agree with Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan about the absurdity of how words are twisted to accommodate the “trans” agenda.

Glenn remarks:

“One of the both most inane and insidious aspects of the ‘transgender’ issue is the mainstream media’s depiction of delusion as if it were reality…

“She cut off her own testicles.”

“She amputated the tip of her penis.”

These reporters must either have mush for brains or, in rare cases, feel like total idiots for being forced to report something so obviously inane.

But this is a delusion that the opposition will compel us all by force of law to treat as reality. And subsidize with our tax dollars.

Hmmm. I didn’t know “she’s” had testicles, but then again, Gary and I (and Clayton) are just a bunch of “transphobes” (another preposterous GLBT term).

Glenn was reacting to conservative blogger Clayton Cramer, who wisely points out that body-disfiguring “sex change” operations are already funded by the taxpayer, making it likely that they ultimately would be covered under “Obama-care” (just like abortions, by the way). That is, unless Americans stand up and say, “NO!” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to reject Obama-care with its likely result of taxpayer-paid abortions and sex-change ~~mutilations~~ operations.

______________________________________

Cramer writes:

Why I Get Real Nervous About Government Health Care

By Clayton Cramer

Here’s a purely elective medical treatment being done for convicted felons because a judge ordered it done. From the August 6, 2009 Idaho Statesman:

BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Department of Correction has settled
lawsuits with two transgender inmates who castrated themselves after
they were denied feminizing hormone therapy.

The terms of the settlements were not disclosed, but the department
has changed its policy for identifying and treating transgender
inmates. The policy now limits the time inmates must wait for
treatment, specifies how they may be diagnosed, and clarifies when
they qualify for hormone therapy.

Josephime Von Isaak sued the state in 2006 and Jenniffer Ann Spencer
sued the following year. Both inmates, who were born with male
anatomy but consider themselves female, contended they were
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because they were denied
treatment for gender identity disorder.

Spencer was serving time on a 2000 conviction for possession of a
stolen car and escape when she cut off her own testicles with a
disposable razor blade in 2004 an apparent effort to rid her body of
testosterone. Spencer survived the self-castration, and prison
doctors prescribed testosterone replacement therapy – refusing to
prescribe the estrogen Spencer wanted.

Isaak, who is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, said
she was also compelled to remove her own testicles with a razor in
2004 after the state failed to diagnose and treat her disorder. Even
then, Isaak said in the lawsuit, she went without the estrogen
treatment she wanted, and a year after self-castrating she amputated
the tip of her penis with a razor blade.

The state cited Isaak’s birth gender and schizophrenia diagnosis
when it denied her female hormones and a surgical sex change. In
Spencer’s case, the state said a diagnosis of gender identity
disorder wasn’t warranted and that Spencer had lied about living as
a woman and taking birth control pills before her incarceration.

These are convicted felons — and a judge orders the state to provide them with medical treatment to assist them with self-inflicted sex changes.

What do you suppose the chances are that judges are going to order the “government option” to cover this?

Researcher: 74 Percent of Bisexuals Experienced Child Sex Abuse

Peterlab — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:52:27 +0000

Health risks, self-harm far greater among bisexuals compared to straights

From the Bi Health Summit’s website’s report on its conference in Chicago Friday, Aug. 14 (emphasis added):

Research presented by Cheryl Dobinson, MA, and Stewart Landers, JD, MCP, from their two separate studies was remarkably similar. Bisexuals reported suffering from depression and anxiety in higher rates than heterosexuals or lesbians and gay men. In terms of attempting or thinking of attempting suicide, bisexual men were 7 times higher, while gay men were 4 times higher, than straight men; bisexual women were 6 times higher, while lesbian women were 4 times higher, than straight women. An Australian study revealed that middle-aged bi women were 24 times more likely to engage in self harm, like cutting, than straight women, as a coping mechanism.

Dobinson’s research revealed that only 26% of bisexuals did not experience child sexual abuse. I’ll be getting more information on violence, domestic violence, and physical or sexual abuse, since she whizzed through a lot of that information and I don’t wish to misquote her findings.

I would also like to speak more with Cheryl Dobinson regarding her findings in anal sex for bi women and men. Her research shows that bi men have fewer male partners than gay men and engage in anal sex less with men, but are more likely to have unprotected anal sex with men; while bi women have higher rates of anal sex with men than straight women and are more likely to report being HIV+. … I would really like to discuss the 2005 CDC study with her that showed 44% of straight men and 35% of straight women engaged in anal sex.

Stewart Landers’ information from the 2001-2006 Massachusetts’ Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey — which is just the kind of huge population study bi researchers are looking for — revealed similar levels of depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, and suffering from violence. Bisexual adults report poorer health and greater risks across a whole spectrum of health factors, including alcohol, substance abuse, and tobacco use. Heart disease seems to be up 3 times higher than straight people, asthma rates reported higher than straight people but fairly equal to lesbians and gay men.

Landers’ study showed a surprising finding that people 18-24 were the largest group identifying as bisexual.

See also a related report from the Bi Health Summit: “Half of Homosexuals are Bisexual: Homosexual Newspaper.”

Half of Homosexuals (GLBs) are Bisexual: Homosexual Newspaper

Peterlab — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:19:31 +0000

From the homosexual newspaper Chicago Free Press’ coverage of the “Bi Health Summit” last Friday (August 14, 2009) in Chicago (emphasis added):

The day began with an overview of the current research on bisexual health. Research shows that bisexual people — who make up about half of those who identify as GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] — face huge health disparities. …

['Bisexual health researcher' Cheryl] Dobinson and others said that stigma and biphobia certainly play a large role in why this population is impacted by certain health disparities at even higher rates than gays and lesbians.

While more research is needed, particularly of bisexual men, the findings thus far indicate that much work needs to be done to address the disparities. Many present said that considering that bisexuals make up a relatively large percentage of the GLB population, it’s time to take action, especially if one’s goal is to improve the health of the overall GLBT community.

“Bisexual people make up a much larger percentage of the sexual minority population than one might expect,” Dobinson said. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Health Statistics, about 1.8 percent of men ages 18-44 and 2.8 percent of women ages 18-44 consider themselves to be bisexual.

More coming on this story. Click HERE for the Free Press story and HERE for the Bi Health Summit website.

NARTH Scores ‘Very Strong’ Bias in APA Report against Ex-Gay Therapy

Peterlab — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:13:04 +0000

‘Some people can and do’ experience full change, says NARTH

PRESS RELEASE by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
August 6, 2009

Contact: David Pruden, Phone: (888) 364-4744

NARTH’s Press Release on APA Gay and Lesbian Task Force Report

As a scientific and professional organization the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) welcomes all responsible discussion and investigation into the important psychological factors surrounding homosexuality. The gay and lesbian task force report just released at the American Psychological Association (APA) convention in Toronto suggests no change in the clearly established APA policy that client self-determination is the crowning principle of all ethical mental health treatment. Respect for religious diversity demands that psychologists and mental health professionals give as much weight to belief as they do to sexual identity.

NARTH appreciates that the APA stressed the importance of faith and religious diversity. Unfortunately, however, the report reflects a very strong confirmation bias; that is, the task force reflected virtually no ideological diversity. No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force. In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study. Had the task force been more neutral in their approach, they could have arrived at only one conclusion: homosexuality is not invariable fixed in all people, and some people can and do change, not just in terms of behavior and identity but in core features of sexual orientation such as fantasy and attractions.

With regard to possible negative effects of therapy, as in all provisions of psychological care, the possibility exists that the client may not be happy with the outcome. We believe the report indirectly supports the findings published in the current Journal of Human Sexuality that reveal no significant ill-effects of therapy. Further, if some clients are dissatisfied with the therapeutic outcome, as in therapy for other issues, the possibility for dissatisfaction appears to be outweighed by the potential gains. The possibility of dissatisfaction also seems insignificant when compared to the substantial medical, emotional, and physical risks associated with homosexual behavior.

NARTH would suggest that these medical and emotional risks, along with the incongruity of homosexual behavior with the personal and religious values of many people will continue to be the motivation for some individuals to seek assistance for their unwanted homosexual attraction.

###

NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, it disseminates educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, promotes effective therapeutic treatment, and provides referrals to those who seek assistance. NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care.

Maddow Stumbles on Obama-Care and Transsexual ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries: Barber

Peterlab — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:13:04 +0000

Maddow Misinformation: MSNBC’s resident lesbian activist Rachel Maddow (left) lied about Matt Barber’s press statement regarding the potential of Obama-Care to become “Tranny-Care” by mandating coverage for body-disfiguring transsexual “sex change” operations.

Folks, we hope that Rachel Maddow (left) — the lesbian MSNBC talker who is as “out” in her homosexuality promotion as in her left-wing activism — takes up the offer of my good friend Matt Barber and lets him appear as a guest on her show. That seems only fair after Maddow lied about Barber’s statement on Obama-care and “sex-change” operations.

We understand that liberals don’t want to talk (rationally, anyway) about Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual “sex-change” procedures as “health care.” That is why we must discuss these awful possibilities. (By the way, even before Barber’s column, below, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blog noted that President Obama’s favorite think tank, the liberal-left Center for American Progress, was beating the drums for adding “sex change operations to the list of medical procedures that all health insurance policies in the nation must cover.”) — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

BANQUET REMINDER: Culture warrior and former professional boxer Matt Barber (right) is coming to Chicago on Saturday, Oct. 24 to keynote the AFTAH fundraising banquet. The dinner is being held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL, and tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online (just note “AFTAH banquet” in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate it “AFTAH Banquet”) to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please spread the word and make plans to come! E-mail aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.

_____________________________

Matt Barber writes:

Sex-Change-apalooza: ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries

By Matt Barber, August 5, 2009

I got a call a couple days ago from a producer with MSNBC. He wanted a hard copy of a press release I sent out entitled: “ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries.” In the release I addressed the likelihood that, under Obama’s monolithic socialized healthcare scheme, taxpayers may well end up funding elective and entirely cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries. I was happy to oblige and asked which program he produced. “Rachel Maddow,” he reluctantly divulged. I chuckled and joked, “Oh, I’m sure Rachel will give me a glowing review.”

I then suggested that it would be better still if Rachel actually had me on the show to defend and debate the substance of my release. He declined. Understandable, though. Ms. Maddow—a hard-left lesbian activist who plays a pseudo-journalist on TV—certainly wouldn’t want me confusing all 242 of her wide-eyed, spoon-fed, Kool-Aid swilling viewers with the facts. (By the way, Rachel, sweetheart, if you have the guts, the offer still stands.)

In what was apparently an awkward attempt at ridicule, Maddow then focused like a laser on the title of my release. True to form, she twisted and spun like the Michelle Kwan of yellow journalism. I was disappointed. Not because she transparently distorted my words. I counted on that. I was disappointed because I actually expected the allegedly clever, Oxford educated talking-head to pull it off with some degree of satirical dexterity.

She did not.

Did Maddow mock me for suggesting that ObamCare might provide taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations? No. Did she deride me for mean-spiritedness, insensitivity and “transphobia”? No. Instead, she just lied. She dishonestly suggested that I claimed the government was going to “mandate sex-change operations.” Get it? That, if ObamaCare becomes reality, healthcare officials will knock down your door, drag you away and force you to undergo a “gender reassignment” surgery. I know—Silly.

Still, what Maddow didn’t say speaks volumes. She didn’t refute any of the substance of my release. She didn’t deny the real likelihood that such cosmetic procedures will be covered at taxpayer expense. And she certainly didn’t give me the opportunity to respond to her propagandist obfuscation.

But it didn’t stop with Maddow. Those adorable, patchouli soaked little left-wing lemmings at the Daily Kos, Wonkette and elsewhere also picked up on my release. I was surprised to see that many of them, in fact, agreed with the substance of my argument. Quite a few opined that “sex-change” surgeries should be covered at taxpayer expense and a number of them conceded that they almost certainly will.

So what prompted me to break this story in the first place? Well, when Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, she admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.

In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that, in fact, cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may indeed be provided—free of charge—courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.

Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” [Click HERE to read Peter Fleckenstein analysis of HR 3200 posted by Liberty Counsel.] The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of¬†gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates “participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from…different genders and sexual orientations.”

So, does ObamaCare expressly stipulate that taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations will be provided? No, but neither does it explicitly require coverage for heart bypass surgery. Don’t forget; we’re talking about what’s “medically appropriate” here, and look who gets to make that subjective determination: Your doctor? No, it’s “Rachel Maddow-minded” bureaucrats within the Democratic Party. It’s a liberal-Democrat appointed government “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” And if you think they’re not itching to pay back the homosexual, transgender and pro-abortion pressure groups that helped get them elected, I’ve got a house at 1600 Pennsylvania I want to sell you.

Still, there’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem “medically appropriate;” especially when it’s “we the people” footing the bill. It’s unconscionable to force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital “sex-change” mutilation.

But don’t just take my word for it. After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s “any service deemed…medically appropriate” admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for “an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries or hormone therapies.” When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.

Indeed it’s no wonder that—as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity—support for the plan is plummeting faster than MSNBC’s ratings.

It’s time for the mainstream press—yes you too Rachel Maddow—to do its job and demand straight answers. Instead of prancing around like little ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take “no answer” for an answer.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thankfully, we don’t have to. Wanna have a little fun? Contact your Congressional representative (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and ask the following question: “Will you personally guarantee that, under this plan, no taxpayer dollars will go to fund abortion or ‘sex-change’ operations?’”

Then sit back and watch them squirm.

Matt Barber is a Board Member of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Click HERE for information on Barber’s appearance as keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, Oct. 24. Send comments to Matt at: jmattbarber@comcast.net .

LISTEN ONLINE: CWA Interviews LaBarbera and Dr. Michael Brown on ‘God Has Better Way’ Outreach

Peterlab — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:14:08 +0000

SAVE THE DATE: Thurs., Sept. 17th: Please save the date of Thursday, September 17 for AFTAH’s next dinner-lecture, featuring Dr. Michael Brown (left), whose “God Has a Better Way” Gospel outreach project in Charlotte, N.C., was the main subject of this CWA interview. There will be a dinner served at 6:00 and the talk with Q&A beginning at 7:00 PM. Invite your pastor as this will be an important discussion!

PS. Don’t forget also to save Saturday, Oct. 24th for AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet featuring dynamic culture-warrior Matt Barber as our keynote speaker.

Concerned Women for America writes [click HERE to listen online]:

Homosexual “pride” events and street fairs are growing in number and size. A number of them are also becoming increasingly risqué despite their public nature; except in Charlotte, North Carolina. There, Dr. Michael Brown and the Coalition for Conscience have been taking a stand for truth while actively and civilly reaching out to those attending the “gay” pride gathering. Just this month, 500 Christians came to Charlotte to pray, worship and share the Gospel with those at the event, and proclaim that God Has a Better Way. Dr. Brown joins Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth in comparing the events in San Francisco and Chicago with those in Charlotte. Listen | Download

Related AFTAH links:

Pro-Homosexual Websites Slam AFTAH for Call to Investigate Health Risks of ‘Gay’ Sex

Peterlab — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:35:35 +0000

People For the American Way pushes for end to gay blood donation ban

“Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [oral-anal stimulation] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.” — Homosexual writer Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men (Allyson Publications: 1998), pp 212-213.

Government: Regulate this! The homosexual bathhouse Steamworks -- an anonymous sex club for men who have sex with men that operates in Berkeley, Chicago, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver — offered “student discounts” during Spring Break 2009 ($5 off to 18-and-older young men who presented a student ID). Why is the government allowing the open promotion — even to youth — of behavior that is a causative factor in a number of sex diseases including HIV? “Gay” web sites are blasting AFTAH for calling for a comprehensive federal study into the health risks of homosexual sex.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, as we could have predicted, pro-homosexual websites are blasting AFTAH’s call for a comprehensive federal investigation into the health risks of homosexual behavior — and our comparison to how the government has warned Americans about the dangers of smoking and taken direct action against it in the name of public health (bans against indoor smoking, etc.). I even got named “Creep of the Week” by the Michigan homosexual newspaper Between the Lines. (Talk about creepy: offering teenage boys “student discounts” at homosexual bathhouses, and taking innocent children to raunchy “gay pride” parades — now that’s creepy.)

Homosexual activists are petrified of taking a serious, objective look at the health risks surrounding “gay” sex — it’s almost as scary to them as the public becoming informed of the many satisfied “ex-gay” men and ex-lesbians living happy lives free of homosexuality. Their own writers occasionally acknowledge the disproportionate risks of “gay” sex (see quote above) — and the early deaths of homosexual men, especially well-known homosexuals who could afford the best health care money can buy, are an obvious indicator. This is one of the Pink Elephants in the room that policymakers must address, and we think an impartial, authoritative study is long overdue.

Here’s a People for the American Way report attacking AFTAH that says that I have called homosexual sex more dangerous than smoking, which I did not claim in our original report. In fact, I think some “gay” behaviors like sodomy are more dangerous than cigarettes — although there are many variables here that make comparisons difficult. But the point here is not what Peter LaBarbera thinks — or making a direct comparison to smoking — but to get the government or at least some academicians who are not in the tank for the “gay” lobby to objectively assess the health risks of homosexual sex (especially among MSM, men who have sex with men). The FDA’s explanations of the ban on homosexual men from donating blood are the closest thing approximating that. (And by the way, note that the “gay” “Creep of the Week” article advocates ending the sensible homosexual blood donation ban.)

Certainly, many homosexual ideologues and straight fellow travelers are in denial of the obvious link between homosexual male sex and STDs, and they have a special political interest in covering up this reality. But the rest of us have a right to know the facts, and there’s a whole nation out there that is largely ignorant on these matters. Meanwhile, public school educators, counselors and bureaucrats are promoting “GLBT” — homosexual, bisexual, and transgender — identities to impressionable youth, who certainly deserve the full truth about the health risks of these behaviors — political correctness be damned.– Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

__________________________________

AFA’s One News Now reports [click HERE and click on "Hear Report" button to listen to the report]:

Info on Homosexual Health Risks Squelched
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 7/30/2009

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow it only makes sense because the government will investigate the dangers of such habits as smoking and work to curb it. He cites information released by the Food and Drug Administration.

“[Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have] an HIV prevalence rate 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors,” LaBarbera says.

The pro-family activist also notes an increased level of STDs and hepatitis.

“The people have a right to know about the health risks of homosexual activity just like they had a right to know about the health risks of smoking,” he contends. “There was a huge effort to cover up the risks of smoking, just like there’s a massive politically correct effort today to hide the true health risks of homosexual sex — and the people have a right to know about that.”

LaBarbera especially wants to warn school children who are being taught to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal and healthy.

He did not have to die so young: Homosexual activists and websites became irrational when AFTAH linked Russell Groff’s premature death from HIV/AIDS at age 26 to his practice of homosexual behavior. “Gay” power in society, abetted by the liberal media, must not stop the truth of the immense health risks of male homosexual sex from reaching the public.

LaBarbera Calls for Comprehensive Federal Study on the Health Risks of Homosexual Sex

Peterlab — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:25:20 +0000

More Dangerous than Smoking? Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population and 800 times higher than first time blood donors, the FDA reports. When it comes to combating cigarettes, the government not only restricts, taxes and bans smoking, it also funds and encourages anti-smoking messages and advertisements. Given the immense health risks of male homosexual sex, shouldn’t the federal government do a comprehensive study on the matter, tax sodomitic establishments, and educate the public and especially young people about the dangers of “gay” sex?

Speaking Friday at the annual Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ conference in Edmond, OK, Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera called for a comprehensive government study on the heath risks of homosexual sex.

LaBarbera read from a Food & Drug Administration (FDA) report explaining why “men who have sex with men” (MSM) cannot donate blood due to the high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases linked to MSM. He noted that since government agencies and politicians are active in confronting the health risks of smoking (using taxpayer dollars), they should do the same for homosexual sex — especially between men — which appears to be as dangerous or more so than smoking cigarettes.

LaBarbera read these excerpts from FDA online report, “Blood Donations from Men who Have Sex with Men: Questions and Answers”:

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors….

Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

At a subsequent talk Saturday, LaBarbera said behavior that is immoral or sinful is often also harmful to one’s health.

Role of Homosexual Sex in Spread of AIDS in Africa Long Ignored, Medical Journal Lancet Reports

Peterlab — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:42:51 +0000

Here’s an interesting “Global Update” from the New York Times — after decades of homosexual activists pointing to Africa to change the subject whenever the obvious causal link between male homosexual practices and HIV is brought up. Note the last line: can you imagine the Times‘ indignation if all affected African countries were to report that truth that “gay” male sex is far riskier than normal sex?

We presume based on the Times‘ summary that the Lancet article is rife with pro-homosexual political correctness, as Western elites generally yearn to bring their decadent “First World” attitudes to economically underdeveloped countries that still regard homosexuality as deviant. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_____________________________

The New York Times reports (emphasis added):

Aids: Role of Gay Men in Spreading Virus Is Ignored in Africa, Study Finds

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
New York Times, July 20, 2009

The role of gay sex in the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS in Africa has been long ignored, say the authors of a new study in the medical journal Lancet.

While most transmission of the virus in Africa is heterosexual, 19 recent studies of African men who have sex with men show that they have “considerably higher” infection rates than other adult men in their respective countries, said the authors, who were from Oxford University and research institutions in Ghana and Kenya.

These men also have less access to prevention and care; most African countries have allocated no money to gay men, and homosexual sex is illegal in 31 African countries, in four of which men risk the death penalty.

African male sexual networks overlap with male-female ones, the authors found, since many of the men also report recent sex with women or are married. In three genetic studies the authors compared, gay white men in South Africa had a virus from a type common among gay European and American men, while gay black men in Kenya and Senegal had the type circulating in their country’s black populations.

Gay men face ridicule from their families and health care workers and harassment by the police, the study reported. And because African governments and media aimed very little safe-sex information at gay men, false rumors were common — including rumors that gay sex or anal sex were safer than heterosexual sex.

Arthur Goldberg of JONAH to Speak TONIGHT at AFTAH — Expert on Change Therapy for Homosexuals

Peterlab — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:05:24 +0000

Dinner-Lecture Tonight, Friday, July 17: Arthur Goldberg, Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), will be the featured speaker at AFTAH’s next dinner lecture on Friday, July 17. Dinner starts at 6:00 PM and Arthur’s talk and Q&A will run from 7:00-9:00. Arthur will be discussing his new book, “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change” [order HERE]. You will not want to miss this informative presentation from a man who — although not ex-”gay” himself — knows firsthand the reality that men and women can leave the homosexual lifestyle because that is his life’s work. RSVP to Angela at aftahangela@gmail.com. AFTAH’s office is at 25W560 Geneva Rd. in Carol Stream, IL, just west of Gary Ave. on Geneva Rd. Donations will be accepted to cover expenses.

Read Goldberg’s thoughts on “gay marriage” below:

________________________________________

Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics

[Note: we have taken the liberty of putting quotation marks around "marriage" when used in a homosexual or "group marriage" context. We also added a web link for "polyamory." --Ed.]

By Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella
SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH STATE
June 19, 2009

Legislation is presently pending in the New Jersey state legislature to approve same-sex “marriage.” There is a strong effort by gay activists and their allies to push such a bill through the legislature rather than asking the citizens of the state to vote for its approval. Because informed public policy decisions should be based on rational judgment grounded in fact rather than fiction, it is helpful to review a few of the key considerations relevant to this debate.

Nearly every argument favoring same-sex “marriage” is based on the belief that homosexual orientation is inborn and immutable. Thus, the argument often is made that just as interracial marriage gained approval so, too, should gay “marriage.”

But sexual orientation is not like skin color; it is not genetic. An avowed lesbian, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of developmental biology and gender studies at Brown University, admits “[Although the claim that homosexuality is genetic] provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in court, [f]or me, it’s a very shaky place. It’s bad science and bad politics.”

No genetic earmark distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals has ever been identified. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are genetically indistinguishable. As stated in a British medical journal, “From an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction.”

Indeed, taking the question further, more than 100 scientific studies indicate that change of sexual orientation is possible for many motivated individuals. The father of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (the Bible of psychiatry), Dr. Robert Spitzer, changed his own lifetime view. He published a study in 2003 confirming that many dissatisfied homosexuals are able to make substantial long-term changes in orientation.

Another premise of the same-sex “marriage” debate claims homosexual coupling involves stable, long-term relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Drs. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, both openly homosexual, studied 156 male couples who had lived together for 20 years or more. To their dismay, they found that the longest period of sexual monogamy for those couples was five years; the average was under two years.

Within the gay subculture, the concept of monogamy is simply not synonymous with sexual exclusivity. Gay activist Andrew Sullivan writes: “homosexuals have a need for extramarital outlets.” Lesbian writer Camille Paglia notes how gay magazines glamorize “the bigger bang of sex with strangers” and advocate “monogamy without fidelity” in same-sex couplings.

The instability of same-sex relationships and prevalence of polyamory cannot be attributed to social discrimination or “homophobia.” During the 1990s many gay-affirming countries legalized same-sex “marriage.” The instability of homosexual relationships, however, remained unchanged. For example, a 2003 Dutch study found the average male homosexual partnership lasted only 1.5 years (Compare that figure to a CDC U.S. study of heterosexual marriages showing 50 percent of heterosexual marriages lasting 15 years or more.) Similarly, a 2004 Swedish study found that homosexual unions had a 50-percent higher divorce rate than heterosexual unions.

Inherent health risks of the gay lifestyle present another issue. Life expectancy for men who have sex with men, according to a 1997 International Journal of Epidemiology study is eight to 20 years less than that of heterosexual men. There is also a higher rate of intimate partner violence between same-sex couples.

Higher parent mortality and promiscuity increased rates of domestic violence and greater rates of divorce are not healthy for children. Consequently, acceptance of gay “marriage” requires a disregard for the best interests of children. It follows logically that if marriage is defined merely by “who we love” regardless of what is in the best interest of children, then the government has no right to discriminate against those with other sexual orientations including orientations toward children or animals. This is why advocates of pedophilia, group “marriage,” bestiality and incest cite gay “marriage” victories as their own. It is also no coincidence that within 10 years of legalizing same-sex “marriage” every Scandinavian country legalized polygamy.

Clearly, New Jersey has an interest in promoting and protecting traditional marriage. Decades of research demonstrate that children fare best physically, emotionally, and academically when nurtured by a married mother and father. Fatherless families, in particular, are associated with higher rates of violence, poverty, delinquency, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, and teen pregnancy, all of which cause an increase in tax dollars required to fund remedial social programs. Clearly, if Americans want to improve the economic health of our nation and maximize the well-being of our children, traditional marriage must be strengthened.

The European experience, however, demonstrates that same-sex “marriage” weakens the institution overall. Every Scandinavian nation legalizing same-sex “marriage,” for example, has seen an unremitting decline in traditional marriage rates, and a surge in cohabitation and out of wedlock births. Predictably, the cost of social programs in those countries has risen sharply.

To summarize, homosexuality is not genetic like skin color. Interracial marriage never changed the definition of marriage; marriage remained the exclusive and faithful union of one man and one woman. Defending traditional marriage is not bigotry. Defending traditional marriage protects the greater common good for everyone — including those with homosexual attractions.

Arthur Goldberg, J.D., C.R.S., is the author of “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.” Michelle Cretella, M.D., is chair of the Sexuality Committee, American College of Pediatricians. Here’s a description of the book, available at Amazon.com:

Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change by Arthur Goldberg Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? Torah, Talmud and time-tested advances in gender psychology answer YES! The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) tells how. This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information to gay strugglers, their families, friends, and surrounding community.

Letter to a Critic: Will You Respect and Defend OUR Freedom to Disagree?

Peterlab — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:09:18 +0000

Hope for Homosexuals: Rev. Mario Bergner, founder of Redeemed Lives, once practiced homosexuality, but is now happily married to wife Nancy and the father of five kids. Through Redeemed Lives, Bergner helps others overcome sexual sin patterns through a relationship with Jesus Christ. In his article, “Go and Sin No More,” he writes, “The most loving thing we can do for anyone caught in the grips of sexual sin is to help them bring their sin to the Cross of Jesus and there find forgiveness, redemption, healing and hope for a new beginning.” For more information on Redeemed Lives, based outside Boston, Massachusetts, click HERE or call 978-356-0404.

I sent a version of the following letter to Jeff, who wrote Americans For Truth in February urging us to respect the “civil rights” of homosexuals (who he believes are born that way). Jeff’s letter is beneath mine at bottom. — Peter LaBarbera:

Peter LaBarbera’s Letter to Jeff:

…Jeff, I doubt the accuracy of your numbers (I believe 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual), but did you know that there are many men and women who once identified as “gay” or “lesbian” who left that lifestyle and are now living happy lives free of homosexuality? I respect them and their choices; do you? Have you ever met a former homosexual or read one of their testimonies? If not, here’s a website for you to visit: www.exodus.to. (Keep in mind that homosexual activists like Wayne Besen (www.truthwinsout.org) relentlessly demean, ridicule and even harass former homosexuals and the whole idea of “ex-gays” — strange conduct from a group that demands tolerance and respect from others.)

We disagree on the morality of homosexual practice, it’s that simple. I don’t ask you to “respect” all my decisions and behaviors — or my arguments — but I do ask you to respect my freedom to live according to my conscience, in a nation founded on religious freedom. And though as a Christian I respect the dignity of all human beings (who are made in the image of God), I will never respect the choice to embrace homosexual/bi/trans behavior — any more so than I would respect people self-identifying by any other sexual sin. (Of course, there are no Adultery Pride Parades.)

That said, speaking as a sinner myself, I have no use for people who hate homosexuals — who need the hope and grace of the Gospel like everyone else. Rather, I would ask people practicing homosexuality to consider the possibility that they are wrong about this behavior (and their “gay” self-identity), and to be open to the possibility of leaving it through a relationship with Jesus Christ. (Of course, people can leave homosexuality and other sinful patterns without God, but I have found that the most satisfied ex-gays are those who have embraced Christ; see http://www.redeemedlives.org/index.asp, a ministry led by another ex-gay, Mario Bergner.)

So the gist of this debate is: do I and others like me have the right not to approve or subsidize behavior we consider immoral and changeable — or will that right be stripped from us in the name of “LGBT rights”? Should a small businessman, say an Orthodox Jew with 25 employees, be required by the state to subsidize the homosexual relationships of his employees against his will? You see, this is far different from traditional civil rights — based on unchangeable skin color — which perhaps explains why African Americans are the strongest sub-group in opposition to “same-sex marriage.”

Besides, the science isn’t in on the supposed “gay gene” so why do you assume it’s fact? (Check out the American Psychological Association’s recent retreat on the alleged innateness of homosexuality: http://www.washblade.com/2009/7-10/news/national/14849.cfm.)

Since you “care about freedom,” will you stand up strongly for the liberty of all Americans to live by their moral and religious beliefs, even if you don’t agree with or understand them? I hope so.

Thanks for taking the time to write, and sorry for the late reply. We get thousands of emails a month and many are not as respectful as yours.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera
President
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

July 17, 2009

——————————————————————————–

Jeff’s Letter to AFTAH:

From: Jeff H. [mailto:--------]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:59 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: introduction

Hi,

I am a straight man, married for 30 years. As an entrepreneur and capitalist I have created thousands of jobs. I am no “left wing” radical.

About 5% of the people of the world are gay or lesbian, one out of twenty people. Just as you and I didn’t pick our sexuality, they didn’t pick theirs. Their “agenda” is the agenda of civil rights. It is also my agenda and the agenda of everyone who cares about freedom.

It would be great if you were to respect all humans regardless of what their genes are, and fight for human rights for everyone.

Thank you for your time.

- Jeff

VIDEO: ‘Electro Torture’ and Public Nudity on New York City Streets – ‘Folsom Street East’

Peterlab — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:48:16 +0000

WARNING: Graphic footage; nudity is blurred out

For more information on this vile event — the “Folsom Street East” block party held June 21, 2009 in Manhattan — see our initial photo-story: “New York City Plays Host to Folsom-East Deviant Sex-Fest — Violating Lewdness Laws.” We will have more YouTube videos on Folsom Street East’s illegal public depravities; more background follows video:

This is footage from New York City “Folsom Street East” sadomasochistic “block party” in Manhattan (nudity is covered up) — shot by a New York volunteer for Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). The event featured public perversions and nudity like this man tied to a St. Andrew’s cross — who, with genitals exposed, is being “electro-tortured” by another man wielding a remote control device. Note the willing “victim” writhing in pain after his “torturer” clicks the remote. Such open public nudity and lewdness is a violation of several New York laws, yet police did nothing to intervene in this event.

Police later told AFTAH that they normally do not monitor private “block parties” ($10 gained entrance to Folsom East), but due to citizen complaints they will be more strict before issuing a permit to “Folsom Street East” organizers next year. Note: this NYC event is a copycat of the sadomasochism-celebrating “Folsom Street Fair” held annually in San Francisco. Information on contacting New York City officials, including police, is at the end of the video. — Peter LaBarbera

Related AFTAH stories:

When Color Trumps Christianity – Star Parker

Peterlab — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:38:25 +0000

By Star Parker, founder and president of CURE

How can black Christians allow race and color to trump Christian principles in driving their support for a leader?

President Obama hosted a reception at the White House celebrating LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Pride month. Black Christians should take note and learn a few things about our black President.

As they say, we are what we do.

It tells us something that Mr. Obama had no time to host an event for the National Day of Prayer.

Nor did he have time to accept the invitation to convey greetings and a few remarks to the couple hundred thousand who came to Washington, as they do every January, for the March for Life.

However, the LGBT Pride event did make it onto the president’s busy schedule.

Here are parts of his remarks I think noteworthy for black Christians.

First, we now know that Mr. Obama buys into reasoning equating the homosexual political movement to the black civil rights movement: “….it’s not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.” Perhaps Obama can extend some of his famous empathy to a black Christian woman, Crystal Dixon, who lost her University of Toledo job for writing a column in her local paper challenging this premise. Dixon was fired for being uppity enough to write “….I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims’ …I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.”

Considering our president’s priorities, I recall a song popular during the civil rights movement: “Which Side Are You On?”

Second, Obama sees the black community as being a little slow on the uptake to grasp that homosexuality and same sex marriage are okay. There still are those, according to him, “who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters…” He deals with this, he said, by talking about it in front of “unlikely audiences,” such as, “in front of African American church members.”

Maybe a lot of us black folks, still readin’ our Bibles, just haven’t had enough of that Harvard learnin’.

And, third, Obama talked about HIV/AIDS but didn’t bother to mention that it’s overwhelmingly blacks that this scourge is killing.

Why would our black president discuss HIV/AIDS and not mention that although blacks represent 12 percent of our population, they account for 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases and half of HIV related deaths? Or that the incidence of HIV/AIDS infection per every 100,000 people is 9 times higher among blacks than whites?

Of course, it would have been bad form for Obama to sour the punch bowl at the LBGT Pride month festivities by mentioning the disproportionate toll this lifestyle takes on blacks.

Blacks, of course, made the difference in getting Proposition 8 passed in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They then switched over and voted for Obama.

Obama has said he opposes same sex “marriage.” Can this really be so? He said at the White House event that he’s called for Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the main obstacle to nationalizing legalization of same sex marriage.

Black Christians have a lot of soul searching to do. We know the pain of black history. But we also must retain clarity that these many injustices were the result of race and color trumping Christian principles.

How can black Christians do this to themselves? How can black Christians allow race and color to trump Christian principles in driving their support for a leader?

Particularly as sexually transmitted diseases kill our people, when a third of all abortions are black babies, and the only hope for future black prosperity is restoration of the black family?

Star Parker is founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), based in Washington, DC. Telephone: 202-479-2873; www.urbancure.org. CURE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service