The Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) is urging those who oppose these efforts to contact their legislators and ask them not to support these bills.   When you do, please make the following points.

1.    We Can't Afford It:  We are facing a budget crisis in the state.  The budget deficit is at least $6 billion and could be much higher.  Expanding marriage rights and benefits to same-sex couples will have a significant fiscal impact that the state cannot afford.  Expanding benefits to same-sex couples should not be a priority at a time when funding cuts are being made to essential state services.

2.    Redefining Marriage Creates Bad Precedent: Currently, Washington State law restricts individuals from marrying someone who is 1) a close relative, 2) already married, 3) a minor and 4) of the same gender.  The is no rational reason to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples but deny those benefits to relationships involving close relatives and people who are already married. 

3.     Same-Sex Marriage Legislation Threatens Freedom of Conscience:  If the state chooses to recognize same-sex marriages as equivalent to traditional marriages, organizations and/or individuals whose convictions forbid them from treating homosexual relationships similarly will be forced to abandon their conscience, face lawsuits, or stop living life in accordance with their convictions.  This has already happened in Massachusetts as religiously based adoption agencies have been forced to stop serving orphans rather than violate their conscience.  It would be preferable for the government to remain neutral so that same-sex couples can live in peace without preventing those who disagree from living life as they choose.

4.    The Legislation Creates Equivalency, not Equality:  This legislation would not end discrimination in marriage; it would simply elevate same-sex marriage to the level of traditional marriages.  The intellectually honest position would be to eliminate all restrictions on who a person can marry to ensure that no relationship involving consenting adults is discriminated against.

The FPIW believes traditional marriages have a uniquely special value to society.  As such, we believe it is appropriate for government to recognize their unique value.  With respect to the myriad of other lifestyle choices Washingtonians have the freedom to choose, the state should remain completely neutral.  

One such recipient of the Life Prizes award is college student Lila Rose, president of Live Action, who had this response.
 
"Well, I was very surprised to hear I had been chosen as there are many others that have done such wonderful work alongside me in the pro-life movement, but it's definitely an honor," she notes, "and I'm very thankful to the Gerard Foundation and Mr. [Raymond] Ruddy for the generous gift so I can use it to continue to keep up the pro-life activism and the pro-life work."
 
Rose is well-known for her undercover work in exposing illegal practices at abortion clinics. "I pose as young as a 13-year-old girl in need of help, pregnant by a much older man," she explains. "And we've done other investigations like this to illustrate the abuses and the lawlessness that goes on inside these clinics regularly."
 
Her videos have revealed clinic personnel advising her on getting an abortion without getting the older man in trouble with the law. This week Rose will be releasing yet another revealing video of an undercover probe at an abortion clinic.

An author and critic of Islam says the recent decision by a Dutch court to prosecute a Dutch lawmaker for comparing the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf does not bode well for the future of free speech rights in the United States.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March of 2008 with his film Fitna, which juxtaposed Koran verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.
 
The Islamic world complained, but last year prosecutors decided against launching a case against Wilders, saying his strident anti-Islamic statements were "hurtful to Muslims, but not criminal."
 
But now the Amsterdam Appeals Court has ruled that prosecutors will launch a hate-speech case against Wilders. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He says this case is part of a larger effort to criminalize any discussion of Islam to which jihadists object.
 
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is 57 Muslim governments around the world, is making a concerted effort at the United Nations to criminalize any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to make recruits and justify their actions," he contends.
 
Spencer says the Wilders prosecution shows that Europe is falling in line with the Islamic initiative to prosecute anyone who engages in what the Islamists say is hate speech. He adds that could affect the free speech rights of Americans as well.
 
"Especially at a time when the Obama administration has announced its intention to bring the United States into line with European sensibilities about this and closer to the U.N.," he points out. "And with both Europe and the U.N giving way on free speech at a rapid clip, that bodes ill for our freedoms in the United States."

Indiana Health Commissioner Judith Monroe threatened to go to prosecutors if the clinic kept filing official "terminated pregnancy reports" without such required information as the types of procedures and the medications it used.

A copy of the Aug. 27, 2008, reprimand said a 2007 state audit found 278 of the clinic's abortion records were incomplete.

"Future Terminated Pregnancy Reports that lack required information will be referred to the Marion County Prosecutor," Monroe said in a letter to Dr. Michael King, who performs abortions at the Indianapolis clinic, one of three in the state where Planned Parenthood provides abortions.

A Planned Parenthood of Indiana spokeswoman said it is the organization's policy to comply with all state reporting laws and that it has resubmitted the records, but a State Department of Health spokeswoman said some cases remain unresolved.

Indiana Right to Life, which disclosed the reprimand in a news release, said the Indianapolis clinic in some cases did not reveal either the procedure used or the length of gestation for the aborted fetus.

"It raises concerns, when you see both of those factors omitted on the same report," said Mike Fichter, president and CEO of the anti-abortion group.

Indiana law restricts abortions after the first trimester to fetuses that are not viable, unless the mother's health is endangered, and requires such later-term abortions to be performed in hospital settings.

Thursday marked the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion.

Last month, an anti-abortion group released an undercover video that showed a 20-year-old woman posing as a 13-year-old who had been impregnated by a 31-year-old man. A counselor at the clinic said the age of the father did not concern her.

Indiana law requires anyone learning of sexual acts between an adult and a child under 14 to report them to police or child welfare authorities. The counselor in the video later resigned, and Planned Parenthood said it has brought in an outside agency to retrain its staff on requirements for reporting child abuse.

Years ago a wink was considered flirting. Today young people use technology instead.

The current trend among youth is to transmit nude or semi-nude photos or videos via cell phones. Marisa Nightingale of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy explains the phenomenon.
 
"It begins in the teen years -- and rather than it being seen as sort of a youthful indiscretion that fades with time, it actually does become more ubiquitous and more commonplace as you get older," she says.
 
Nightingale's organization surveyed 13- to 26-year-old males and females about the topic. "The findings were that one out of five teen girls, and almost the same number of teen boys, have sent or posted online a nude or semi-nude image of themselves," she shares.
 
Often the photos are circulated among friends. Reportedly the boys especially consider it to be an invitation for intimacy. According to news reports, those images sometimes make it to the Internet.
 
Nightingale offers some advice on what action is needed to stop the practice. "I think the first line of defense is really the parents," she offers.
 
Recently, three teenage girls were arrested in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, and three boys they sent pictures to were charged with child pornography.

President Barak Obama is considering Jane Henney to head the Food and Drug Administration -- and that's a problem for many pro-life groups.

Henney served in the post the first time after her appointment by then-President Bill Clinton, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America is concerned because Henney worked for approval of the dangerous abortion drug RU-486. Wright claims the FDA neglected its own standards in the process.
 
"The drug was finally approved by the FDA in a very controversial way that has consequently put women's health and safety at risk," states Wright. "Numerous women have died from taking RU-486. Hundreds more have suffered serious complications after taking this drug, thinking that it was safe."
 
CWA, she says, will be working with senators to make sure they have the information on Henney. "This raises serious questions as to whether Jane Henney will put abortion politics above women's safety and health," says the pro-life spokeswoman.
 
Wright says no one in the top job at FDA should be a rubber stamp for the abortion lobby. She says that under Henney's previous leadership, the agency "gave in completely" to the demands of abortion groups.

The Supreme Court said it won't consider reviving the Child Online Protection Act, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional. The law has been embroiled in court challenges since it passed in 1998 and never took effect.

It would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that would violate the First Amendment, because filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.

The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online - the Communications Decency Act - was unconstitutional.

The Bush administration had pressed the justices to take the case. They offered no comment on their decision to reject the government's appeal.

Five justices who ruled against the Internet blocking law in 2004 remain on the court.

The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.

An Ohio school district may be violating the constitutional rights of its students.

Mason, Ohio, school officials sent an email to parents in advance of the presidential inauguration saying, "Inappropriate comments that may make other students, staff or families feel unwelcome or uncomfortable in school or on the bus will not be tolerated." The story by DaytonDailyNews.com featured examples of negative comments and actions made about the Obama administration after he was elected.
 
The school's superintendent Kevin Bright added that even in a competitive election process, "our nation's greatness is displayed when all sides come together for a united country." However, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel believes there is more behind the correspondence.
 
Staver tells OneNewsNow the Supreme Court decided the Tinker v. Des Moines case in 1969, which was designed to stop anti-Vietnam war activism. "They said we live in a robust society and the First Amendment means what it says," he notes, "and that means that it can allow people to speak and have their viewpoints -- even if you disagree."
 
School officials need to become more aware of the Constitution, says the attorney. "This school is clearly violating the First Amendment and the intent of the founders with regards to trying to force these school students into a particular pro-Obama mold," he contends.
 
Staver suggests that any student who is disciplined for having a different view should contact Liberty Counsel. "We should not allow these school administrators to force their particular left[ist] agenda onto these students who have different viewpoints and have conservative values," he adds.