The health care bill signed into law restores $50 million in funding for five years for abstinence-only programs. As we wrote earlier, the federal budget signed by President Obama does not include funds directed towards them.

CNN reports today that Guttmacher Institute isn't happy about the newly directed funds. However, a federally funded study released in February suggested that programs that encourage teenagers to delay having sex have been effective. Rob Stein of the Washington Post offers some background:

A University of Pennsylvania researcher reported last month that a carefully designed, morally neutral abstinence-focused approach can work. But the program does not earmark funding for programs focused on maintaining virginity.

During the health legislation debate in the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) added $50 million in annual funding for five years to states for abstinence programs -- a provision that survived the tumultuous process that ensued.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 31, 2010 11:41AM | Comments (20)

Concerned Women for America is asking the Republican National Committee to explain the party's expense for a $1,946.25 visit to a club with topless dancers and bondage outfits.

"As women we find the very idea of officials from either party conducting business inside an establishment that objectifies and demeans women outrageous," Penny Nance, the Chief Executive Officer of Concerned Women for America, said in a statement today.

Did they really agree to reimburse nearly $2,000 for a bondage-themed night club? We have several questions for the RNC: Why would a staffer believe that this is acceptable, and has this kind of thing been approved in the past?

Please explain to women if and why you think it is appropriate to attach your organizations to pornographic enterprises? Did you really swill drinks, ogle young girls and plan party business at this kind of establishment?

The RNC will be reimbursed by Erik Brown of Orange, Calif., the political consultant who expensed the committee for the February visit to the club, according to the Associated Press.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 29, 2010 6:59PM | Comments (5)

When the House sent a sweeping health care bill to President Obama Sunday, most of the nation's leading pro-life groups slammed it as a proposal that would liberalize the nation's abortion laws and increase the abortion rate.

But Democrats for Life America and its executive director Kristen Day were casting a dramatically different message, arguing that the bill was not only pro-life but that the nation's abortion rate likely would decrease.

For months, Democrats for Life had been working on the same side of organizations such as National Right to Life, the Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission in trying to ensure that the health care bill maintained the status quo on abortion law and did not federally fund the procedure. Yet when Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan announced a deal Sunday that lent his support if Obama pledged to sign an executive order, Democrats for Life was the only group not disappointed. It sent out a press release hours later saying it was "proud to support this historic health care legislation."

"The goal was always to pass a health care reform bill," Day told Baptist Press. "All these [pro-life] members and Democrats for Life supported health care reform, and the point of contention obviously was the abortion issue.... We're proud that this health care legislation passed and we're proud of the work that Bart did. We appreciate that the president signed this executive order that says the Hyde Amendment is the law of the land."

The Hyde Amendment -- which must be renewed annually -- prevents Medicaid from funding elective abortions. President Obama signed the bill, named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, into law Tuesday.

Generally, groups that oppose abortion have divided into two camps in theorizing how the bill will impact the nation's abortion rates. National Right to Life and others argue that the nation likely will see an increase in abortions because lower-income women who currently are uninsured will be able to use tax subsidies to purchase insurance plans that cover elective abortion, making the procedure affordable and more accessible. (The new law's allowance of tax dollars to go toward insurance plans that cover elective abortions is a break from longstanding policy.) Democrats for Life, though, says the abortion rate likely will decrease because uninsured women who previously would have had an abortion for financial reasons will be less likely to do so because they and their baby now have insurance coverage.

"A lot of women don't have health insurance," Day told Baptist Press. "If they get pregnant, they have to choose between carrying the baby to term or having an abortion. An abortion is obviously much cheaper. So I think having health care insurance will help push the decision toward carrying the baby to term."

The new law also could lead to fewer birth defects for the babies of lower-income women, Day said.

"I have a friend of mine who is on the board for the March of Dimes," she said. "He says these pregnant women would come in and they would have no prenatal care and then they'd come in and have these babies who had problems. That problem will be alleviated [with prenatal care]."

Day also points to aspects of the new law that everyone in the pro-life camp can support. For instance, the law:

-- appropriates $250 million over 10 years in a "Pregnancy Assistance Fund" to help high school and college women who are pregnant and don't want an abortion.

-- raises the maximum adoption tax credit by approximately $1,000 to $13,170 and also extends the sunset on the increased credit from Dec. 31, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2011, according to the Journal of Accountancy. (Adoptive families are promoting a separate bill that would make it permanent.)

Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, defended the executive order by arguing that it toughens the conscience rights of pro-life health care workers and ensures that the law's funding for community health care centers cannot be used for elective abortions.

"I wasn't in those internal discussions, but I feel comfortable that the pro-life Democrats who negotiated this did a good job," Day said. "I trust their judgment."

Other pro-life groups say the executive order could be overturned in court, leading to federal funding of abortion at the health centers. They also say Stupak should have held out for much tougher pro-life language. For instance, the amendment he supported in November -- which passed the House -- prevented federal dollars from going to any insurance plan that covers abortion. But the bill that Obama signed allows tax dollars to go toward such plans, as long as insurance plans segregate the money. (Enrollees must make two separate payments -- one for abortion coverage and one for the premium. All enrollees in such a plan, even men, must make the payment.) Additionally, the law says that if the Hyde Amendment is ever reversed, federal dollars can go directly toward paying for elective abortions.

Day said it's a "mistake" for pro-life groups to target Stupak and other pro-life Democrats who supported the bill. The Susan B. Anthony List announced it would no longer present him with a "Defender of Life" award it had planned to give him Wednesday. CatholicVote.com said it had rescinded its invitation for Stupak to speak at an April meeting. Many conservative groups say they want him defeated. Ironically, pro-choice and liberal groups say they'll try to defeat him, too.

"What I'm concerned about is that there have been some pro-life groups who feel betrayed by the pro-life Democrats and they want to go out and get them out of office, which is a huge mistake, because that's exactly what NARAL [an abortion rights group] is trying to do," Day said. "I don't think that's a good strategy for the pro-life movement. A good strategy for the pro-life movement is to talk to these members and see why they supported this measure, and look to the things that we agree on. There's a lot that we agree on in the pro-life movement. So we need to remember what united us and take our partisan hats off and move forward as a strong, united movement, and not as pro-life Democrats or pro-life Republicans, but pro-life Americans.

"... We cannot solve this problem with one party. That's been a strategy for a long time, and it doesn't work."

Stupak and other Democrats who oppose abortion rights have made a big difference in their party, Day added.

"I think an aspect that is being overlooked is the strength of the pro-life Democrats within the party," she said. "If people stop and look, we really interfered with the stranglehold that the abortion lobby has had on the party. They're not happy with this. And so these pro-life Democrats are united like they've never been before."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 26, 2010 9:02AM | Comments (15)

Liberty University has announced that it will file a lawsuit challenging the federal health care legislation.

"Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions,” Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, said in a statement. “If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. Congress clearly lacks the constitutional authority to force individuals to have, or private businesses to provide, health insurance.”

Alex Isenstadt of Politico reports that thanks to the health care debates, abortion is poised to make a political comeback.

The Family Research Council, which has already spent nearly $2 million this cycle backing anti-abortion candidates across the country, is now considering wading into battles against anti-abortion Democrats like Pennsylvania Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, Virginia Rep. Thomas Perriello, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth and West Virginia Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall — all of whom voted for the health care bill Sunday.

... NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told POLITICO that the lesson learned from the health care battle was that the abortion-rights movement, which has lacked the votes needed to shut down abortion funding language from anti-abortion Democrats throughout the health care reform push, needs more allies in Congress.

William McGurn writes about the death of the pro-life Democrats for the Wall Street Journal as Kathleen Parker looks at Stupak's fall from pro-life grace for the Washington Post.

President Obama will sign an executive order today that says that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion will remain under the new legislation. The event will be closed to the news media. The New York Times reports that Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan and Senator Robert Casey (D-Pennsylvania) will attend.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 24, 2010 10:55AM | Comments (76)

Health care stole the spotlight yesterday, but just blocks away from the Capitol, tens of thousands of people marched in support of immigration reform. Here's a story that includes several evangelicals who attended the march yesterday.

Today, several religious leaders met with senior White House officials to discuss immigration reform, including Sojourners head Jim Wallis and Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Here are statements from others:

Galen Carey, Director of Government Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals :

“We are pleased that President Obama and Members of Congress are finally giving long overdue attention to resolving the immigration crisis this year. Fixing our broken immigration system is important to the security and prosperity of all Americans, and particularly to the hardworking immigrant families who contribute so much to our churches and communities. Immigration reform can’t wait. We want action now.”

Rev. Rich Nathan, Pastor of Vineyard Church of Columbus, the second largest church in Ohio:
“As a pastor I have witnessed the brokenness of our immigration system firsthand. We have individuals from 75 different nations attending our weekend services. Some are here illegally to escape poverty and to make a better life, but now face only two options: to stay in the shadows or to be deported. In the Hebrew Bible, special provision is made for immigrants, along with orphans and widows, to safeguard the most vulnerable people in Israelite society. God’s call to people who value the authority of the Bible is clear: remember where you came from and act with justice and love towards the immigrant in your midst.”

Here are a few photos from the rally:

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 22, 2010 11:15AM | Comments (8)

Congress just passed the Senate's health care bill 219 to 212.

The bill will require most Americans to have health insurance, it would subsidize private coverage for low- and middle-income people, and add 16 million people to Medicaid, according to The New York Times. It will cost the government $938 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Earlier today, Rep. Bart Stupak announced his support for the bill, and President Obama will sign an executive order on abortion language.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 21, 2010 9:45PM | Comments (22)

Rep. Bart Stupak just announced that President Obama will sign an executive order on abortion language after the bill is voted on today in the House.

"I've always supported health-care reform," Stupak said at a press conference. "There was a principal that meant more to us than anything, and that was the sanctity of life."

He said he believes the Democrats had enough votes to pass the bill before he agreed to vote for it. Stupak led a House effort to bar funding for abortion in health care legislation, but the House is considering the Senate's version of the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been in negotiations with Stupak to discuss specific restrictions on abortion funding in the bill, but she said no amendments would be considered.

Here's a statement from Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:

"Pro-life lawmakers would be making a serious mistake to trust those who have repeatedly attempted to mislead the American people into believing that abortion is not in the bill," Perkins said. "The President could also lift such an executive order at any time with a stroke of a pen."

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser also issued a statement:

The very idea is a slap in the face to the pro-life movement and should be offensive to all pro-life Members of Congress," she said. "The courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders."

SBA launched a $250,000 television ad campaign in the districts of six pro-life Democrats.

Update: Dannenfelser told Politico that the group was set to give Stupak the group's "Defender of Life" award, but "we’re going to be working hard to see who we can find to run against him.”

“In a completely cynical move, they have made this bill passable and each of them are going to pay individually," she said. "And that’s what we do. That’s what we love to do is unelect people who say they're for life and then completely betray the movement.”

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released the following statement:

"The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation," Doerflinger said. "This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

The text of the executive order on abortion language from the White House is below.

Statement from Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer:

Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

A text of the pending executive order follows:

Executive Order

- – - – - – -

ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 21, 2010 3:08PM | Comments (16)

The thing that most surprised former President George W. Bush was not international crises like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, nor the resilience of the Iraqi insurgency, but rather the impact of prayers from the American people, he said.

"The biggest surprise of the presidency was the calming effect of prayer by total strangers," Bush told about 700 college students and business leaders during a private appearance last Friday (March 12) at Southeastern University, an Assemblies of God-affiliated school in
central Florida.

Bush said he was shocked and humbled by how many people prayed for him. "Imagine being a president of the United States and innumerable people would come up to you on a rope line and they're not going to say `I want a bridge' or `I want something special.' They come up to you and say, `I'm here to tell you, Mr. President, that I pray for you.' You gain strength as a leader by recognizing you need help."

Both the president and former first lady Laura Bush spoke at the university's Leadership Forum, the first time they have spoken on the same program since leaving the White House.

The former president talked at length about his battle with alcoholism, during a candid hour-long conversation with Southeastern chancellor Tommy Barnett. Bush said it was a private conversation with evangelist Billy Graham in his parents' living room -- after his fifth glass of wine -- that finally convinced him to give up the bottle.

"I wouldn't be sitting here as president of the United States if I hadn't quit drinking," he said.

Bush said he regretted some of his tough talk about terrorists after 9/11. "If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't say `dead or alive' or `bring `em on."' But he explained: "The enemy has got to know we were going to find them and hunt them down -- there I go again! -- we would
locate them."

Bush talked openly about practicing his Christianity in office, including sharing his faith with the Russian and Chinese heads of state.

He said he told the Chinese president that Christianity is good for China. "Wouldn't you like to have a people whose first obligation is to love?" he recalled telling the Chinese leader.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 19, 2010 9:59AM | Comments (14)

Democrats secured more votes yesterday and could vote on health care reform as early as Sunday, The New York Times reports.

Rep. James E. Clyburn said the legislation would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the next decade from reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, new fees and tax increases.

Three self-described pro-life Congressmen who voted for the Stupak amendment, Tom Perriello (D-Virginia), Dale Kildee (D-Michigan) and Jim Oberstar (D-Michigan), have declared their support for the Senate's health care legislation.

In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus argues that the fight over abortion is minor.

If anything, both versions would end up restricting abortion coverage more than under current law. Some women whose insurance covers abortion would lose that benefit as their policies move to the new insurance exchanges.

If anything, health-care reform would reduce the number of abortions. More women would have coverage that includes contraception. Pregnant women would know that their medical care, and that of their child, would be covered.

Michael Gerson argues that proponents of health care have muddled important moral debates to get the legislation passed.

The Senate bill would allow federal subsidies to go to health plans that cover elective abortions -- under two conditions. First, the coverage would be paid for by a separate premium check required of all enrollees. Second, there would have to be at least one alternative in any regional health exchange that doesn’t offer abortion coverage.

...If the health-care reform abortion debate is really a trivial mix-up, then what are the motivations of, say, the Catholic bishops? They have been one of the most consistent supporters of universal health care in America. They view it as a matter of social justice. It is difficult to accuse them of wanting to show their political “muscle” by defeating health care or Obama. Actually, it would be libelous.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich also announced yesterday he would change his no vote on the House measure to yes on the Senate bill.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 18, 2010 9:22AM | Comments (11)

Media outlets appear confused over whether evangelicals are taking interest in Tea Party activities.

Politico says the movement is stirring fears among evangelicals.

A reeling economy and the massive bank bailout and stimulus plan were the triggers for a resurgence in support for the Republican Party and the rise of the tea party movement. But they’ve also banished the social issues that are the focus of many evangelical Christians to the background.

And while health care legislation has brought social and economic conservatives together to fight government funding of abortion, some social conservative leaders have begun to express concern that tea party leaders don’t care about their issues, while others object to the personal vitriol against President Barack Obama, whose personal conduct many conservative Christians applaud.

The Los Angeles Times sees social conservatives are putting a religious twist on tea party messages.

In news releases, mission statements and interviews, prominent social conservatives increasingly are using the small-government rhetoric popular with the tea party activists and long used by economic conservatives -- but with a religious bent.

Their websites explore the morality of debt and the risks to religious freedom posed by growing government. Like the tea party activists, they reverently invoke the Founding Fathers, but emphasize the role the founders' faith played in their writings.

Finally, The New York Times ran a piece on Friday on how Tea Party leaders don't spend time on social issues.

For decades, faith and family have been at the center of the conservative movement. But as the Tea Party infuses conservatism with new energy, its leaders deliberately avoid discussion of issues like gay marriage or abortion.

God, life and family get little if any mention in statements or manifestos. The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.”

What say you? Are you involved in a Tea Party activities? Perhaps you prefer coffee?

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 15, 2010 11:03AM | Comments (18)

Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter told CT today in an e-mail that he has left the Republican Party.

For 40 years I was a registered Republican like Paul was a registered Pharisee after he became a follower of Christ - when it furthered the agenda of the Gospel (as I understood it) then I was active as a Rep. When it didn't, I wasn't.

I was never comfortable being identified with a political Party but the hyper-partisanship and the outside voices hijacking legitimate political debate is not something of which I will be a part.

Christian philanthropist Howard Ahmanson left the GOP to become a Democrat in May 2009.

CT has profiled Hunter and interviewed him several times in the past about his relationship with President Obama.

(h/t Ben Smith)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 12, 2010 2:45PM | Comments (28)

Democratic leaders plan to push through the Senate's version of the health care bill with or without the support of pro-life Democrats, the Associated Press reports.

That strategy would leave in place the Senate language on abortion. It would allow health plans receiving federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace to cover abortion, provided they pay for it only with money collected from policyholders. The House bill would have prohibited health plans receiving subsidies from covering abortions.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., has been pushing for the stricter House provisions, saying that he and a dozen or so abortion opponents would vote against the health care bill if the Senate language is retained. But the leadership appears to be moving to call his bluff.

However, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said he doesn't believe they have enough votes to pass the legislation by President Obama's March 18 deadline.

"I don't see how they're going to get the votes to pass healthcare, no matter what procedure they use, if they want to do it by March 18th," Stupak said last night on Fox News. "I don't see it."

Yesterday, a group of progressive evangelicals sent a letter to the House in support of the Senate's version of the bill, saying that the "longstanding restrictions on federal funding of abortion have been maintained." The group included President of Evangelicals for Social Action Ron Sider, President of Sojourners Jim Wallis, pastor of Northland Church Joel Hunter, and David Gushee, chair of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. Tobin Grant writes more at CT about how other advocacy groups are addressing health care.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 12, 2010 11:28AM | Comments (1)

A White House advisory council on today submitted 164 pages of recommendations on ways the federal government can better partner with faith-based groups in tackling a host of social problems, from poverty to improving interfaith relations.

Still, some of the thorniest issues surrounding public-private partnerships -- especially legal questions of discrimination in hiring -- remain unsolved after White House officials decided early on they would not be included in the panel's portfolio.

Administration officials, however, promised that the 25-member panel's suggestions will not suffer the fate of countless blue-ribbon commissions.

"It won't just be a document on a shelf," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "I promise you this document will become an active action plan in the Department of Health and Human Services."

Sebelius, one of several officials who met with the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, said she hopes to work with churches and other community organizations on a range of issues, including how to continue free-lunch programs for needy students during school vacations.

The 25 members of the council, which included representatives of national faith-based and secular charities, finished their one-year term with a 164-page report that included more than 60 specific recommendations.

Melissa Rogers, chair of the council, said the diverse panelists were able to reach common ground beyond the "lowest common denominator," and will remain available as the administration considers how, or if, to implement the recommendations.

"Whether it's been through press statements, books or sermons, all of us have been trying to tell the government what to do for years," she said, "but we've rarely received a White House invitation to make a list of recommendations."

President Obama met with council-members in the White House after they concluded their final meeting. New members of the council, who also will have a one-year term, are expected to be named soon.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson told the council that she is open to their recommendations to create faith-based and community-based liaisons in regional EPA offices and to sponsor a public education campaign on the environment.

"We're taking for granted the fact that people know in this day and age how important it is," Jackson said. "We probably need to remind them that the abundance we're fighting to save is their heritage. It is a heritage they got from God."

The council was formed after President Obama announced in February 2009 that he would revamp, but keep open, the former White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Initiatives that he inherited from President George W. Bush.

Their recommendations came in six different areas, including reform of the renamed White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. They suggest increased guidance so religious organizations use federal funds while respecting the separation of church and state.

In other areas, recommendations include vastly increasing the scope of interfaith service projects in cities and on college campuses; involving faith-based organizations more in addressing poverty; promoting fatherhood in the military and in prison programs; limiting
the Pentagon's role in development work; and helping nonprofit groups "green" their buildings.

Religious leaders who worked with the council describe their work as serious, but said the actual implementation of the recommendations remains unclear. Joshua DuBois, the director of the office, said the administration would review the council's recommendations and determine what could and could not be implemented.

The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said he was pleased with the "valuable process" of the task force on reforming the office but remains concerned that the hiring and discrimination questions are unresolved. Administration officials have said the White House will consult with the Justice Department on the outstanding legal questions.

Groups like the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination have criticized Obama for not fulfilling his campaign promise to prevent social service groups that receive federal money from hiring and firing employees based on their religion.

"The recommendations we've made could be scuttled in importance if we don't take care of the discrimination issue," Gaddy said. "And that's out of the hands of the task forces and of the advisory council."

Even so, Gaddy said he hopes that the president will act on the council's recommendations.

"I know that there are a lot of people in this nation who want to be supportive of that office but are worried because it is still operating with the procedures put in place by former President Bush."

Stanley Carlson-Thies, who helped Bush open the original faith-based office and was on the task force charged with reforming it, said the council's work demonstrates that collaboration between government and religious organizations will continue, albeit in new ways.

"It is a further development down the path of a very robust engagement ... that's carefully designed not to be biased for religion and against secular but to be very inclusive of all the faith based efforts," said Carlson-Thies, founder and president of the International Religious Freedom Alliance.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 9, 2010 9:35PM | Comments (2)

The Supreme Court has decided to rule on a case deciding whether the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church is protected under the First Amendment when they protest at military funerals.

Westboro pastor Fred Phelps leads other members in funeral protests to suggest that military deaths are punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality.

The Associated Press reports that justices will hear an appeal from the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, after they picketed outside his son's funeral in Maryland. A signs at the funeral combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto with a slur against gay men, the AP reports. Lyle Denniston has more background on the SCOTUS blog.

In Albert Snyder’s appeal, his lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s protection of speech about public issues, especially the Justices’ 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, does not apply “to private individuals versus private individuals.” If it does apply, the petition said, “the victimized private individual is left without recourse.” The Circuit Court decision, it added, encourages private individuals to use hyperbolic language to gain constitutional protection “even if that language is targeted at another private individual at a private, religious funeral.”

Even if the Hustler decision does apply to the kind of remarks at issue, the petition asserted, the case also raises the issue of whether those who attend a funeral are like a “captive audience” and thus need protection against intruders who were not invited.

The case will be argued in the fall, according to the AP.

(h/t Debra Cassens Weiss)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 8, 2010 11:51AM | Comments (7)

Updated: Friday, March 5, 12:30 p.m.

President Obama, calling for a vote on health-care legislation by mid-March, has upped the stakes for his presidency over so-called Obamacare, which prolife leaders say will provide for the biggest expansion of abortion services in American history. (See analysis of the Senate and House bills below.)

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, put out an urgent video message early this morning and is featured in the Wall Street Journal's Friday edition.

Here are excerpts from Yoest's commentary:

It's now becoming clear that Barack Obama is willing to put everything on the table in order to be the president who passes health-care reform. Everything, that is, except a ban on federal funding for abortion.... The president's latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn't include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.
• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.
• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

A handful of prolife Democrats hold the fate of this legislation in their hands. A new poll indicates, if these incumbents vote for Obamacare, many voters in their districts will be sufficiently unhappy to vote them out in the November general election.

Michigan Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak, has been the most visible of these conservative Democrats. So far, he's not waffled that clear language be included to ban abortion services under the legislation's health care provisions.

If you have an appetite for understanding how House Speaker Pelosi will get Obamacare passed. Here's a blog entry that explains the latest strategy and counter-strategy on Capitol Hill. How Pelosi Will Game the Stupak 12.

Friday, noon, update:

CT has received a copy of a two page document from a law professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, Dr. Timothy S. Jost. In his document, he provides this analysis:

There are only four perceptible differences between the Senate and House bill in their treatment of abortion.

o First, the House bill under the Stupak amendment provides that if a health plan is purchased using federal support, abortion coverage must be purchased with private funds under a separate supplemental policy. The Senate bill also prohibits the use of federal funds to purchase abortion coverage, but takes a different approach. If federal premium credits or cost-sharing reduction payments are used to purchase a health plan, the plan must collect a separate privately-paid premium to cover the abortion coverage from the enrollee or enrollee’s employer. The amount of the premium must fully cover the cost of the abortion coverage and may not take into account savings to the plan from the plan not having to pay for prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care when abortions take place. The funds must be kept in a separate account used solely for abortion coverage. State insurance commissioners must ensure that health plans comply with the segregation requirements in accordance with generally acceptable accounting principles and circulars on funds management from the OMB and GAO. Concern has been expressed that plans might use accounting practices that, despite this oversight, allow them to subsidize abortion coverage from federal funds, but if they want to do this for some reason, they could also do it under the House bill. Requiring a separate abortion policy rather than a separate premium is an administrative technicality. It merely requires one more piece of paper. It has also been argued that employees of small businesses will be forced by their employers to pay for abortion coverage through the exchange, but under section 1312 of the Senate bill, an employer cannot choose a health plan for an employee, employees are free to choose their own plan within a tier of coverage specified by the employer. No one will have to purchase abortion coverage under the Senate bill who does not want it, just as under the House bill.

o Second, the Senate bill goes beyond the House bill in permitting the states to absolutely prohibit the sale of plans through the exchanges that cover abortion. That is, under the Senate bill, a state may prohibit not only plans that receive a public subsidy from covering abortion, they may also prohibit plans that do not receive a public subsidy but are sold through the exchange from covering abortion. The CBO estimates that 6 million Americans will purchase unsubsidized plans through the exchanges. The House bill does not explicitly allow the states to do this.

o Third, the Senate bill, but not the House bill, prohibits plans from advertising the separate cost of their abortion coverage. This provision is presumably intended to keep plans from competing with each other by making abortion coverage attractive.

o Fourth, the Senate bill, but not the House bill, provides for $25 million a year in grants to the states for assisting pregnant and parenting teens and women. These grants would go to institutions of higher learning, high schools, and community centers that offer pregnant and parenting teens and women the support that they need to get an education and to function.

* * *

Click here to add your voice to the debate via the White House comment line.

Posted by Tim Morgan at March 5, 2010 9:23AM | Comments (7)

Donald E. Wildmon, founder of American Family Association (AFA) for more than 30 years, has resigned from his position as chairman after several months of hospitalization, according to a press release.

Wildmon contracted encephalitis from a bite from a mosquito with the virus, and he also had surgery for cancer on his left eye.

Wildmon said in the release that he will continue to work at the ministry but will not have a leadership role. Wildmon said his son Tim, who has been with AFA for 24 years, is expected to lead the ministry, according to the release.

Wildmon began AFA in 1977, and the ministry now operates on a $20 million annual budget with 175 employees, owning 180 radio stations and publishing a monthly magazine.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 3, 2010 1:00PM | Comments (6)

Catholic Charities in Washington D.C., has stopped offering benefits to spouses of employees who are not already enrolled in the plan, William Wan and Michelle Boorstein report for the Washington Post. The law prohibits contractors of the city from discriminating against same-sex married couples, and the decision came just before the District made same-sex marriage legal.

The move is an effort to prevent offering benefits to same-sex partners. The Supreme Court declined to put on hold a new law that allows same-sex couples to marry in Washington, D.C., according to Reuters.

Other items from the news:

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison Perry conceded to Texas governor Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday night as Perry gained 51 percent of the votes to Hutchison's 30 percent.

• Here's what Mike Huckabee had to say to the National Religious Broadcasters last weekend, according to Christian Heinze at GOP 12.

  "I don’t consider myself a religious broadcaster in the sense that my programming is religious, but I consider myself unapologetically a Christian believer and I take my Christian faith to work with me everyday. I don’t leave it at the door.

  .... people ask me why I don’t do more Gospel orientated content on my show. Fox isn’t a Christian channel, it’s a news channel. They want me to be careful not to look sectarian but if anybody watches the show regularly they’re certainly going to see spiritual content whether it’s a Christian music artist or people giving very powerful testimonies of their own faith and walk with God. I’m careful to ensure we do that in the balance.”

• Move over, evangelicals. Tea partiers are taking your slot as the group to woo. Gerald F. Seib writes in the Wall Street Journal that the time is similar to when Ronald Reagan told a convention of evangelicals in August 1980: "I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing."

  Republicans today are trying something similar with the Tea Party movement. Yet even as Republicans relish this thought, it's worth remembering that, just as their embrace of the religious right created occasional heartburn alongside electoral success, so too does their slow embrace of the Tea Party movement carry downside risks as well as upside potential.

• Elrena Evans writes about Michelle Obama's campaign against obesity for Her.meneutics.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 2, 2010 10:03PM | Comments (23)

After a year's work, a White House advisory council on faith-based programs adopted dozens of recommendations on February 26 on everything from church-state separation to fighting poverty and promoting fatherhood.

The 25-member advisory council also called for reforms to the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to help protect "religious liberty rights."

"The recommendations call ... for greater clarity in the church-state guidance given to social service providers so that tax funds are used appropriately and providers are not confused or sued," the panel's report said.

"The recommendations also insist that beneficiaries must be notified of their religious liberty rights, including their rights to alternative providers."

The advisory panel, which will submit its final report on March 9, also urged the Obama administration to ensure that "decisions about government grants are made on the merits of proposals, not on political or religious considerations."

Among the panel's 64 recommendations, advisers voiced support for:

-- developing interfaith service projects on 500 U.S. college campuses and in 40 U.S. cities

-- working to correct the "deeply flawed" ways the federal government measures poverty to better respond to the needy who aren't currently eligible for social services

-- increased federal funding for programs to promote fatherhood, including among fathers in the military and in prison

-- limiting the Pentagon's role in development work

-- providing guidance to state and local governments to help nonprofit groups "retrofit and green" their buildings.

The advisers reached consensus on most recommendations but were divided over two contentious issues: whether houses of worship that receive direct federal funding for social service programs should form separate nonprofit corporations; and whether federally-funded religious charities should remove religious art, symbols or messages in facilities used to provide social services.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 2, 2010 9:24AM | Comments (1)

Lawmakers in Utah recently approved a bill that would criminalize pregnant women who arrange to have an illegal abortion, and the bill now awaits the governor's signature or veto. The bill was introduced after pregnant teenager allegedly paid a man to kick her stomach when she was seven months pregnant. Here's more from The New York Times.

But critics say legislation inspired by an unusual, perhaps even freakish criminal case, could open up a vast frontier around the question of intent and responsibility and give local prosecutors huge new powers to inquire about a woman’s intentions toward her unborn child.

For example, if a pregnant woman gets into a vehicle, goes on a wild ride way over the speed limit without wearing a seatbelt and crashes and the fetus is killed, is she a reckless driver? Or is she a reckless mother-to-be who criminally ignored the safety of her fetus?

Under the bill, a woman guilty of criminal homicide of her fetus could be punished by up to life in prison.

... At least 38 states have laws against fetal homicide, generally intended to create additional penalties when a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed. And two states, Delaware and New York, also have laws specifically making self-abortion a crime. Both laws were passed before the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

Other items from the news:

-- The Supreme Court declined to hear a lower court decision that Ten Commandments display on public property in Oklahoma must go, according to the Associated Press.

-- Nicholas Kristof writes about World Vision's Richard Stearn's new book in his latest column for The New York Times. Here's his conclusion.

If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.

Kristof also wrote about evangelicals in 2008, 2005, 2004, 2003, again in 2003, yet again in 2003, and in 2002.

-- The New York Times devotes an editorial to the house on C Street affiliated with the Fellowship, arguing that it should not receive tax exemptions as a religious organization.

-- Former President George W. Bush told a crowd at the Fort Worth Christian School that his faith sustained him during during his years as president.

"I don't see how I could be president without prayer," he said, according to the Associated Press. "The prayers of the people ... sustained me, comforted me and strengthened me in a way I could have never predicted before becoming president, and for that I am extremely grateful."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 1, 2010 11:49AM | Comments (5)