Hobby Lobby Defeated: Conservative Judge Rules Companies Must Offer Birth Control

via Hobby Lobby Defeated: Conservative Judge Rules Companies Must Offer Birth Control |.

In 2014 the Supreme Court handed down the infamous Hobby Lobby decision which allowed religious employers the right to deny their female employees birth control. The right-wing hailed the decision and “Christian” employers all over the country started joyfully denying women access to contraceptives. The only thing those employers had to do was fill out a form or write a short letter informing the federal government that they were invoking the “right” the misguided ruling afforded them and they’d be exempt from the birth control mandate. Sounds easy enough, right? Well, apparently it wasn’t easy enough for the vapid, women-hating, right-wing Christian employers, because they sued again; but this time one of their very own conservative judges threw them out of court.

East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell is a group of cases that were consolidated as one and they all involve religious employers who want to deny their employees contraception. Although this is already their right under the SCOTUS ruling, they all have a problem with the guidelines that they have to follow in order to deny the basic medical care: they don’t want to submit the paperwork. When a company doesn’t want to offer the birth control that their archaic rules for social control, they are required to submit the paperwork mentioned above and then the federal government works with an independent insurance company to provide the employees access to birth control. The plaintiffs in this case, claimed that by submitting the paperwork to the federal government, they became facilitators for the birth control they don’t believe in, in a show of incredible self-centered pettiness.

When the case worked its way to the 5th Circuit of Appeals it landed in Judge Jerry Smith’s lap and the attorneys for the plaintiffs probably rejoiced. Judge Jerry Smith is a Reagan appointee with deeply conservative views. In fact, he is so conservative he once denied a man’s death row appeal even though the man’s lawyer slept through most of the trial. This is a judge who called feminists “gaggle of outcasts, misfits and rejects.” So when the judge handed down an opinion that protected women’s access to contraceptives and basically told the plaintiffs to get over themselves, it is a BIG deal.

Judge Smith used the right-wing’s much-loved federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to rule against the religious employers. When Smith applied the RFRA rule that the federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” to the plaintiff’s case, he found that they did prove that the federal government was in violation of the law.

“Although the plaintiffs have identified several acts that offend their religious beliefs, the acts they are required to perform do not include providing or facilitating access to contraceptives,” Smith explains in the judge panel’s unanimous opinions. “Instead, the acts that violate their faith are those of third parties.” Specifically, the plaintiffs object to the federal government working with an insurance administrator to provide contraception to certain workers. But the law does not “entitle them to block third parties from engaging in conduct with which they disagree.”

He also said that if he were to rule in their favor, it would pave the way for all sorts of nonsense:

“Perhaps an applicant for Social Security disability benefits disapproves of working on Sundays and is unwilling to assist others in doing so,” Smith explains. “He could challenge a requirement that he use a form to apply because the Social Security Administration might process it on a Sunday. Or maybe a pacifist refuses to complete a form to indicate his beliefs because that information would enable the Selective Service to locate eligible draftees more quickly. The possibilities are endless, but we doubt Congress, in enacting RFRA, intended for them to be.”

There will, of course, be an appeal to the Supreme Court, because the right is fixated on their war against women. These religious employers don’t really care about Jesus, they care about punishing women for having sex. It is the same mentality conservatives have when they go on and on about being “pro-life.” They aren’t actually “pro-life” because if they were, they’d do everything they possibly do to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing the need for abortions. They would also support all of the social programs in place to take care of babies after they are born, but they hate those programs too. This is how we definitively know the “war against women” is just that: a war. Religious conservatives want women to be punished for their “scandalous” sex lives; it doesn’t matter to them that birth control also treats a number of painful disorders, like endometriosis. The fact that one woman may take those pills or have that IUD implanted in order to prevent a pregnancy is enough for them to want to get rid of it.

Luckily, for women, now that a judge as conservative as Smith has thrown them out on their ears, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will have to hear their endless complaints anytime soon- until the right regroups and comes up with another excuse to strip women of the power to choose.

Adult Wednesday Addams: Planned Parenthood

via Republican Idiots – whichchick: alyxpanics: hart2hartsquared: Adult….


I don’t own any of these images.





shit you’re kidding me this is amazing

Adult Wednesday Addams is comedy gold.


The abuse of Irish women can go on no longer – abortion must be legalised

via The abuse of Irish women can go on no longer – abortion must be legalised.

Surely if Ireland can arrive at marriage equality, the time has come to bring it’s attitude toward women and their bodies into the 21st century as well…

In Britain, women’s options are constrained and conditional, but there are at least options. In Ireland, there are none.


Women protesting in Dublin after the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012. Photo: Peter Muhly/AFP/Getty

Women protesting in Dublin after the death of Savita Halappanavar. Photo: Peter Muhly/AFP/Getty

There are two stories in the latest set of statistics on abortion from the Department of Health. The first one is that, for women in England and Wales, abortion continues to become safer and more accessible. More abortions are taking place in the first ten weeks of gestation. That’s good because it implies that women are increasingly able to get the medical care they need as early as they need it. For the first time, medical abortions account for the majority of procedures – that’s good because it means that fewer women had to go through invasive procedures to end their pregnancies.

The abortion rate overall fell again as well. This is generally understood to be desirable, even if the “right” number of abortions we should be moving towards as a society is not necessarily “fewer” but rather “exactly the same as the number of abortions that women want”. The 1967 Abortion Act – asfudged, flawed and faulty as it is – is working for women, just about, just enough of the time. Women need better legislation, but while we wait for it, this will do, if we don’t think too much about the women it fails, if we don’t make the time to be appalled that abortion in England and Wales remains criminalised under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and is only legal under the stringent condition that two doctors agree a woman knows her own mind.

And then there’s the other story, hinted at in the abortion rate for non-resident women, which increased slightly in 2014. Many of these women will have come from Ireland and Northern Ireland – just a short plane trip away, and in the case of Northern Ireland not even another country, but an entirely different kingdom when it comes to women’s rights and women’s bodies. In Britain, women’s options are constrained and conditional, but there are at least options. In Ireland, there are none: any pregnant woman in Ireland who wishes to decide what happens inside the borders of her own person must begin by leaving the borders of her country.

As the Amnesty report published on Tuesday puts it, women in Ireland are treated like “child-bearing vessels”. This is no hyperbole: a theocratic obsession with exploiting female flesh has led to Irish women living under one of the most restrictive abortion regimes in the world. In Northern Ireland, the 1967 Abortion Act has never been applied, and in the Republic of Ireland, abortion is covered by the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that “the right to life of the unborn” is “equal [to the] right to life of the mother” – and note that under the Eighth a woman is legally deemed a “mother” purely by dint of being pregnant, whether she wishes to be so or not. She is instantly subsumed into her relationship to the foetus.

 The result of this is that abortion is illegal in almost every circumstance apart from direct risk to the pregnant woman’s life. That means no abortion for victims of rape and incest. It means no abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality. No abortion for women whose health will be compromised by pregnancy as long as it won’t actually kill them. No abortion for women in violent or abusive relationships. No abortion for women who can’t afford to care for a child. No abortion for any woman unless it’s so she can be kept alive to fulfil the state’s ultimate expectation that she become a “mother”.

The atmosphere is one of fear. We know the names of some of the women who have suffered the worst of this brutalising system: Savita Halappanavar, who died of septicemia and E.coli after doctors refused to terminate the pregnancy she was miscarrying; Miss Y, a migrant who was compelled to continue a pregnancy resulting from rape, force-fed while on hunger strike and then subjected to a court-ordered C-section. But there are also all the other, unnamed women: the women who travel to England for abortions with the help of Abortion Support Network, and the ones who don’t appear in ASN’s figures at all because they pay their own way and make their own arrangements, making the lonely passage to be get the treatment that should be their right.

And then there are the ones who never make the trip at all. Not only is abortion restricted in Ireland, but even information about abortion is tightly constrained thanks to the Regulation of Information Act, which makes it an offence for doctors and counsellors to give complete information on accessing terminations. Mara Clarke, founder of ASN, explains that this creates an atmosphere of paranoia around pregnancy for both women and professionals: “In our experience, many women are too afraid to tell a practitioner that they are pregnant, and many more have had experience of being obstructed by clinicians… We do not know if the lack of informed care was because clinicians were afraid of repercussions or if they were against abortion – but either way it is no way for medical professionals to behave towards patients in distress.”

One thin sea stands between possibility and life for women, and helplessness and fear; between being approximately a person in the eyes of the law, and being a container. The abuse of Irish women must go on no longer. The Eighth Amendment must be repealed, and women in Northern Ireland must be given the same rights as every other woman in the UK. The right to abortion is a human right, and until women in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are afforded both that right and the means to exercise it, it is clear that their governments see them as something less than human.


Is the Attack on Abortion Rights Backfiring in the South? | The Nation

via Is the Attack on Abortion Rights Backfiring in the South? | The Nation.

Dani McClain on August 5, 2014

Abortion Protest

(Reuters/Jim Young)

Alabama just became the latest bright spot in efforts to defend abortion rights against consistent attacks at the state level. On Monday, federal judge declared unconstitutional a 2013 law requiring that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at area hospitals.

Proponents of the law had argued that it was intended to keep women safe, and that without the requirement, providers can’t ensure that a patient will be moved quickly to the hospital when the need arises. But the judge disagreed, echoing the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ and the American Medical Association’s arguments against the alleged medical basis for such laws. Complications requiring hospitalization occur in just .05 to .3 percent of early-term abortions, the type performed at the Alabama clinics in question. With the safety argument exposed as empty, the judge found that the law serves no purpose other than to outlaw abortion in huge swaths of the state.

According to the decision: “If this requirement would not, in the face of all the evidence in the record, constitute an impermissible undue burden, then almost no regulation, short of those imposing an outright prohibition on abortion, would.” In other words: if this isn’t a sneaky way to ban the procedure, I don’t know what is.

Had it gone into effect, the law would have put access to abortion out of reach for many Alabama women, particularly those in the southern part of the state. Clinics in Birmingham, Mobile and Montgomery—Alabama’s three most populous cities—would have been forced to close. In 2012, these clinics performed 40 percent of all legal abortions in the state. According to the decision, it would have been unlikely that providers there could have gotten staff privileges, either because they don’t live within a specific radius of the local hospital, the early-term abortions they provide are too safe to necessitate that they admit a patient for additional care (after all, you have to use the privilege in order to get and maintain it), or because the granting of such privileges is subjective, often made at the whims of hospital administrators.

The ruling comes on the heels of a federal court’s decision last week to continue to block a similar law in Mississippi. If that state’s admitting privileges law is eventually allowed to go into effect, Mississippi’s last abortion clinic will close.

“These laws have little to do with women’s health, and they’re 100 percent about politics,” Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, ACLU’s lead counsel on the Alabama case, told me. The ACLU argued the case along with Planned Parenthood.

Judge Myron Thompson appears to agree. His entire decision is worth a read, in part because it paints such a vivid picture of the political climate surrounding abortion in the state and the region. It recounts a history of violence against providers and clinics, including murders and fire bombings throughout the last two decades. It details the high consequences doctors there face when their practices include providing abortions (one reason providers fly into Alabama from their homes elsewhere), and the lack of training available for medical students in the South. According to the decision: “Only 8 percent of OB/GYNs in the South perform any abortions at all, compared to 26 percent in the Northeast. In Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, no residency program offers abortion training to OB/GYN medical residents.” Clearly, access to abortion is already a challenge for families in the state. In 2001 a dozen clinics provided the procedure in Alabama. Today, there are only five.

Poor women pay the price. At the three clinics that would have closed, more than half of abortion patients live at or below 150 percent of the poverty line, according to the decision. Simply traveling elsewhere for the procedure isn’t so easy when transportation and lost wages make the endeavor just too expensive.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

On a conference call for media earlier this summer, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Director Jennifer Dalven pointed out that admitting privileges as a backdoor ban on abortion is especially worth watching in the South, where a contiguous five state block faced such laws. In addition to Alabama and Mississippi, similar requirements passed in Oklahoma and Louisiana earlier this year. A review of the Texas law is pending. Further north in Wisconsin, attorneys with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have challenged an admitting privileges law and a ruling in that case is expected soon. The Alabama decision sends a critical message, according to Kolbi-Molinas.

“It should be instructive to future courts as they look at these issues,” she said. “And hopefully [instructive] to legislators that politicians should stop trying to practice medicine and stop trying to play doctor.”

Read Next: George Zornick on how this bill could end state abortion restrictions


Obama’s Evangelical Gravy Train | The Nation

via Obama’s Evangelical Gravy Train | The Nation.

Despite the president’s promise to cut funding to discredited HIV and pregnancy prevention programs, taxpayer dollars are still bankrolling anti-gay, anti-choice conservative religious groups.

Andy Kopsa July 8, 2014

HIV billboard in Uganda

Throughout Kampala, billboards encourage adults to get off the “sexual network”—in other words, be faithful—and get tested. All photos by Andy Kopsa.


This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute, with additional support from the Puffin Foundation.

On March 24, just a month after Ugandan President Museveni signed a bill making homosexuality a crime punishable by life in prison, Obama administration officials announced that they were increasing military aid to Uganda in its effort to quell rebel forces. Human rights groups criticized the move, arguing that the aid offered Museveni “legitimacy” after he supported a law that has been widely condemned for violating human rights. The same day, a State Department spokesperson quietly announced that the administration would also “demonstrate our support for the LGBT community in Uganda” by shifting $6.4 million in funding away from the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda, whose actions, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said, “don’t reflect our values.” That may be the understatement of the year.

According to Ugandan AIDS activists, administration officials had been told a year and a half earlier that the Inter-Religious Council and other State Department grantees were actively promoting the antigay bill. In September 2012, several LGBT and AIDS advocates in Uganda were invited to a call with representatives from USAID, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator and other US officials to discuss HIV service delivery to vulnerable communities. According to minutes taken by one of the participants and conversations with others on the call, the US officials were warned that several grantees and subcontractors through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, commonly referred to as PEPFAR, were visibly supporting the bill, undermining service delivery to men who have sex with men, or otherwise fomenting anti-gay activities. US officials asked the Ugandan activists to provide information on these actions by the US government’s so-called “implementing partners,” and told them that such evidence might lead to an investigation by US officials.

Clare Byarugaba and other Ugandan activists on the call submitted a detailed spreadsheet to State Department officials with the names of US grantees they suspected were engaged in anti-gay advocacy, including the Inter-Religious Council; several of the advocates said they had been pushing US officials to defund the group as far back as 2009.

The Inter-Religious Council, the recipient, under Obama, of a $30 million grant through PEPFAR, had taken out newspaper ads in February urging Museveni to sign the bill and calling “homosexuality and Lesbianism” “sinfulness that must be addressed at personal level [sic] through repentance.” The ad goes on to express “support for any effort against the spread and promotion of homosexuality and Lesbianism in Uganda” and call upon “all Ugandans to take appropriate measures to protect themselves, their families and children from this vice.”

Kikonyogo Kivumbi, executive director of Uganda’s Health and Science Press Association, forwarded a press release announcing the ad campaign to the US Embassy in Kampala along with a note that read, “IRCU clearly continues to undermine US foreign policy values to non-discrimination…. I think what they are doing is not right.”

The Ministry of Health in Kampala. Despite PEPFAR guidelines that free condoms be made available, condoms are often scarce in the country.


Calls to US government officials listed in the minutes of that Uganda conference call were not returned, except by Patricia Davis of the State Department’s Office of Global Programs, who said that PEPFAR had never requested a “formal” investigation into US-funded NGOs in Uganda. And the State Department has announced that while funding for the Inter-Religious Council was reduced, it will continue to receive $2.3 million in US funds to provide HIV care.

The slow and partial action by Obama administration officials in this case—it’s taken nearly five years—appears to be part of a broader pattern of uninterrupted funding to faith-based groups and programs that lack oversight and accountability. Indeed, since taking office Obama has done little to end Bush-era funding to a whole range of conservative religious groups.

A Federally Funded Evangelical Economy

The late David Kuo, an evangelical Christian who played a key role in developing President Bush’s faith-based initiatives, wrote in his 2006 book Tempting Faith that the Bush administration openly wanted to enable religious groups to evangelize through federally subsidized programs. “We knew government couldn’t feed Jesus to people,” he wrote, “but if we could get money to private religious groups—virtually all of whom were Christian—we could show them to the dining room.” The broad contours of this effort have now become familiar: faith-based offices were set up in agencies as diverse as the Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture and given hundreds of millions of dollars a year to distribute to faith-based groups.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promised to make a sharp break from Bush administration policies by holding federally funded faith-based groups accountable. “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them,” he said during a July 2008 stump speech. But a review of a database of federal grants, independent reports and numerous interviews with government officials and grantees reveals that little has changed since Obama took office.

Some Bush-era grants—multiyear contracts signed before Obama took office—had to be paid out well into Obama’s first term. But that’s not the extent of it. Conservative faith-based groups affiliated with the Family Research Council, anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers and an entire network of evangelical abstinence-only educators have raked in millions of dollars every year under new or renewed Obama-era grants through abstinence-only, fatherhood, “healthy marriage” and other initiatives. Under Obama, many states continue to use federal TANF or Medicaid dollars to funnel money to Christian organizations as well. And faith-based groups that proselytize their clients, oppose the use of condoms and believe homosexuals can be prayed out of the gay “lifestyle” are still handed millions every year through PEPFAR. Instead of seeking out new implementing partners that would follow best public health practices, many Bush-era grantees have seen their funding renewed again and again. An entire federally funded evangelical economy took root during the Bush years, and under Obama it continues to thrive.

There have been gestures at reform. In a 2012 report called “A Firm Foundation,” PEPFAR committed to holding accountable faith-based organizations that are either “ineffective” or “actively use religion to promote stigma and shame.” But almost two years later, the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda is the only group known to have had funding even partially withdrawn. By e-mail, a State Department official said it will continue to urge Uganda to “repeal this abhorrent law,” but didn’t indicate the United States would take any additional action.

“Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin”

It’s not as if advocates haven’t sounded the alarm to administration officials. On that September 2012 call, participants raised concerns about other US-funded groups besides the Inter-Religious Council, notably the Children’s AIDS Fund (CAF), an American organization, led by the husband-and-wife team Shepherd and Anita Smith, that operates in Uganda.

The Smiths got their start working with Watergate crook Chuck Colson and his evangelical prison ministry; later, Shepherd ran Pat Robertson’s 1988 presidential campaign. They took on AIDS as their mission in the 1980s, fashioning what they saw as a love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin approach that focused on ministering to the sick, particularly children. Over time, they would articulate a more fulsome conservative evangelical approach to AIDS centered around praying people out of homosexuality, abstinence-only education, virginity pledges and robust criticism of condoms, laid out in their 1990 book Christians in the Age of AIDS. Even in recent years, Shepherd has pounced on modest failure rates to denounce condom efficacy against HIV.

“The first evangelical ministries to see AIDS and respond were those already in place in the gay community, helping heal sexual brokenness and bring gays out of their lifestyles,” the book reads. The Smiths go on to caution Christians against buying into “society’s attempts to make homosexuality an acceptable alterative lifestyle.”

Despite lacking any medical background, Shepherd and Anita were embraced by Bush officials: Shepherd was appointed as an AIDS advisor to the CDC, Anita was the co-chair of the presidential advisory council on HIV and AIDS, and Shepherd’s nonprofit, the Institute for Youth Development, was one of the first groups ever to receive funding through Bush’s faith-based initiatives. In 2004, a review panel determined CAF unsuitable for funding due to “outstanding technical issues.” In a memo to USAID officials, Representative Henry Waxman, then ranking minority member of the Government Reform Committee, wrote that the funding of CAF was so out of bounds that it “raises serious concerns about the integrity of the PEPFAR grant review process.”

Yet CAF has received at least $45 million in since then through direct PEPFAR grants, and still more as a third-party grantee, subcontracting with Catholic Relief Services, for example. As recently as February of this year, CAF received $1 million for its New Hope clinic in Kampala.

On a hot but breezy day in August 2012, I visited New Hope. The clinic is located in Kampala’s Naguru district, on the northern shore of Lake Victoria, and is funded by PEPFAR to provide care and treatment for people with HIV and AIDS. The clinic is also tasked with implementing an HIV prevention program to include comprehensive sexual education and access to condoms.

There were very few patients the day I visited, and the clinic’s administrator ushered me into a counseling room with several posters on the wall. One depicted HIV as a gang of scowling green blobs being attacked by anti-retroviral drugs, represented by smiling cells in crisp white lab coats; another was an image of Jesus, his hand raised, light spilling from his opened chest and Jesus I trust you! written below. Below Jesus was a portrait of the Virgin Mary and on the opposite wall, an image of St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes.

A poster at the Children’s AIDS Fund clinic in New Hope reads “Jesus, I trust you!”


A few minutes into our chat, I asked the clinic administrator about condoms. She paused. Finally, she said, “We are very suspicious of those.” When I asked whether the clinic provided comprehensive sex education—including instruction on the correct and consistent use of condoms—she said she didn’t know for sure and left to find a more senior clinic employee.

That employee arrived, but was no more able to answer my questions. All she could do was show me was a spot in a three-ring binder where she swore sex-ed materials were supposed to be and a big empty cardboard box labeled “CONDOMS,” which was relegated to a back hallway of the clinic. PEPFAR guidelines stipulate that grantees make condoms available and distribute them as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy.

One of CAF’s sub-grantees in Uganda is He Intends Victory, which uses the acronym HIV. HIV bills itself as a Christian HIV/AIDS education and support group that spreads the “love and companionship of Jesus Christ” to those affected by the epidemic and has received praise from Rick Warren, who calls the group “a real pioneer” in AIDS ministry. The group receives funds from CAF to distribute goats and school uniforms to needy Ugandan families and children whose lives have been touched by HIV/AIDS.

He Intends Victory is also an ex-gay ministry. During the International AIDS Conference in Washington, DC, in 2012, HIV member and sometime spokesperson Dan Davis told me how “grateful” he was to the group and its president, Bruce Sonnenberg, for helping him out of the gay lifestyle. He told me the group had helped him see that his homosexuality was the result of childhood sexual abuse and that even though he still “gets those urges,” the group’s support sees him through. (Sonnenberg has also appeared as a guest on the anti-gay Mastering Life Ministries’ weekly program Pure Passion talking about how HIV’s co-founder, the late Herb Hall, came out of “ten years” in the “homosexual life”—and how He Intends Victory ministers to people who want to leave homosexuality.)

The Smiths, in an interview, claimed that they supported He Intends Victory with private funds, and that no PEPFAR dollars were used. Though it’s impossible to tell from public disclosures how CAF spends its government and private funds, federal funding makes up the majority of CAF’s annual budget, and the two groups have close ties—Sonnenberg sits on CAF’s board of directors. When I asked whether it was appropriate for the head of an ex-gay ministry to sit on the board of an AIDS organization, Anita shrugged it off, saying CAF doesn’t have “litmus test for whether someone is gay or not.”

Still, the Smiths have been vehement foes of what they see as the corrupting influence of LGBT organizations in the field of AIDS relief. In a 2001 speech to the conservative Christian group Concerned Women for America (CWA), Anita said, “What we have here is a power struggle between homosexual white men who abuse all the government AIDS programs fundamentally to fund their subculture and their political activities.” And the Smiths continue to align themselves with right-wing “pro-family” organizations. In 2011, for example, the Smiths were featured speakers at the Moscow Demographic Summit, sponsored by the anti-gay World Congress of Families, where the couple spoke alongside representatives of CWA; the Population Research Institute, which promotes the threat of a “demographic winter” if white Christians don’t reproduce in greater numbers; and the Family Research Council. In Uganda, the couple became close allies of Pastor Martin Ssempa, best known for his public condom burnings and anti-gay diatribes, who strongly pushed the anti-homosexuality bill. In 2004, Ssempa became a PEPFAR subgrantee. The Smiths’ support helped his work get noticed in Washington, and in 2005 he testified on Capitol Hill.

Other conservative evangelical groups continue to receive millions of dollars under Obama to provide critical services in sub-Saharan Africa. Samaritan’s Purse, whose president, Franklin Graham, is the son of famed televangelist Reverend Billy Graham, is just one example.

Roadside churches pepper the landscape between Kampala and Entebbe. This Catholic Church sits just blocks from Lake Victoria.


Samaritan’s Purse has a rocky record on the international stage. The group routinely delivers Bibles around the world as part of a so-called “hygiene kit” given to countries devastated by wars or natural disasters, a practice that has spurred diplomatic complications in predominantly Muslim nations like Iraq and Niger—only worsened by Graham’s tendency to use the language of “holy war.” The group was kicked out of a district in Uganda in 2012 because it had been ineffective in implementing a food safety program. Graham is also unabashedly anti-gay. When Chick-Fil-a was being boycotted after its CEO, Dan Cathy, came out against same-sex marriage, Graham jumped into the fray, “applaud[ing]” Cathy’s courage in taking a “bold stand” for biblical principles.

Nevertheless, according to the grant tracking website USA Spending.gov, Samaritan’s Purse has received 103 federal grants since 2004 totaling over $47 million—including more than $23.3 million awarded since Obama took office in 2009. For example, Samaritan’s Purse received $1.9 million from PEPFAR in 2009 to implement a “Families Matter” prevention program in Mozambique, a grant that continues to be paid out, most recently in December of last year.

By the middle of Bush’s second term, 23 percent of PEPFAR’s world partners were faith-based programs, the majority of them evangelical. One State Department staffer, who asked not to be named, said moving federal grant money away from groups like CAF and Samaritan’s Purse, hand-picked by Bush officials to run HIV/AIDS programs abroad, would be difficult. By the time Obama entered office, the staffer said, these groups were so entrenched in the service delivery infrastructure, right down to the village level, that it was easier for the administration leave the money in their hands.

Abstinence-Only Rules

The Obama administration has not only renewed contracts with groups actively engaged in the culture war but has created new funding streams for them to tap into. Rather than stripping faith-based groups of their funding or subjecting them to oversight, administration officials repackaged and refunded Bush-era programs through amendments to legislation. The Affordable Care Act set aside funds for abstinence-only through state block grants. Competitive abstinence grants to directly fund abstinence-only groups reappeared. And Obama expanded states’ ability to use leftover TANF funds, slotted for work programs, to be funneled instead to marriage promotion and abstinence-only programs.

The abstinence-only funding provision in the ACA was a compromise forged during the pitched battle to pass healthcare legislation, when Senator Orrin Hatch inserted an amendment to give $250 million to abstinence-only programs, funds that would be distributed as state block grants by HHS. But two years later, without such pressure, the Obama administration created another new $5 million pot of money for abstinence-only, so-called “competitive” abstinence grants also administered by HHS. And last year, Hatch inserted yet another $250 million pool of funding for abstinence-only programs into the so-called “Medicare fix” bill, designed to prevent a pay cut to doctors. The result is that since Obama took office his administration has awarded over $170 million in abstinence-only grants, $36.8 million last year alone.

Public health experts have long discounted abstinence-only programs as ineffective. While there is scattered evidence that the approach, used with very young adolescents, can delay adolescents’ first sexual experience, there’s no reliable evidence that it reduces either teen pregnancies or sexual transmitted diseases. A 2005 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that virginity pledges, a staple of religious abstinence-only programming, did not decrease the occurrence of teen sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and resulted in pledge-takers not seeking medical attention once infected. And in 2011, a definitive nine-year study by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that “these programs have no beneficial impact on young people’s sexual behavior.”

Adolescent health advocacy groups have pushed the Obama administration to stop funding these ineffective, ideological programs, asking that such funds be redirected toward comprehensive sex ed instead. In 2012, for example, when materials produced by the evangelical group Heritage Keepers were added to a list of federally approved abstinence-only curricula, Advocates for Youth (AFY), which promotes comprehensive sexuality education, issued a statement saying, “The Obama Administration’s endorsement of this abstinence-only-until marriage program runs in direct contradiction to its stated commitment to the health and well-being of young people and, quite possibly, its promise to uphold science and evidence.” The program, AFY found, uses virginity pledges, fear, sexual shaming and activities like “envisioning your wedding” as teaching tools, and eschews any discussion of condoms or contraception. Yet the funding for such programs has continued.

Monica Rodriguez, president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), told The Nation that although they are pleased Obama’s proposed 2015 budget doesn’t currently include a line item for ab-only programs they are “extremely disappointed that $55 million is still being authorized each year for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs”—through the Department of Health and Human Services—“that are often inaccurate, incomplete, and degrading to young people.” In addition, she points out, Obama has ceded abstinence-only funding as a political carrot to Republicans in Congress before, and may again during the forthcoming budgeting process.

Last December I sat with a group of about fifty faith leaders gathered at the Salvation Army headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi, all waiting for Republican Governor Phil Bryant to kick off his abstinence-only teen pregnancy prevention program. As the lights dimmed, haunting music came up, and a dramatic fade-in flashed on the large screen at the front of the room. The video, produced by Truth in Action Ministries, showed a series of people urgently addressing the camera. “The time is now!” declares a young woman. “[It’s] the call of The Kingdom,” says a middle-aged man. “We are raising up an army of God to transform the culture for Christ,” says a montage of boys and girls.

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant kicked off his abstinence-only teen pregnancy initiative at a Salvation Army headquarters in Jackson.


When the video ended, the crowd erupted in applause. Bryant rose to welcome everyone and thank Truth in Action for its work. He explained that the group would be spearheading Mississippi’s abstinence-only program within the faith community. While groups teaching abstinence-only have argued that their message is not religious in nature, the very idea of abstention from sexual activity until heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable outcome is, at its core, based in Christian belief. In this case, the religious link was explicit.

Truth in Action Ministries, formerly known as Coral Ridge Ministries, is led by popular televangelist D. James Kennedy and is dedicated to “proclaiming the Lordship of Christ and America’s Christian heritage, and lovingly applying principles to all cultures and spheres of life.” The group believes that homosexuality can be prayed away, warns that the “homosexual agenda” is the “iceberg” that will destroy America, and has been listed as an anti-gay hate groupby the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Nycole Campbell Lewis, who oversees Mississippi’s program, claims that no public funding is being used to support Truth in Action’s faith-based work as part of the initiative. But according to HHS records, Mississippi received $739,000 in federal funds through a state block grant to implement its abstinence-only program in 2012 and 2013, with a requirement for state matching funds. And a FOIA request revealed that Campbell Lewis’s full $67,000 salary is funded by the block grant; her staff time, according to the Mississippi Department of Human Services, is entirely dedicated to implementing the federal abstinence-only grant—including, presumably, her time spent coordinating with Truth in Action Ministries event. Truth in Action’s Carmen Pate, who led the Mississippi gathering, confirmed only that the group was working closely with the governor’s office, not who paid the tab.

According to an audit of Mississippi’s TANF expenditures requested by State Rep. Cecil Brown, the state has tapped additional monies to expand abstinence-only programs in the state. The state had a TANF balance of $2.85 million at the end of fiscal year 2012, the review found. And thanks to that Obama executive order, those unspent funds were legally diverted from direct aid to needy families and used instead to fund abstinence-only programs.

Less than 4 percent of families in poverty in Mississippi receive TANF benefits, compared to 9.5 percent nationwide. In a state where more than a third of children live in poverty, that galls Jamie Bardwell, of the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi, a staunch advocate for comprehensive sex ed. “It seems immoral that the state would invest over $2 million in abstinence-only-until marriage programs that feature mock wedding ceremonies, inaccurate medical information, and fear-based tactics that a majority of Mississippi parents don’t support,” Bardwell says.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Remain Flush

One of the Bush administration’s trademark gambits was to send millions of dollars in abstinence-only grants to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” or CPCs, the faux abortion clinics set up by anti-choice groups to dissuade women from terminating pregnancies. Many peddle misinformation about abortion, including its apocryphal link to breast cancer and infertility; many also engage in religious proselytizing. Before Bush took office, most were low-budget outfits run primarily by volunteers; shortly after he took charge, federal funds began to flow, which expanded their operations and bolstered the GOP’s Christian right base. The Obama administration continues to fund these CPCs, both directly through HHS’s competitive abstinence-only grants or as subgrantees of abstinence-only state block grants.

Some of this funding was grandfathered in, as was the case with the national chain of Alpha Centers, based in South Dakota. Founded by well-known anti-abortion activist and abstinence-only champion Leslee Unruh, Alpha Center has received over $2 million in federal support, receiving its most recent payment from HHS in 2010 in fulfillment of a Bush-era multi-year grant. But other CPCs have received new grants under Obama.

Take the Evansville Christian Life Center, located in Evansville, Indiana, which won a competitive federal abstinence-only grant for $244,110 in September 2012. The center’s mission is summed up in its tag line: “Restoring the Lives of Families and Individuals through Jesus Christ.” As CPCs typically do, it promises support for pregnant women, including a free pregnancy test and ultrasound, as long as the women sit through testimony from a counselor first. The center is also engaged in anti-abortion activism, and advertises “Choose Life” license plates, which provide funding to CPCs throughout Indiana.

Multi-million dollar grant recipient Care Net Pregnancy Services, based in Du Page, Illinois, says its ultimate aim is to “share the love and truth of Jesus Christ”; another federal grant recipient, the Pregnancy Center of Pinellas County, with multiple centers in southern Florida, is “dedicated to saving and preserving lives for the cause of Jesus Christ.” Yet another, Bethany Christian Services, which has several US locations, props up the bogus claim that abortion leaves emotional and psychological scars.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Obama officials have also sent taxpayer money to firms that design abstinence-only programs and curricula, including one of the largest, now known as the Center for Relationship Education, which produces the widely used WAIT (Why Am I Tempted?) Training. CRE first received federal grants and contracts under Bush; the group’s founder, Joneen Mackenzie, was a favorite, serving the Bush administration as a national abstinence program advisor. Under Obama, CRE has continued to be a major player, bringing in over $1 million in federal abstinence-only funds, as well as marriage-promotion grants of $6.7 million through HHS.

CRE has obtained this funding despite the fact that its presenters have lied about the link between female sterility and the HPV vaccine, likened vaginas to Hoover vacuums, and cautioned girls against dressing provocatively. In a recent CRE teacher’s guide, instructors are warned that doing condom demonstrations could make them vulnerable to claims of sexual harassment.

Marriage Promotion, Evangelical-Style

Federal marriage-promotion grants are another avenue through which conservative evangelical groups have received funding under Obama. The Family Research Council, an influential Christian right advocacy group, benefited greatly from Bush administration grants being awarded to its state level affiliates. These state affiliates accomplish locally what FRC does at the national level—shape public debate and formulate public policy. One of these, the Indiana Family Institute, or IFI, counts among its greatest accomplishments shepherding a same-sex marriage ban through the state legislature. Yet the State of Indiana chose IFI to be its official partner in implementing a $1.5 million federally funded “healthy marriage” program in 2012. The project,funded through a Medicaid waiver, allows states to tap Medicaid funds for so-called “demonstration” projects, including ones designed to promote heterosexual marriage. The Indiana program, called Hoosier Commitment, boils down to a series of marriage promotion workshops lead by the IFI’s Sue Swayze, who previously served as a paid lobbyist and board member for Indiana Right to Life.

Under Obama, federal marriage promotion grants have been awarded to a number of other FRC affiliates, including The Family Leader in Iowa, the Palmetto Family Council in South Carolina, and New Jersey Family Policy Council in New Jersey. Although the Bush administration initiated the grant funding, Obama has done nothing to curtail them.

Had HHS, which is responsible for awarding marriage grants, investigated any of these FRC state affiliates, it would have found cause to revoke funding. The Family Leader serves as case in point. The group simultaneously took federal money—to the tune of $3 million—to conduct “Healthy Marriage Workshops” while aggressively running the “LUV Iowa Campaign.” LUV stands for “Let Us Vote!”—a campaign to promote a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. After being outed in the press as an HHS grantee in 2010, the group denied using federal money inappropriately but requested to opt out of their last year of funding.

LUV Iowa campaign

Iowa’s “LUV” (Let Us Vote) campaign, to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban same sex marriage, rallied on the steps of the Iowa Supreme Court in 2010. LUV was led by federally funded Family Research Council affiliate The Family Leader. The measure failed.


Marriage promotion grants have gone to several other important conservative players in the fight over LGBT and women’s rights, including Project SOS, The Center for Relationship Education, and the Northwest Marriage Institute, each of which received more than half a million dollars through 2012 from HHS “healthy marriage” competitive grants.

The Northwest Marriage Institute, for example, was awarded a $747,281 “healthy marriage” grant in 2013, seven years after Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the organization on behalf of thirteen Washington state residents, alleging that the group had used a 2005 federal grant to lead “Bible based” marriage classes. A federal court dismissed the case on the grounds that faith-based groups are allowed to implement federal social welfare programs, but the defense attorney, the conservative Center for Law & Religious Freedom’s Steven H. Aden, interpreted the decision far more broadly, claiming that “faith-based organizations are not required to abandon their religious mission and viewpoint when they cooperate with the government to address pressing social problems.”

Both Project SOS and CRE, meanwhile, were found to have ties to Martin Ssempa, the anti-gay Ugandan pastor. CRE built Ssempa’s website, produced his business cards and other brochures, and served as a de facto agent for him, booking speaking engagements for Ssempa across the United States. CRE was awarded over $1.6 million in 2013 through a federal “healthy marriage” program. Pam Mullarkey, the founder and CEO of Project SOS, is quoted as a validator on Ssempa’s website, saying, “Martin Ssempa is the man to watch. He is the most powerful voice for abstinence in the world, and his passion, charisma and character make his vital message irresistible.” (Shepherd Smith, Ssempa’s most powerful friend in Washington, was on Project SOS’s board of directors.)

Project SOS walked away from federal funding in 2010 after a report funded by the Healthy Teens Campaign of Florida and SIECUS found some of its ab-only curriculum “medically inaccurate.” But both CRE and Project SOS are back at the federal trough; in 2013 SOS received $672,703 and CRE over $1.6 million to implement “healthy marriage” programs.

A Crisis of Accountability

The amount of money the federal government gives faith-based groups is staggering. But federal agencies make the matter worse by doing very little oversight of their grantees. Most funding programs require little more than a document outlining what a group purports to do, a signature on a list of assurances that the organization will abide by all laws, and a promise to self-police by submitting periodic progress reports to the awarding agency. Public scrutiny is limited as well: Obama made transparency a priority when he took office, but information on federally funded groups, including faith-based organizations, remains hard to come by.

A nonprofit organization’s tax returns are matters of public record; Form 990s, which all non-profits must file, can be found on a number of websites. But these documents don’t show how an organization’s various funding streams are apportioned. If a group gets $2 million in federal grants and $100,000 in private donations, all of it must be declared as income. However, groups are not required to itemize how each source of money was used. Vague explanations of programs they implement suffice; “implementation of “healthy marriage” program” or “fund activities directed at preserving the family” pass muster for IRS regulations. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars continue to be awarded to anti-choice and anti-gay groups, groups that disregard scientific data or public health best practices and groups that use taxpayer dollars to proselytize, and the public is unable to learn much about it.

In 2003, PEPFAR earmarked $1 billion for HIV prevention programs, most modeled on US programs that strictly promote “abstinence only until marriage.” By then, hundreds of millions of dollars had already been spent on these programs inside the United States, where they had failed to reduce teen pregnancy or transmission of STIs.

Helen Epstein, noted public health researcher and author of The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West and the Fight Against AIDS, was in Uganda when PEPFAR money started flowing to faith-based groups. Epstein moved there in 1993 as a scientist with a biotech company searching for an AIDS cure. In her book, she notes that many experts feared that abstinence-only programs would have “similarly dismal results in Africa” as they did in the United States. Noting that evangelicals almost single-handedly delivered George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, Epstein wonders at the abrupt change in attitude by many Christian groups towards AIDS, many of whom would go on to benefit from the newly available PEPFAR dollars. “It is maybe no coincidence that some of the same people who once treated the issue of AIDS with indifference and scorn suddenly seemed so concerned about it,” she writes.

Epstein was writing in the early years of the AIDS response in sub-Saharan Africa, but her assessment of the on-the-ground partners fostered under President Bush could just as easily be applied to those now working with the Obama administration.

Faith-based groups like Children’s AIDS Fund and IRCU aren’t the only ones equipped to deliver life-saving care and prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. Smaller, home-based healthcare organizations with no religious agenda are operating in Uganda with little funding but huge potential. That’s true in the United States too. Proven programs that reduce the risk of teen pregnancy and STIs could be getting the millions of dollars in government funding now allocated to CPCs.

The evidence is in that federal tax dollars are being used to support conservative, faith-based organizations that stigmatize young women, foster anti-gay sentiment and harm public health. Whether this funding is an expression of Obama’s ideology or a cynical attempt at political pandering is ultimately immaterial.


July 8, 2014


Yet, insanely, women defend Hobby Lobby to death.

via Question Everything • iammyfather: holesinthefoam: Yet, insanely,….



Mindboggling. http://goo.gl/ZfWpR4

The women that defend Hobby Lobby, do they vote Republican, believe rape is caused by victims, and have other self destructive tendencies?Yes, yes they do believe those things because I’ve had arguments with these women and believe me, facts have no effect, so I gave up beating my head against that wall long ago.


The GOP’s (sic) takes a risk celebrating contraception ruling | MSNBC

via The GOP’s takes a risk celebrating contraception ruling | MSNBC.


By Steve Benen

The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled this morning against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception policy, agreeing that “closely held” corporations can deny contraception coverage under the First Amendment. Republican critics of “Obamacare” are thrilled, though I’m not sure if they’ve thought this through.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for example, couldn’t be more pleased.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that the Obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that Americans hold dear. Obamacare is the single worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 50 years….”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is equally pleased.
“Today’s decision is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its Big Government objectives.”
Keep in mind that Republicans haven’t simply sat on the sidelines of this fight, hoping the court’s Republican-appointed justices would rule in their favor. On the contrary, they’ve been active participants in the debate, filing briefs with the Supreme Court urging this outcome, proposing legislation to undo the ACA policy, and in some cases, even threatening to push a constitutional amendment if the Hobby Lobby ruling had gone the other way.
As a result, GOP lawmakers and their allies are clearly delighted today, basking in the glow of victory.
What they may not fully appreciate, at least not yet, is what happens next: the political fallout.
Republican opposition to contraception access has been largely reflexive in recent years: “Obamacare” makes birth control available to Americans without a copay; “Obamacare” is evil; ergo the right must fight against contraception access.
The trouble is, the American mainstream and GOP policymakers really aren’t on the same page. The latest national polling reinforces the fact that most of the country wanted today’s ruling to go the other way.
Let’s revisit a piece from March, following oral arguments. Do Republicans believe it’s a winning election-year message to tell many American women their access to contraception must be based in part on their bosses’ religious beliefs? Because that’s the line the party is taking right now. They wouldn’t put in those terms, exactly, but as a practical matter, that’s effectively the real-world consequence of the Republican position.
This came up quite a bit in 2012, when congressional Republicans championed a measure from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would have empowered private-sector employers to deny health services that business owners find morally objectionable.
In one of the presidential candidate debates, President Obama hammered Mitt Romney over his support for the Blunt Amendment. The GOP candidate, the president said, argued “employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage. That’s not the kind of advocacy that women need.”
Romney balked, saying, “I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.”
The trouble seemed to be that Romney heard Obama’s description of Romney’s own position and was repulsed. But in reality, both Romney and his running mate endorsed a policy that would leave contraception decisions for millions of workers in the hands of employers.
And if memory serves, the gender gap didn’t do the GOP any favors once the votes were tallied.
Two years later, the Republican position hasn’t changedMore than two-thirds of U.S. women oppose allowing corporations to drop contraception from their health plans due to spiritual objections, but GOP leaders are nevertheless saying the exact opposite.
To be sure, what matters most this morning is the ruling itself and its impact on the public. But as we come to terms with the decision and legal experts sort out its scope, it’s only natural to consider the electoral impact. And with this in mind, Republicans are taking a gamble, whether they realize it or not.
Democratic campaign operatives’ single biggest concern this year is getting left-of-center voters to show up and cast a ballot this fall. Last week, some Dem strategists said they were particularly concerned about whether unmarried women would get engaged this cycle.
Watching Republican-appointed justices to limit contraception access, while Republican lawmakers cheer them on, may be just what Democratic campaign officials needed.
A Democratic leadership aide told the Washington Post last fall, “This could be very helpful with younger and middle aged women…. The idea that a boss calls the shots on a woman’s ability to get free birth control is really powerful. This is the kind of issue that could help change the ACA debate by reminding women in particular that at its core it’s all about access and affordability.”
Congratulations, Republicans, you’ve won your big case at the Supreme Court, and positioned yourself this election as the 21st century political party that supports restrictions on contraception access. The party saw a political landmine and decided to do a victory dance on it. We’ll see how this turns out for them.
The question couldn’t be more straightforward: Dear GOP candidates, do you agree with the Supreme Court on contraception access or not? The DCCC and DSCC clearly hope that in most instances, Republicans endorse today’s ruling.


why has it taken so long for this to appear?

Always better together.


How Are They Restricting Us Now? Targeting Abortion Providers | This Is Personal

infographic - trap laws (image: courtesy this is personal)

infographic – trap laws (image: courtesy thisispersonal.org)

How Are They Restricting Us Now? Targeting Abortion Providers | This Is Personal.