Americans for Truth
| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Become a Truth Team Member | Store | Donate | Contact |
20 Most Recent Articles
The Obama-Care Health Bill’s Stealth Homosexual Agenda
November 20th, 2009Already the homosexual activists are boasting that Obama-care is advancing their agenda. As sure as the push for “gay marriage” follows homosexual special rights laws, federal socialized “health care” will lead ultimately to taxpayers funding transsexual “sex-reassignment surgeries” (read: gender-confused body mutilations).
And once again, we see evidence of how the Homosexual and Abortion Lobbies work hand in hand, with the nation’s largest homosexual pressure group (Human Rights Campaign) fighting the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment. One would think that homosexuals — with seemingly no interest in normal sex and its consequences — would not have much interest in the abortion issue. But here they are crusading for a bill change that will result in federal subsidies for abortion under the rubric of “health care” and “fairness.” (HRC President Joe Solmonese was once a senior staffer at the pro-abortion pac EMILY’s LIST.)
Click HERE for a copy of the Senate health care bill, HR 3590, and HERE for a Table of Contents page — with actual page numbers! — for the same bill, that was written by a Texas citizen. (Apparently Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t have time to put one in as he rushed the monstrous bill to the floor.) A vote on cloture for the Senate bill is planned for tomorrow, Saturday.) Click here for an excellent Family Research Council alert on Saturday’s cloture vote. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
From the Coral Ridge Ministries’ website:
WASHINGTON, D.C. Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 — As the Senate works behind closed doors to combine the newly passed House health care takeover bill with two Senate versions that have already passed separate committees, special interest groups are rallying their members to lobby for favored provisions. The House bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (3962), passed on Nov. 7 by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate’s timetable is unclear, with Majority Leader Harry Reid pledging to complete a bill before Christmas, but many observers say that this is unlikely because of the sheer immensity of the proposal and the growing opposition.
Among the biggest winners in the House version were homosexual activists. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest “gay” pressure group, the House bill contains several key elements that “have been part of HRC’s legislative agenda as free-standing bills for many years,” says the group’s Website, which boasts that HRC lobbied hard to have them included. The only negative aspect in HRC’s eyes is the Stupak-Pitts amendment barring federal funding for abortions, which passed 240 to 194. HRC pledges to “work with our pro-choice coalition allies to help see that it is removed or revised as health care reform moves forward.” That’s a good bet, since President Obama promised Planned Parenthood that abortion subsidies would be part of health care reform.
Key pro-homosexual provisions highlighted by HRC include:
- Special treatment: A section designating “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as special categories would open up “health data collection and grant programs focused on health disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity.” The “gay” lobby, which has been promoting the fiction, especially among schoolchildren, that homosexual behavior is natural and poses no health risks, admits here that the behavior involves unique health problems. Unmentioned are astronomically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS among homosexual males, and increased rates of domestic violence, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and mental illness among both sexes.
- Domestic partner tax benefits: HR 3296 incorporates the language of the proposed Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would apply marital-type tax advantages to same-sex couples. Currently, employer-provided health insurance costs for a married couple are excluded from gross taxable income. This is a way that companies and the tax code historically have supported marriage, which is regarded as a key factor in attracting the most stable, loyal employees. Under the bill, employees who have domestic partners would be treated the same as those with spouses.
- More HIV funding for the states: The bill incorporates the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which, according to HRC, “would permit state Medicaid programs to provide HIV treatment to individuals before they develop AIDS. The act would amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide states with the option of covering low-income, HIV-positive people as ‘categorically needy.’ States taking advantage of this option would be provided with an enhanced federal Medicaid match.” This is the only provision that might make some sense—getting aid to people before they develop full-blown AIDS. But it needs more examination in light of its impact on Medicaid, etc.
- Pro-homosexual, comprehensive sex education: HR 3962 provides funding for comprehensive condom-focused sex education programs, while leaving out abstinence programs, which HRC dismisses as “discriminatory” because they don’t facilitate “safe” gay sex. Given that after three decades of “comprehensive” sex ed, that homosexual males are still by far the largest category of AIDS cases and deaths and represent the lion’s share of syphilis and other STDs, the claim to be able to teach “safe” gay sex should be regarded as an oxymoron. The HRC also does not like the emphasis that abstinence programs put on delaying sex for marriage and supports programs that sexualize children at younger and younger ages.
- Non-discrimination: The bill “prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care.” HRC sees this as elevating “sexual orientation” to a civil rights category within the health care system.
The two Senate versions so far “do not contain the important provisions for LGBT people incorporated in the House-passed bill,” HRC notes, promising to lobby for final inclusion of its list.
TAKE ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose HR 3962 and the two Senate health care takeover bills, S1796 and S1679. Click here for an excellent Family Research Council alert on Saturday’s cloture vote. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121 [you can also call 202-225-3121 or write your representatives through www.congress.org].
Robert H. Knight is Senior Writer and Washington, D.C., Correspondent at Coral Ridge Ministries. He is the author of Fighting For America’s Soul (Coral Ridge Ministries, 2009).
Table of Contents of Senate Majority Leader Reid’s Health Care Bill, HR 3590
November 20th, 2009SENATE 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
Table of Contents
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
register under Medicaid.
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
Palin Basher and Pro-Homosexual-’Marriage’ New York Times Columnist David Brooks Is a ‘Joke’ as a Conservative
November 19th, 2009
New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."
By Peter LaBarbera
New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.
Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:
“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”
I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).
But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.
I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running. I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should 
not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.
Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.
Brooks Backs Buggery
It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)
Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:
We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):
Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.
You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.
Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.
Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”
The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.
Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.
Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.
Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:
“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)
Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.
Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?
And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway? In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].
Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.
Sacred Sodomy?
Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.
God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.
Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)
Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong? Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)
Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):
SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …
- Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
- Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
- Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….
Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.
Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?
Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.
Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)
One last turn of the knife
But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”
What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms – they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?
My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?
Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.
And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.
So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)
__________________________________
Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.
Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:
Who Needs ‘Gay’ Newspapers When You’ve Got the Liberal Media? Washington Blade, Southern Voice Shut Down
November 18th, 2009
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.
‘Poly’ Pride Follows ‘Gay’ Pride
November 17th, 2009Sexual perversion movements take their cue from the successful “queer” (”gay”) revolution, which has succeeded in convincing millions of people that a human wrong — homosexual practice — is now the basis for government-protected “civil rights.” The following is taken from a “Poly Boston” flier handed out at the annual “Gay Pride” parade in Boston in June 2009, and passed on to us by our friends at MassResistance:
Poly Boston is a big, informal group that hosts events for the polyamory community, and the poly-curious, in the Greater Boston area. We hold discussions, dinner, and socials. To get connected, sign up for our announcements and chat lists and say hi!
What is polyamory?
Polyamory (or “poly”) means having, or being able to have, honest, ethical, respectful romantic relationships with more than one person at a time, with the full knowledge and approval of all concerned. Somewhat similar terms are “open relationships” and “responsible non-monogamy.” …
Poly versus Swinging
Polyamory is sometimes confused with swinging. In fact the two cultures are different. In general, people who self-identify as “poly” are strongly focused on relationships and are willing to take on serious emotional processing. People in the swing world (”the Lifestyle”) typically focus on recreational sex — often as couples attending organized swing parties while maintaining emotional monogamy. there are, of course, exceptions on both sides, as well as people who plant themselves various placed in between.
Here’s a shocker: the media has been positive toward the “Poly” movement. Again, from the Poly Boston flier:
Polyamory in the News. The last few years have seen an upswing in mainstream coverage, often surprisingly positive. It’s all collected at polyinthemedia.blogspot.com. In particular, see the big article in the Washington Post about Loving More’s Poly Living Convention (in the site’s Feb. 2008 archive). By the way, in the whole collection of about 300 articles, the very dumbest one was in, wouldn’t you know, the Boston Herald.
Pastors to Protest New Homosexuality-Inclusive ‘Hate Crimes’ Law in DC Monday
November 16th, 2009
Pastor Paul Blair of Reclaim Oklahoma for Christ will be among those preaching against the new federal "hate crimes" law and also against organized homosexuality in a "pray-in" in front of the Human Rights Campaign's DC headquarters. HRC is a homosexual lobby group that seeks to persuade Americans that the Bible does not condemn homosexual practice -- which clearly it does.
Folks, it’s about time that the aberrant-sex activists at Human Rights Campaign (the world’s leading homosexual lobby organization) be on the receiving end of some good, old-fashioned biblical preaching — rather than “preaching” to the rest of us with their false, distorted, pro-homosexuality “gospel.” (HRC President Joe Solmonese cynically describes church sermons against homosexuality as “preaching hatred.”) Click HERE for a taste of HRC’s revisionist propaganda that turns the Bible on its head: e.g., did you know that most of the the Bible verses that condemn homosexual acts, such as Genesis 19 & 19, actually affirm GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) people?! (Strange how the Bible’s hidden pro-homosexual-relationships message escaped every orthodox expositor for centuries but was finally discovered by those with a vested interest in … legitimizing their unnatural sex- and gender-based “identities.”) — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
______________________________
Pastors Will Engage in Civil Disobedience to Protest Inclusion of ‘Sexual Orientation’ in Hate Crimes Law
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 /Christian Newswire/ — On Monday, November 16 at 1:30 PM, the Coalition for Faith and Freedom, an ad hoc group of concerned clergy, will rally in front of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. to test the limits of the expanded federal hate crimes law.
On October 28, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure extending the federal hate crimes statute to include so-called sexual orientation. The ministers believe this will criminalize all criticism of homosexual behavior, including that contained in the Bible.
To test this belief and protest a clear violation of First Amendment freedom of speech and religion, various clergy will preach short sermons and read passages from the Bible regarding homosexual behavior. Like Dr. Martin Luther King and the Sixties Civil Rights movement, they will engage in civil disobedience to protest injustice.
Those participating in the pray-in will include Vision America Action President Dr. Rick Scarborough, Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Bishop E.W. Jackson of STAND America, Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance (a group which has fought gay marriage in the Bay State), Paul Blair and Steve Kern of Reclaim Oklahoma, Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, Brad Cranston of Iowa Baptists for Biblical Values, and Jim Garlow, a leader of the Prop 8 battle in California, which overturned the judicial imposition of gay marriage.
Legal challenges to the unconstitutional law may also be announced at that time. Mat Staver, Esq., founder and president of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty Law School, has been retained as their counsel and will be present at a press conference preceding the event.
Pastor Paul Blair, founder of Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, summed up the sentiments of participants, when he observed: “Pastors have preached the Bible in America for more than 400 years, pointing the people to Jesus Christ and standing against sin. If preaching the Bible is now against the law, then let us be arrested. If not, may every pastor in America know that he can stand strong and proclaim Biblical Truth without fear of persecution or prosecution.”
For more information or to schedule background interviews, contact Misty Allmond at 866-522-5582 or visionamerica1@yahoo.com or Dr. Gary Cass at 866-508-2232 or drgarycass@christianadc.org.
Sutherland Institute Calls LDS Support of Salt Lake City ‘Gay Rights’ Ordinance ‘Problematic’
November 13th, 2009The following statement was released by the Sutherland Institute, a conservative, pro-family public-policy organization based in Salt Lake City, Utah:
Sutherland Statement on Salt Lake City Nondiscrimination Ordinances and LDS [Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] Support
In response to the November 10, 2009 decision of the Salt Lake City Council to adopt changes in Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances, and to comments presented that evening by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Sutherland Institute issued the following statement:
The LDS Church, like all religions in Utah, has a vital role to play in making Utah a better place to live, work, and raise a family. Sutherland’s important role is to help elected officials craft sound, principle-based public policy toward that same end. We recognize the growing differences between religious and secular cultures within Salt Lake City and commend the LDS Church for its earnest desire to keep cultural and political tensions to a minimum.
As a public relations opportunity, the LDS Church’s statement before the Salt Lake City Council may assuage the minds and soften the hearts of advocates of “gay rights” in Utah. As a policy statement, it is problematic. The approved ordinances before the Salt Lake City Council are unsound in principle, clarity, and effect.
We have learned from California and other states that the meaning of marriage will die by a thousand cuts. Each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage. Of course, each one, singly and in isolation, does no violence to the meaning of marriage. However, the legal debate is far ahead of such parochial analysis. Unfortunately, homosexual activists seeking to redefine the meaning of marriage — as well as activist courts seeking to do the same — do not view these types of ordinances singly or in isolation but as a pattern of public opinion to justify radical changes to law as we saw in California.
As we have stated previously, we hold that the approved ordinances are vague, dangerously broad, and unjust to the parties they seek to regulate.
We, once again, call on the Utah State Legislature to overturn these local ordinances on the basis of sound public policy.
On October 12, 2009, Sutherland Institute published a statement addressing the then-proposed changes in Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinance. Read it by clicking here.
Mormon Church Decision to Embrace Pro-Homosexual Laws Could Presage Split in Pro-Family Movement
November 12th, 2009By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Dear Readers,
We may be witnessing the “official” split of the American pro-family movement against homosexuality into two camps: the principled groups and churches that oppose all efforts to recognize and approve homosexuality as normal (AFTAH is in this camp); and “soft” family organizations and churches that oppose homosexual “marriage” (and sometimes “civil unions”) but which support other parts of the homosexualist agenda. Below is a version of an e-mail I sent yesterday to pro-family leaders across the United States upon learning of this misguided decision by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to support special legal “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion.
The pro-”gay” decision by the LDS Church to back a local “sexual orientation” law — widely reported by the media — is very bad news for our side. The proliferation of newfangled laws granting special protections based on objectively disordered sexual/gender behaviors created the basis for punishing dissenters and people of faith long before the “gay marriage” debate became the dominant issue that it is in the “culture wars.” I think I speak for us all in saying that we are very grateful to the Mormon Church for all it has done to defend against same-sex “marriage” (I personally am astonished by the LDS’ huge contribution to the cause). But “protecting marriage” while legitimizing government-backed preferred status based on changeable, wrong, and very unhealthy (even deadly) behaviors is a Pyrrhic victory if there ever was one.
Moreover, allowing homosexual special rights will only be used by liberal judges to rationalize their imposition of “gay marriage,” anyway (as has already happened), so what’s to be gained by such concessions? [See Gary Glenn's article on this point HERE]
Surely, much is to be lost. Once we give up the principled argument, we torpedo our moral authority — which is our greatest and most precious asset. If homosexuality (sodomy) is truly a crime against nature (and implicitly nature’s God), as Noah Webster defined it in 1828, and liberties truly come from God as I trust we all believe, then how can we possibly acquiesce to “rights” based on sin and perversion and keep our credibility as truth-tellers? Are special homosexuality-based legal protections “civil rights” or a mockery of same? If churches back “gay rights” (and the LDS is hardly the first), is there some truth to the idea that those of us who remain opposed to ALL aspects of the “GLBT agenda” are “bigots” or somehow extreme in our worldview? And let’s be honest: our movement has already begun to ostracize its most principled warriors: I notice that everyone [in the pro-family movement] loves to use Brian Camenker’s and Amy Contrada’s indispensable, firsthand research but strangely some fail to credit MassResistance for their work. (They’re too “homophobic,” I guess.)
And where does the gay “special rights” train stop? Is there some legal “right” to be homosexual parents? Are school “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination codes legit (and even noble)? Once you begin to cave, it’s hard to stop — while our cultural foes heap praise on us for every defection to their bogus “civil rights” approach. Naturally, at the same time, the GLBT groups and their liberal allies will escalate their attacks against uncompromising pro-family groups as representing “extreme hate,” the fringe, etc. Their goal is to marginalize us, and this certainly makes it easier. As we damage our pro-family/truth “brand,” we boost their spurious “equality” brand.
I fear some in the “pro-family” movement are dumbing and defining “victory” down so that we can proclaim it even as we lose the much harder and real culture war against normalizing homosexuality and gender confusion. This is a conversation our movement needs to have — because it appears there are two “missions” emerging from our once-unified coalition: one dedicated solely to preserving marriage (hopefully without allowing “civil unions” but sometimes even making that huge concession); the other dedicated as always to fighting every attempt to normalize homosexuality and using the government (and corporations) to sanction and celebrate homosexuality-based relationships. I say that our long-term survival — not to mention our integrity — rests on sticking with the latter mission. Best – Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org
Gary Glenn Responds to Regrettable Mormon Church Decision to Back ‘Gay Rights’ Laws
November 12th, 2009Below is an informative piece by my friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan about the awful decision by the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to support legislation granting legal protections based on homosexuality. Gary of AFA-Michigan writes:
A Shocker from Salt Lake City:
The LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Church now officially endorses so-called “gay rights” laws, specifically a Salt Lake City law prohibiting “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity” (cross-dressing).
From the official LDS Church website: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances
ASSOCIATED PRESS: “Mormons throw support behind gay-rights cause”
DESERET NEWS: “Mormon church supports Salt Lake City’s protections for gay rights”
Astoundingly, both the Massachusetts and California supreme courts expressly and specifically cited their states’ identical “sexual orientation” laws regarding employment and housing as a legal justification for their rulings legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage.” That indisputable fact alone renders the Church spokesman’s claim that its endorsement of the “sexual orientation” ordinance poses no threat to marriage to be utter nonsense, especially since the Church’s new position will certainly boost homosexual activists’ ongoing efforts in the Utah Legislature to enact an identical state law.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health: “Several amici suggest that prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral. Yet Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See G.L. c. 151B (employment, housing, credit, services); G.L. c. 265, § 39 (hate crimes); G.L. c. 272, § 98 (public accommodation).” Page14 at: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf
California Supreme Court, In Re: Marriage Cases: “See, for example, Civil Code section 51 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of services by any business establishment); Government Code sections 12920 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in employment), 12955 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in housing)… In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty — including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family — that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals.” pp 68-69 at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reaffirmed the threat such “sexual orientation” laws pose to marriage in commenting on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation which would add “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights laws regarding employment. If enacted, Boehner said, ENDA would “put activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78178
Such laws have also been used to discriminate against and punish individuals and businesses who refuse to approve of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.
It is difficult to believe that LDS officials could be so grossly ignorant of the demonstrably proven threat such laws pose to marriage and to the religious freedoms of the individual, special exemptions for “religious organizations” and the government notwithstanding. It’s further astounding that church officials would endorse a law banning “discrimination” based on “gender identity,” rendering it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a man because he (1) dresses as and claims to believe he’s a woman; and (2) demands on that basis to use the women’s restroom at work.
It’s notable in contrast that the Catholic Church refuses to endorse forcing such “sexual orientation” laws on the rest of society just because homosexual activists are politically calculating enough to (at least temporarily) exempt churches. [Editor's Note: in certain areas such as Maine, Catholic bishops or leaders have endorsed homosexual activist laws against the teachings of their Church; such backing in heavily Catholic states usually makes the difference in passage of pro-homosexual legislation.]
From a Vatican directive instructing Catholic bishops to oppose so-called “sexual orientation” laws: “Where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.htm
We deeply sympathize with the shock that will no doubt be felt by many members of the LDS Church who do understand the implications of so-called “sexual orientation” laws and have expended great effort to oppose them and to educate others.
For example…
Meridian Magazine / The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather: “Of course, the problem here is that the term ’sexual orientation’ has no innate meaning (in contrast with ‘race’, which does) and no historic or community value (such as ‘religion’) and would require the Utah State Legislature to fabricate its definition. In other words, adding the term ’sexual orientation’ to Utah law, as demanded (by homosexual activists), would give lawyers standing to attack employers and property owners.” http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/090204six.html
United Famlies International: “We adamantly oppose the UNHRC sexual orientation provisions for three reasons: 1. Attempts to legalize same sex marriage around the world would be substantially strengthened if homosexual behavior becomes an internationally recognized ‘human right.’” http://meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040319newsletter.html
UFI brochure on “Sexual Orientation,” perhaps the best and most comprehensive single source on the subject we’ve ever seen… http://unitedfamilies.org/products/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=17
Video: Another Victim of ‘Gay’ (In)’Tolerance’: Julia Ward Forced Out of Eastern Michigan U. Counseling Program Due to Christian Beliefs
November 10th, 2009The victims of government- and corporate-enforced pro-homosexual “tolerance” just keep adding up. Matt Barber. Crystal Dixon. Peter Vadala. And let’s not forget adoptive children in Massachusetts who deserve a mom and a dad and innocent grade school kids who will receive one-sided lessons on homosexuality without their parents’ consent before they even know what sex is yet.
Then there are the targets of more crass homosexual extremism such as Maggie Gallagher, Greg Quinlan, AFTAH, Mike Heath, and pretty much every pro-family leader who still resists the “queer” activist agenda — and even churches that stick to the Word of God on sexual morality or that dare advance the redemptive truth that men and women can overcome homosexuality through Christ.
A relatively new person on the victim list is Julea Ward, a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) School of Counseling who was expelled from the program because she said that as a counselor she could not affirm a client’s homosexual relationship due to her belief in Jesus Christ and biblical morality. Ward is being helped by Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal defense group. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. This is an ADF video:
Full Text of Violence-Threatening ‘Joe.My.God’ Post Against AFTAH and Pro-Family Leaders
November 10th, 2009Jervis takes down post, falsely claiming advocate of “well organized terrorism” against Christians was joking
WARNING: OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE
The following is the complete text of the Nov. 4, 2009 post, “Haters vs.Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage,” by homosexual activist Joe Jervis on his “Joe.My.God.” blog (he took down the post yesterday). The post contains violence-oriented and -threatening comments against me and AFTAH, Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel by some of Jervis’ readers. We have not changed a single word, so you will read some vulgar and obscene comments.
After the story broke open yesterday, Jervis took down the post [at http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11/haters-vs-haters-peter-labarbera.html], claiming the threatening posts were a “joke” and that our and Matt Barber’s efforts to expose the threatening post was an “obvious attempt to intimidate me and my readers.” Actually, we just sought to expose the extremist rhetoric that could lead a deranged homosexual to kill. We would not fault homosexual advocates to do the same regarding irresponsible and threatening “conservative” rhetoric.
Jervis claims that the comment posted by “Tex” is “clearly a joke,” but as you can see from his two comments below, Tex clearly is serious about the need for violence against Christians to advance the “gay rights” agenda.
Jervis also writes that he’s taken down the controversial only “for the time being,” but “After I’ve thoroughly reviewed all the comments, it’ll go back up.” AFTAH would never post anything encouraging violence against homosexuals — in fact we have denounced such rhetoric; we don’t understand why Jervis feels the need to rationalize comments that endorse homosexual violence against Christians. (Click HERE to read about the phone-in death threat against Maine pro-family veteran Mike Heath, who is also the Board Chairman of AFTAH.)
Yes, Ft. Hood changes everything because it is proof that Political Correctness can end up killing lots of innocent people. Actually, that’s nothing new: liberalism’s naivete and “softness” toward Communism contributed to the deaths of untold millions.
We’ve bolded the most offensive portions, including Fritz’s not-too-subtle “warnings” against violence that might also double as suggestions to the unstable. You can read Jervis’ post explaining his decision to remove the original post HERE — just be prepared to read some vile hate against me and other pro-family leaders if you scroll down to the comments. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org
P.S. Note that committed AFTAH-hater Jervis often gets his facts wrong about Americans For Truth and me. After all, he and other “gay” extremists continue to smear me as “Porno Pete” — as he does below — and claim without any evidence that I am a secret homosexual. Such are the malicious outpourings of reprobate minds. Thus, Jervis lies about the Maine press conference in which we participated — which he refers to in the first paragraph: in fact, it was very well-attended and covered by numerous print and broadcast media throughout Maine just days before the election that overturned “gay marriage” in the northeastern state.
________________________________________________________
The following is reprinted verbatim from Joe Jervis’ Joe.My.God blog, originally with this URL: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11/haters-vs-haters-peter-labarbera.html [the link is dead as Jervis took down the post Nov. 9].
Main | Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Haters Vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand For Marriage
Still stinging from their refusal to be seen in the same room with him and their later denouncement of his largely unattended Maine “press conference,” Porno Pete LaBarbera and his BFF Matt Barber are attacking Stand For Marriage for the one conciliatory message they issued during the campaign.
I agree with my good friend Matt Barber, who is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth in addition to his important work at Liberty Counsel. It is not ethical nor good strategy for the “pro-family” movement to promote one evil and public-policy disaster (changeable and sinful behavior as a government-backed “civil right”) to fight another (homosexual “marriage”). Yet that is precisely what the Yes on 1 campaign’s pro-domestic partnership ad called “It’s Possible” did. [Click HERE for AFTAH's election story.] Here again is the text of that misguided Yes on 1 ad used in Maine:
‘Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.’
We who claim to follow God are lacking in integrity if we promote the normalization of homosexuality as part of some (perhaps well-intentioned) utilitarian plan to ostensibly “save” traditional marriage. Indeed, the irony of the ad text above is that progressive concessions on “domestic partnership” and “civil unions” legislation will, in fact, dismantle traditional marriage. Yes on 1 PR consultant Frank Schubert’s compromising spin will pave the way for disaster in the pro-family movement, as it undermines our greatest strength: our commitment to the truth. It’s time to reject Political Correctness and get back to basics in the pro-family movement.
“We who claim to follow God…” Did you catch that? Those guys at Stand For Marriage aren’t real Christians because they don’t hate enough for Peter LaBarbera. They hate plenty enough for US, Petey.
Labels [Jervis' blog categories]: assholery, Maine, marriage equality, Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, religion, Stand For Marriage
posted by Joe [Jervis, creator of the "Joe.My.God" blog] 19 comments
________________________________________________________
Guest says:
5 days ago, 11:42:36 AM
“He’s just sore because fatty matty [Matt Barber] experienced premature ejaculation when they heard the final result, and porno pete only got half a facial instead of the full spray.
________________________________________________________
Lars De says:
5 days ago, 11:48:33 AM
“And the fragmentation of the fundies has begun. Give them enough rope…..
________________________________________________________
MarkOH says:
5 days ago, 11:48:37 AM
“What DOES this guy to for a living? Is he really making it on just spewing hate? Does he have another job to pay the bills? If not, I think someone needs to look into his organization.
________________________________________________________
laddie says:
5 days ago, 11:54:25 AM
“”changeable and sinful” huh? What a dumbass! He must be one of the advocates for reparative therapy.
________________________________________________________
dwerk says:
5 days ago, 11:55:25 AM
“Is there not a hetero woman out there who is dame enough to sex out these two simpering straight ninnies? Pete’n'Matt, the two most gey sex obsessed heteros on the planet need a real whore to grab them both by the balls and rekindle their hetero sex lives to the point where they will forget all about homo fags and our lives. Come on so called allies, where are the women who will take on these 2 sex-starved pantywastes and make them into real men again?
- – - – - – - – - – -
ColdCountry replies:
5 days ago, 12:07:28 PM
“Not on your life.
________________________________________________________
ColdCountry says:
5 days ago, 12:07:55 PM
“Will someone please give me a gun?
________________________________________________________
David L. Caster says:
5 days ago, 12:09:09 PM
“Rabid dogs come to mind.
________________________________________________________
Parsnip [http://www.funnyanimalbooks.com] says:
5 days ago, 12:11:27 PM
“They want us dead or in prison. News at 11.
________________________________________________________
Bud says:
5 days ago, 12:26:26 PM
“The American taliban has won again. There is no difference between Christians and Muslims. One in the same and both evil hateful bastards.
________________________________________________________
Fritz says:
5 days ago, 1:08:31 PM
“What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and Gallagher.
All is will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.
This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation. Our president must wake up and prevent this from happening.
Otherwise, we will end up like Israel and Palestine. We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches.
All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly.
There are people who will come to the conclusion that fear and death are the only weapons gay and lesbian people have at their disposal. Obama must step forward and prevent this from happening.
There are radicals who plant bombs and commit acts of terrorism for causes like the environment and animal rights. It is not out of the question that straight radicals could begin doing things like this on behalf of gay and lesbian people.
Injustice, oppression and a country where weapons and violence are common is not a good combination.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
tex replies:
5 days ago, 1:28:08 PM
“Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing?
Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean “civil disobediance”…
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Fritz replies:
5 days ago, 1:50:12 PM
“I doubt that you’ll feel that way when some social misfit blows up a straight wedding and images of the bride in a bloodstained dress appears on the cover of Time.
These kinds of things are always horrible. They are always committed by people who are deranged zealots.
Unfortunately, there are deranged zealots in every population — including our own community.
In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles.
Fear this. It will not be anything that you will applaud.
________________________________________________________
Alex in Idaho replies:
5 days ago, 1:28:25 PM
“While I understand the desire to fight back, if that really happens, I’ll see you in the internment camp after the backlash starts, Fritz. It’s happened before, and our opponents are masters at whipping up hate and hysteria. (Sorry, feeling a bit paranoid today)
________________________________________________________
Fritz replies:
5 days ago, 1:44:33 PM
“Well, my mother, her parents and her siblings were held in the internment camp at Crystal City, Texas during WWII.
So, you are not being paranoid. You’re just seeing a little bit of history repeating.
________________________________________________________
the crustybastard [http://thecrustybastard.blogspot.com/] replies:
5 days ago, 3:09:12 PM
“I suggest we call them The Pink Panthers.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
David L. Caster replies:
5 days ago, 5:16:31 PM
“I get the reference, but don’t you think that Lavender Panthers is more appropriate?
________________________________________________________
tex says:
5 days ago, 2:01:47 PM
“Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz….How many photos of innocent gay people bludgeoned to near death have I seen lately?
Mixner talks about “Gay Apartheid”, but what he fails to mention is the 20 years of bloody revolt that went into the ANC revolution. There was literally blood running through the gutters. I know…I was there in ‘88 through ‘92, and believe me….they didn’t gain their civil rights through being passive.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Fritz replies:
5 days ago, 2:17:39 PM
“My point is that Obama’s leadership could prevent these kinds of things from happening.
Violence is always a bad thing. Suppose someone plants a bomb at a wedding of one of your family members.
Obama needs to step up and give LGBT people some of that hope for change that he used to win the election. If he doesn’t, there is a very real potential for violence.
I have been seeing people turning to radical language and ideas more and more — especially after the election.
Obama dangled a carrot of hope and then snatched it away. There are dangerous people who will react violently to that. Innocent people could get hurt.
When LGBT leaders start saying “enough” and calling on the community to take a stand, there will be a few who will take it to the extreme. This is how it has always been throughout history. Every movement has the potential for violence no matter how peaceful the core group.
WND: ‘Gay’ Blogger Calls Church-Bomb Threat a ‘Joke’
November 10th, 2009Christian marriage-advocates notify authorities of threat
AFTAH note on above graphic: Suggestion on homosexual activist Joe Jervis's blog by commenter "Tex" that violence against Christians isn't a "bad thing." Jervis claims Tex was joking but he is clearly serious as he suggests to Fritz that "maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.""
Posted on WorldNetDaily [read full story HERE]: November 09, 2009
10:16 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A homosexual blogger passed off as a “joke” a suggestion by a contributor to his website that there might be church bombings because of Christians’ refusal to support the homosexual lifestyle.
But several individuals named in the column are taking the threat seriously.
“That is what Fort Hood teaches us,” said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, referring to the attack on the Texas Army base by a Muslim officer that killed 13 people and wounded 28.
LaBarbera was cited by name in the postings on the “joemygod” website run by homosexual advocate Joe Jervis.
“When people are talking about violence to pro-family proponents, you have to take it seriously,” LaBarbera said.
LaBarbera and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who also is an active supporter of biblical marriage, confirmed to WND they notified authorities of the threats.
“The First Amendment gives you the right of free speech but it does not grant the right to claim you have a bomb in your luggage at the airport, it doesn’t give you the right to claim you have a bomb in a movie theater,” Barber said. “It doesn’t protect saying you’ll shut up these Christians up by strapping bombs [on] and blowing up churches.”
The recent postings, taken down “temporarily,” according to Jervis, came from “Fritz” and “Tex.”
Fritz’s comments came after voters in Maine last week made it the 31st out of 31 states to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. He wrote he was concerned about “gay and lesbian people” giving up on obtaining “equality,” and there would follow “radicals who will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and Gallagher,” referring to Maggie Gallagher, a leading pro-family activist who runs the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
“All is will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause,” “Fritz” wrote. “This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation. Our president must wake up and prevent this from happening. Otherwise, we will end up like Israel and Palestine. We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches.”
“Tex” responded, “You say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean ‘civil disobedience.’”
LaBarbera said it is ironic in the wake of the “hate crimes” law signed by President Obama that provides special protections to homosexuals that attacks immediately began targeting Christians.
“It seems the more the gay movement achieves, the more hostile the activists become toward religious people,” LaBarbera said. “They know the religious and moral people are the last impediment to their full agenda.”
But he said Fort Hood teaches that targets should not ignore online rantings. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan wrote on the Internet of the conflict between his Muslim teachings and America’s war against terrorism before the attack Thursday. … [story continues at WND]
Click here to read the rest of the WND story: “Gay Blogger Calls Church-Bomb Threat a ‘Joke’”
Barber Compares ‘Gay’ Domestic Terrorism Threat to Ft. Hood Islamic Terrorist’s Pre-Rampage Behavior
November 9th, 2009NEWS RELEASE
Contact: jmattbarber@comcast.net
DATE: November 9, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“Gay” Activists Mull “Organized Terrorism” Against Christians
Pro-Family Leaders Targets of Death Threats
Lynchburg, VA – In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians.
In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay” activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist “JoeMyGod” Weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry had been removed. (captured version of post will be available at www.americansfortruth.com).
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, issued a statement shortly after Maine’s marriage victory (posted with additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com). In reaction to that statement, blog poster “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give me a gun?” Poster “Fritz” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters… All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.”
In reply to Fritz, “tex” posted: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.”
“This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation,” continued Fritz. “We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly. … In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles.”
“tex” reiterated: “Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz … [African gay activists] didn’t gain their civil rights through being passive.”
In addition to Barber, pro-family leaders Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage were specifically named targets.
Meanwhile, Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, was targeted by a direct death threat shortly after the passage of Question 1 last week. An anonymous caller telephoned the League, warning:
“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”
Law enforcement was immediately notified of the threat against Heath. Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be taken very seriously.”
###
Breaking: Homosexual Activists on ‘Joe.My.God.’ Blog Warn of Gay ‘Domestic Terrorism’ against Pro-Family Leaders including LaBarbera, Gallagher
November 9th, 2009Gay writer says “well-organized terrorism” against pro-family leaders is “just what we need”
Below is a reproduction of comments posted on a homosexual activist blog “Joe.My.God.” — responding to an article attacking Americans For Truth titled “Haters vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage”:
Dear Readers,
Homosexual activist blogger Joe Jervis of “Joe.My.God” website contains a post attacking AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera followed by a reader comment suggesting that “domestic terrorism” against pro-family leaders who oppose the homosexual agenda is justifiable.
In the post, titled “Haters vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage” — which has been live online since last Wed., Nov. 4 — a reader named “Fritz” writes:
“What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and [National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie] Gallagher.
“All [it] will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause….”
Responding to Fritz’s suggestive “warning,” “Tex” writes:
“Fritz … you say this like it’s a bad thing?
“Maybe a bit of well-organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean ‘civil disobedience.’”
More coming …. We will reproduce all the offensive comments on our website. The pro-family Christian defense organization Liberty Counsel has contacted the FBI regarding the threatening post.
Death Threat Against Maine Pro-Family Leader Mike Heath
November 8th, 2009
What’s fascinating is that in the wake of the passage of landmark federal “hate crimes” legislation including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — designed to protect homosexuals as a group — there seems to be a resurgence of anti-Christian hate coming from “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) extremists. More on that coming. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Reprinted from the Christian Civic League of Maine website:
Nov 6, 2009
The normal routine of the League was interrupted Friday afternoon, when an anonymous caller called to say he owned guns and his next target was the former director of the League, Mike Heath (right). The death threat was apparently related to the recent win on Question 1, which revoked the right of homosexuals to be married in Maine.
The caller said the following:
“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”
The call was the latest and most serious example of intimidation by homosexual rights supporters after the win on same sex marriage. The League withheld publishing comments from homosexual rights supporters since the referendum vote, for fear the comments would be too offensive for our readers.
The death threat now provides our readers with the proper context for understanding these comments, which are as follows. They will not be suitable for some readers:
“Your ‘Pastor” is a BIGOT…..and [expletive deleted] CRAZY.”
“You sick (expletive deleted)! You have nothing to offer except hate, bigotry, and lies. …homosexuality is not a sickness and you know it. It is perfectly normal. If anything is a sickness and a scourge, it is your hatred. Excuse me while I go puke.”
“The real sin is not treating all people equal. You will all burn in hell.”
Here is more:
“Please pray that people in Maine see through the charade of religious (expletive deleted) spewed by Rev. Heath. He is NOT a Christian. He needs to simply shut up. Just because same-sex marriage, which was voted on by a majority (heterosexuals) to discriminate against a minority (homosexuals) doesn’t mean it was right.”
“You people are devil worshipers and are going to (phrase deleted) and get nailed to a cross by a man in leather chaps listening to Barbara Streisand and the rest of the world will cheer for your slow painful death. [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted]”
“Seriously…Jesus would hate you. Everyone else does. You are sinners and not Christians. Again [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] do the world a favor by slitting your throats and the rest of your congregation too. [expletive deleted] Pray for yourselves you idiots. You are the ones who will burn in hell… not believing in equality for all. God hates you. and you know it deep down inside.”
The League immediately reported the death threat against Heath to the Augusta Police Department, which is investigating the incident.
Harvey: When PR Flacks Take over Moral Messaging
November 6th, 2009
This outstanding piece by my good friend Linda Harvey of Mission America first appeared in WorldNetDaily.com:
——————————————————————————–
When PR flacks take over moral messaging
Posted: November 06, 2009, WorldNetDaily.com; 1:00 am Eastern
By Linda Harvey
© 2009
Pro-family forces prevailed on Nov. 3 in the state of Maine to preserve traditional marriage –– for now –– and praise God for that. Yet the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign ceded some precious ground in the process and threw long-time family activists under the bus instead of working with them as they could have.
Christian policy professionals all across the country were aghast after watching the last-minute TV ad by SMM, which said this:
Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.
This is a huge concession to the hopes and aspirations of “gay” activists. Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position. This paves the way for the pseudo-marriage of “domestic partnerships.” The big question is: Why did “conservatives” do this?
Pardon my cynicism, but my background includes two decades in the wonderful world of advertising and public relations, where truth is a sometimes-disposable commodity and almost any position or product can be sold if you have enough media and research dollars.
So immediately I am thinking, “OK, what current or future client are the architects of Stand for Marriage Maine making sure they don’t alienate?” Because the compromised last-minute change in message made no sense.
The ads throughout most of the Maine campaign emphasized the effect on what will be taught to schoolchildren if marriage is legalized for homosexuals. This was a smart, winning strategy that also happens to be true, and school incidents in Massachusetts and California validate that claim. The group Mass Resistance in Massachusetts, headed by long-time pro-family activist Brian Camenker, has been invaluable in researching, tracking and revealing exactly how school-based homosexual advocates shove the lifestyle down the throats of families in that state, a tactic that went on steroids following the homosexual marriage court ruling in 2003. The incidents with the Parker and Withlin families were revealed to the nation primarily through the efforts of Mass Resistance.
In California, a lesbian teacher invited her grade-school class to her “wedding,” providing Exhibit A about the poor judgment empowered when same-sex marriage becomes law –– and this incident was featured in the winning Prop 8 campaign.
But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, “We’re really tolerant” positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if “gays” ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their “rights”? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.
The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet “respects and accepts gays.” Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of “gay” identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.
When that happens, they have won the war.
Wait until the next marriage campaign in Maine and the left pulls that quote out of the historical record. Poor judgment –– and false Christian doctrine, by the way.
Two weeks ago, Brian Camenker joined long-time pro-family warrior Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maine’s Paul Madore at a press conference in Maine. These veteran pro-family professionals revealed what no one had yet talked about: the rotten core of homosexual activism behind the No on 1 effort. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, for example, has a not-so-long-term strategy to legalize every sexual behavior imaginable.
Sexual freedom –– some would say anarchy –– is where this is all headed. Marriage is not the issue: Gaining official permission for “sexual minority” lifestyles is, along with getting the muscle needed to silence the opponents. Marriage law is that muscle.
This information about the real objective needs to be taught to most of the public. After years of silence from the mainstream media about the realities of “gay” life and the true agenda, Americans need to be re-educated on this issue. Despite being flaunted as “pride” in annual homosexual parades all over this country and in Maine as well, most citizens don’t attend those, don’t frequent “gay” bathhouses or porn sites and remain unenlightened about how bold and extreme this movement has become.
But despite the teaching moment that LaBarbera, Madore and Camenker took advantage of, and despite the excellent media coverage their statements received, the Stand for Marriage campaign did not embrace them. In fact, they did everything possible to discourage their efforts, both in public and behind the scenes. Scott Fish of Stand for Marriage told the Maine media he “disavowed” any association with these brave pro-family warriors.
This happened despite the fact that, in its campaign, Stand for Marriage Maine utilized research on school impact provided by some of these very people. No good deed goes unpunished, apparently.
If one looks at the website for Frank Schubert, head public affairs consultant behind the Maine pro-marriage campaign, we read, “One of Mr. Schubert’s strengths is the ability to synthesize complicated public policy issues into understandable messages, helping his clients define the debate on their terms.”
Well, those “terms” ended up as compromised and confused, which doesn’t bode well for the future. Nor, by the way, is the message in line with Scripture. God has no tolerance for damaging, destructive homosexual behavior. This kind of short-term thinking may win a few battles, but will guarantee we lose the war.
________________________________________
Linda Harvey is a radio talk-show host and president of Mission America, a Christian pro-family organization.
VIDEO: Massachusetts Christian Peter Vadala Fired by Brookstone Store Because He Disagreed with ‘Gay Marriage’
November 5th, 2009Aggressive lesbian manager with female “fiancée” reports him to HR department; two days later he’s terminated
Posted by MassResistance October 30, 2009:
MassResistance reports: A Massachusetts man was fired from a national retail corporation because of his traditional beliefs on same-sex marriage. Peter Vadala was formally dismissed from his job as second deputy manager of the Brookstone store at Boston’s Logan Airport on August 12, 2009, after a supervisor reported him to Human Resources regarding an incident two days earlier. Story continues under video, which was shot by our friends at MassResistance:
As Peter described the incident (see video above), he came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage. When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to “he” but to another woman.
Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peter’s discomfort with the subject of same-sex “marriage”, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex “marriage.” At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to “get over it” and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.
A few hours later Peter was notified by a Human Resources representative that he was suspended from work without pay, effective immediately. Two days later, on August 12, after some further interaction with the Human Resources department, he was formally notified that he was terminated from the company.
Brookstone’s termination letter to Peter states that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.” It goes on to describe Peter’s actions as constituting “harassment” and that his comments were “inappropriate and unprofessional.” It further accuses him of “imposing” his beliefs upon others. … [continue at MassResistance site]
READ THE REST OF THE STORY on MassResistance’s website
Traditional Marriage Advocates – including Democratic Bill Owens in NY-23 – Won on Election Night
November 5th, 2009
New Jersey's new governor-elect Chris Christie, a Republican, campaigned against homosexual "marriage" -- and beat two pro-"gay marriage" opponents in a deep blue state.
By Peter LaBarbera
Social conservatives did quite well on Tuesday. Not only did traditional marriage win in Maine, but in several high-profile races, such as New Jersey’s governor’s race, the pro-traditional-marriage candidate won. In Virginia, Republican Ken Cuccinelli won the race for attorney general handily despite being smeared as a “bigot” by the powerful Washington Post for his principled opposition to granting “rights” based on unnatural behavior.
The victorious candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a strong pro-family, pro-life conservative who helped enact legal protections for the definition of marriage in the state. The following is from his website:
Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004). As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia’s marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.
In the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation. In his 2005 race for Attorney General, Bob was honored to receive the endorsement of the Virginia Society for Human Life.
Christie ran on traditional marriage
In New Jersey, GOP victor Chris Christie was the only one of three candidates to oppose homosexual “marriage,” and sent out a mailer on that issue (this “gay” Advocate account sums it up). The Advocate reported Nov. 2:
The New Jersey legislature is widely expected to vote on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the lame-duck session following the election. Governor Corzine has pledged to sign the bill. Christie opposes marriage equality.
Even in the only race that the White House likes to talk about — Democrat Bill Owens’ victory in the heated NY-23 Congressional race (he was endorsed by the GOP’s exiting moderate liberal candidate, Dede Scozzafava) — the news is not good for “same-sex-”marriage” advocates. Turns out that Owens, running in upstate New York, opposed allowing homosexuals to “marry.” However, he appears to support “civil unions.” See HERE and HERE.
The New York Observer reports:
On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage–he opposes any federal action on the “states rights issue”–telling me, “I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process.”
Statement by Mike Heath on Defeat of Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Law in Maine
November 5th, 2009
Folks, here is a statement by Mike Heath (left), my good friend and former executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, on the passage Tuesday of Question 1, which repudiated Maine’s homosexual “marriage” law. It’s no mystery why the Stand For Marriage Maine folks worked to distance themselves from Mike. (That’s another sad story.) He’s a bit too, well … biblically principled for their compromising approach. We’ll have much more on Heath, Maine politics and the homosexual agenda on these pages. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com
______________________
Heath, who is also Board Chairman of AFTAH, writes on his blog:
Righteousness prevails
There’s lots of disappointed people today. Not just in Maine, but all across America. Maine was supposed to become the first state to endorse homosexual marriage on a statewide ballot. It didn’t happen, thank God.
It was close, but they’ve always been close. Ever since I helped start the debate about using referendums to stop the queer political movement in 1991 its been close. We realized then that the politicians would be incapable of halting the slide toward the full legal endorsement of sex outside of marriage. We believed that the people would do the right thing.
In referendum after referendum over nearly twenty years I fought side-by-side with thousands of fellow Mainers and slowed the propagandists and politicians. Working behind the scenes gay activists still managed to enact all of their agenda except for marriage. It was gratifying this year to finally see substantial statewide and national groups step up to face this goliath. I was, however, horrified by the concession proclaimed by Stand for Marriage this past weekend. They repeated their endorsement of domestic partnerships and gay rights, going so far as to suggest that more rights to protect homosexuality may be in order.
I pray this election result signals that we have turned the corner, and that we are going to listen to our hearts. Sexual love is made for a man and a woman to enjoy in the context of a life long commitment. Surely we don’t want to build a society where our children and grandchildren are encouraged to invent new perversions to avoid boredom?
The path to sanity is well defined. We don’t need experts to help us define marriage. We already know it when we see it. We simply need to see more of a commitment to it in ourselves, and those we love.
Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Homosexuality is a sickness. It’s a sin.
We need to stop putting up with it. There is nothing civil about hiding the truth from those we love. And the truth about sex outside of marriage is that it hurts, it’s bad for us. We need to avoid it.
We need to choose life over sex. Sex is for life … it creates life. Sex and life must be connected in our thinking. We come together sexually in the context of marriage to celebrate creation, the creation of a unique individual human life. It is perilous to disconnect sex from creation. It is even more perilous to pretend that pleasurable sex should be associated with acts unspeakable.
In the interest of protecting and affirming all of Maine’s people, especially our children and grandchildren, we must repeal domestic partnership laws that provide benefits on the basis of homosexuality, we must de-fund the so-called “civil rights teams” [pro-homosexual student groups] and remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act. It would also be prudent to reinstate Maine’s anti-sodomy law that was quietly removed from our criminal code in the late 1970s.
We must not stop fighting until Maine’s laws are once again just, and equal rights are guaranteed to all Maine citizens on the basis of good conduct, not sinful behavior. For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must fight this evil. And we will fight.
We will never surrender. There is too much at stake.
Maine ‘Yes on One’ TV Spokesman Targeted for Speaking Out for Traditional Marriage
November 5th, 2009Below is a pre-election release from Stand for Marriage Maine about the latest homosexual harassment effort. You know, it comes down to this: a significant portion of the “gay” activists strategy is about intimidation — demonizing, targeting and harassing people of faith who are doing nothing wrong and merely are standing up for their beliefs. Enough is enough: rather than fighting in court not to release the names of donors to pro-traditional-marriage organizations, we ought to be saying, “Bring it on! Here’s my name and address: go ahead and publish it! Yes, I’m proud to defend traditional marriage as it has stood for thousands of years. You gotta problem with that?”
Enough trembling before the online “queer” thugs who want to punish people or frighten them for doing what’s right! I say: shame on the Homosexual Lobby — which has a knack for doing the most outrageous things to promote and defend its pet sin of homosexuality.
Nobody should be ashamed of being identified with the Truth on this issue or any social position that aligns with their faith. Life teaches us that you never reward a bully; you stand up to him. If that means that some creep might ring you up at midnight or call you a name or list your address on some twisted website, so be it. Christians in some parts of the world are maimed, tortured or even murdered for believing in Jesus Christ; their churches are burned down. Shame on us if we’re unwilling to be called a name for defending God’s wonderful created order of sex in marriage. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. In saner times, sinners were ashamed of their sin or at least knew deep down they were wrong. Some responded to Gospel preaching, were forgiven and became part of the body of Christ. Now sinners “preach” at us, coax us to approve of their errant lifestyles – and even demand that Christians surrender truth on this issue by bowing to their immoral vision. Isaiah 5:20 applies.
Statement regarding threat to Yes on One TV ad spokesman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 29, 2009 Contact: Scott K Fish
Communications Director
207-458-7185
STATEMENT FROM STAND FOR MARRIAGE MAINE
REGARDING THREAT TO YES ON 1 TV AD SPOKESMAN DON MENDELL
The following statement can be attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman, Stand for Marriage Maine:
“I want to alert you to a disturbing development that confirms what we have been saying about the larger threat that redefining marriage poses to every Mainer.
“Don Mendell, one of our spokesmen who appeared in a television ad for Stand for Marriage Maine, has come under attack by our opponents.
“Don is a high school guidance counselor and licensed social worker. His appearance in the television ad prompted a complaint to the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation – requesting that his license to practice social work in the state of Maine be stripped away – simply because of his personal opinion on marriage.
“It is ironic that those who claim tolerance as their highest value prove themselves to be so intolerant that they would go so far as to threaten a father’s career and put his family’s future at risk. This latest attack highlights the true agenda of those who demand that marriage be redefined.
“No one who opposes Question 1 is in similar danger from those who support marriage between one man and one woman.
“Our opponents want to shut us down. We have no interest in limiting free speech and threatening the right of conscience for those who disagree. So who’s really intolerant?
“This attack proves that a “YES” vote next Tuesday is about much more than protecting marriage. It is also about preserving free speech, religious liberty and right of conscience and about what is taught to children.
“This threat to Don and his family’s livelihood is proof that those who demand marriage be redefined seek to punish and silence those who disagree.
“It is our hope that the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation dismisses this complaint for what it is – nonsense. The Alliance Defense Fund – a legal alliance of attorneys committed to defending the right of people to freely live out their faith – is considering potential action on behalf of Don’s fundamental liberties.
“If the people of Maine vote Yes on Question 1 to protect marriage, we have hope that free speech and religious liberty will be respected. If marriage is not protected, Don will only be the first victim.
Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
