FOXNews.com: Obama administration chooses Planned Parenthood over women's health

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Obama administration chooses Planned Parenthood over women's health Jul 30th 2012, 16:37 The Obama administration's decision this month to award $3.1 million in federal funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other family planning groups in New Jersey comes as no surprise. Despite the $15 trillion national debt, the administration seems willing to keep borrowing to support the nation's largest abortion provider. And this isn't the first time the Obama administration has stepped in to ensure that taxpayer dollars continue to flow to its favorite abortion provider even at the expense of women's health care. Last summer the Obama administration threatened to pull $4.3 billion in Medicaid funding from Indiana after the state's legislature voted to prohibit all health care contracts with and grants to any "entity," including Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions or operates a facility where abortions are performed. Just months later, the Obama administration flagrantly disregarded New Hampshire's decision to cancel a $1.8 million contract with Planned Parenthood in favor of contracting with health care facilities that offer women full-service care. Ignoring the will of the residents of New Hampshire, the administration directly awarded a $1 million contract to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. 'Keeping the coffers of the abortion mega-provider flush with taxpayer cash was more important to the Obama administration than health care for poor women and their families.' - Fast-forward to this past March, when the Obama administration exposed its paramount loyalties to Planned Parenthood yet again. After the Texas Health and Human Services Commission issued a rule excluding abortion providers from participation in the Texas Women's Health Program (Texas WHP) because it wanted to prioritize funding to organizations that would provide quality, comprehensive health care to low-income women and their families, the Obama administration stepped in and pulled all federal funding for the Texas WHP. Notably, Planned Parenthood stood to lose nearly $47 million under Texas' reprioritization of funding. However, keeping the coffers of the abortion mega-provider flush with taxpayer cash was more important to the Obama administration than health care for poor women and their families. The Obama administration denied funding for basic health care to women in need in an attempt to force Texas taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. So much for caring about women's health. July has been a particularly lucrative month for Planned Parenthood at the expense of women's health. In addition to New Jersey, the Obama administration's loyalty to Planned Parenthood and to ensuring unfettered access to abortion providers at the taxpayers' expense was further exposed when the Obama administration contracted directly with Planned Parenthood in Tennessee after state officials stopped taxpayer funds from going to organizations that provide abortions. And just last week, the Obama administration overrode North Carolina's decision to redirect funds away from Planned Parenthood, and directly awarded $426,000 in federal grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state. Clearly, the Obama administration has exhibited a pattern and practice over the past year of intervening to protect one of its closest political allies that is also the nation's largest abortion provider currently under congressional investigation. But what is truly surprising and remarkable about this symbiotic devotion between the Obama administration and Planned Parenthood is the disturbing disregard for women's full-service health care and the willingness to use women and children as hostages to force continued funding of the abortion mega-provider. Planned Parenthood loves to portray itself as an organization motivated, not by abortion politics and profits, but by an overarching concern for women's health, asserting that "in many communities it is the only source of affordable quality health care for women." Like most claims made by Planned Parenthood, this assertion falls apart upon closer examination. Notably, faced with the loss of millions of dollars in Medicaid and other government funding, Planned Parenthood's CEO Cecile Richards claimed that Indiana's law denying funding to abortion providers would prohibit "nearly 10,000 women from accessing preventive health care." However, according to their own statistics, Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana serve less than 1 percent of the state's Medicaid patients, while providing more than 50 percent of the state's abortions. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of Indiana women receiving Medicaid were getting their basic health care elsewhere. Many are likely receiving care at community health centers which, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers, provide health care to the nation's underserved populations, including the uninsured, those on Medicaid and Medicare, migrant workers and people living in rural areas. Nearly 40 percent of the income for these centers comes from Medicaid. What is true in Indiana is likely true across the country. According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, community health centers provide more than 9,000 doctors, 10,000 nurses, and 8,000 health care delivery sites across the nation. These centers, and others like them, provide more comprehensive health care to serve the needs of American women -- a fact readily acknowledged in states that have reprioritized their healthcare funding. Remarkably, Planned Parenthood's "quality" health care does not even provide mammograms to women. Rather, Planned Parenthood must refer women to other clinics for this important, often life-saving, test. For pregnant women, Planned Parenthood's provided "services" are overwhelmingly abortion in contrast to providing pregnant women with prenatal care or adoption referrals. Indeed, the disparity between Planned Parenthood's provision of abortion and its provision of other pregnancy services has increased annually since 1996. It is time that women's lives and comprehensive, physical needs were treated as a priority. Seven in 10 Americans -- both those who self-describe as pro-life and pro-choice -- say they don't want their tax dollars to fund abortion. And yet, Planned Parenthood pulls in more than $1 million a day in taxpayer monies. Outside of Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration, there is little support for redirecting funds from full-service health care facilities and physicians to the abortion mega-provider. It's time to put women's health care above Planned Parenthood's desire for taxpayer dollars. Kellie Fiedorek is staff counsel at Americans United for Life.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Colorado judge's order on ObamaCare restores faith to the system

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Colorado judge's order on ObamaCare restores faith to the system Jul 30th 2012, 13:32 Faith just won a round in court. As President Obama's mandated insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs takes effect on August 1 for ordinary businesses, the Health and Human Services mandate's ultimate survival suddenly appears blessedly jeopardized. Federal district Judge John J. Kane of Colorado on Friday issued a temporary injunction blocking the mandate from being applied to Hercules Industries, a family-owned manufacturer of air-conditioning products. That the order comes from a non-conservative judge – Kane is a former public defender and Peace Corps deputy director sponsored by liberal former Sen. Gary Hart and appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter – is an especially huge development, striking more deeply at the mandate than conventional wisdom anticipated. 'While the injunction doesn't block the mandate nationwide, it sends an unmistakable message.' - Most of the attention to the fight against the mandate has focused on faith-affiliated schools and charitable institutions, many of them Catholic but some Protestant, which argue that the mandate grossly infringes their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. Dozens of lawsuits from such institutions are pending. Comparatively little attention, though, had been paid to the private businesses that also object to paying for prescriptive contraception, sterilization or abortifacients. Left-leaning observers seemed to blithely assume that no officially secular organizations had a leg to stand on when claiming a faith-based exemption from a federal, executive edict. Judge Kane utterly destroyed that notion. Making clear that such an injunction can only be issued before full consideration of the case if the plaintiff has "a likelihood of success on the merits" and risks a "threat of irreparable harm," Kane still imposed what he termed this "extraordinary remedy" to block implementation of the mandate against Hercules Industries. While the injunction doesn't block the mandate nationwide, it sends an unmistakable message that the HHS requirement will be on shaky legal ground wherever challenged. Citing precedent, Kane wrote that the weakness of the mandate's legal position looks "serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful" based on statutory grounds alone, without even considering the significant constitutional challenges raised by Hercules. As Kane summed it up, the government's stance amounted to an assertion that "a for-profit, secular employer… cannot engage in an exercise of religion." This is poppycock – and dangerous poppycock at that. It amounts to a claim that an individual employer, or a closely-held family corporation, does not enjoy the right to religious exercise unless those rights are channeled through a church in a formal worship setting. In effect, it says only churches, not individuals or family businesses, have protections for what Madison and Jefferson called "the rights of conscience." In the text or footnotes of his decision, Kane used strong language against various arguments put forth by the Obama administration. As in: "I reject it out of hand." And: "a distinction without substance." Another argument is "irrelevant in this context." And "the balance of the equities tip strongly [my emphasis added] in favor of injunctive relief." The ramifications of this decision could be enormous. If even a secular entity enjoys a "likelihood of success" on the merits of the challenge to Obama's sweeping edict, then the dozens of suits filed by explicitly faith-related institutions probably enjoy a particularly strong likelihood of victory in court. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court already has devastatingly shot down the Obama administration's cramped interpretation of religious liberty in other contexts. In a unanimous decision earlier this year – yes, unanimous, with even the most liberal justices, including Obama's own two appointments ruling against the administration – the high court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC blasted Obama's position as "untenable," "remarkable," "extreme," and possessing "no merit." Granted, the specific issue at hand in Hosanna-Tabor was different from the one in the Hercules case. What is very similar, however, is that in both cases – and in several others pushed by the Obama administration – the Obama team seeks to define religious liberty extremely narrowly while asserting that government has "compelling interests" in overriding various religious concerns. The administration positions profoundly trample on a 400-year American tradition of leaving wide room for faith to operate, unfettered by state prescription or proscription. On religious freedom, the Obama legal team is a veritable Augean Stables of faith-limiting, legal-theory detritus. It is eminently appropriate that these stables be overcome by a company called Hercules. Quin Hillyer is a Senior Fellow for the Center for Individual Freedom and a Senior Editor of The American Spectator.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Boycott about so much more than a chicken sandwich

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Boycott about so much more than a chicken sandwich Jul 31st 2012, 17:48 There's something about the public flogging of Chick-fil-A by government officials that seems un-American – lawmakers hell-bent on destroying a privately owned American company simply because of the owner's personal opinions. Democrats in more than a half dozen major cities have led the charge – slandering Chick-fil-A's owner and calling for all-out bans on the company's expansion efforts in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. And Chick-fil-A's only crime is being a family-owned company that ascribes to the teachings of the Holy Bible – a belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy has been called a bigot, a homophobe. The mayor of Washington, D.C., accused the company of peddling "hate chicken." Philadelphia City Councilman Jim Kenney introduced a resolution condemning the company -- and its president. "This particular individual is rabidly homophobic and wants to deny Americans civil rights that are enjoyed by every other American," Kenney said. 'The vicious left-wing assault against Chick-fil-A should serve as a wakeup call to people of faith.' - There are efforts under way to shut down Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country. Student groups are launching similar campaigns on university campuses. Lost in their outrage over a belief held by a majority of the American public, is the fact that Chick-fil-A employs thousands and thousands of people. And with unemployment hovering around 8.2 percent, you have to wonder what sort of message Democrats are trying to send to the nation. Perhaps the party of President Obama believes it's morally better to be unemployed than to be anti-gay marriage? American Christians are facing uncertain times. Our nation's values are under assault. Religious liberty has been undermined. We live in a day when right is now wrong and wrong is now right. The vicious left-wing assault against Chick-fil-A should serve as a wakeup call to people of faith. It's not about a chicken sandwich. It's about the future of our country. "Individuals have the right to decide whether or not to 'eat mor chikin.' But no government leader should restrict a business or organization from expanding to their district based on the personal or political views of the owners," said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals. "Such evident discrimination and attempts to marginalize those with religious values have no place in American democracy." Those who preach tolerance – are the least tolerant of all. And I suspect Councilman Kenney spoke for many when he issued a not-so-subtle threat to individuals like Dan Cathy who support traditional marriage. "If he really, truly believes what he believes, that is his right to do so," he said. "But there is often a price to pay for that. In other words, Councilman Kenney wants people with dissenting views to shut up – or else face the consequences. Pastors across the fruited plain addressed the attacks on Chick-fil-A from their pulpits on Sunday – but none was more eloquent or passionate than Charles Lyons – the pastor of Armitage Baptist Church in Chicago. Lyons issued an appeal to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, urging him to reconsider the verbal assault he made on people of faith. "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago's values," Emanuel said. His remarks left many wondering if Christians were welcome in the Windy City. "Mr. Mayor, do not dismiss us," he implored. "Do not disrespect us. We too, are Logan Square. We too, are Chicago." The pastor admonished Emanuel without so much as a shout or a hint of anger. His remarks were peppered with applause and the occasional Amen. Midway through his appeal, Lyons paused – and delivered a not-so-subtle warning to city leaders. "If the thought police come to Armitage Baptist Church, we will meet them at the door, respectfully, unflinchingly, willing to die on this hill holding a copy of the sacred Scriptures in one hand and a copy of the U.S. Constitution in the other," he said. Pay attention, people of faith. Dark clouds are gathering. The winds of intolerance are blowing. There's a great storm approaching. The days of persecution are upon us. Todd Starnes is a Fox News Radio host and author of "Dispatches From Bitter America." Read more at toddstarnes.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: The man who saved capitalism

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The man who saved capitalism Jul 31st 2012, 17:15 It's a tragedy that Milton Friedman — born 100 years ago on July 31 — did not live long enough to combat the big-government ideas that have formed the core of Obamanomics. It's perhaps more tragic that our current president, who attended the University of Chicago where Friedman taught for decades, never fell under the influence of the world's greatest champion of the free market. Imagine how much better things would have turned out, for Obama and the country. Friedman was a constant presence on these pages until his death in 2006 at age 94. If he could, he would surely be skewering today's $5 trillion expansion of spending and debt to create growth — and exposing the confederacy of economic dunces urging more of it. 'Friedman proved excess money fools people with an illusion of prosperity.' - In the 1960s, Friedman famously explained that "there's no such thing as a free lunch." If the government spends a dollar, that dollar has to come from producers and workers in the private economy. There is no magical "multiplier effect" by taking from productive Peter and giving to unproductive Paul. As obvious as that insight seems, it keeps being put to the test. Obamanomics may be the most expensive failed experiment in free-lunch economics in American history. Equally illogical is the superstition that government can create prosperity by having Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke print more dollars. In the very short term, Friedman proved, excess money fools people with an illusion of prosperity. But the market quickly catches on, and there is no boost in output, just higher prices. Next to Ronald Reagan, in the second half of the 20th century there was no more influential voice for economic freedom world-wide than Milton Friedman. Small in stature but a giant intellect, he was the economist who saved capitalism by dismembering the ideas of central planning when most of academia was mesmerized by the creed of government as savior. Click for the Stephen Moore's complete column in The Wall Street Journal

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Olympians owe gold standard to a 19th-century chemist

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Olympians owe gold standard to a 19th-century chemist Jul 31st 2012, 15:56 As he prepared to chase Olympic glory, swimmer Michael Phelps held to an amazing daily ritual. Each morning, he sat down to a training table breakfast that staggers belief: three fried egg sandwiches garnished with mayo, cheese, lettuce, tomato and onion; an omelet; a bowl of grits; three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar; and three chocolate chip pancakes just to fill in the empty corners. Phelps reportedly consumes a whopping 6,000 to 8,000 calories a day when he's swimming those endless laps that have made him a champion. As monstrous as that breakfast menu appears, it's a good foundation for a competitive athlete — high in protein and loaded with the fat and carbohydrates needed to propel Phelps' lanky, muscular body through the water during his grueling training regimen. Today, the science of nutrition has become a key component of all athletic training. But even for those of us who aren't preparing for the Olympics, our daily lives are regulated by nutritional information. As the saying goes, we are what we eat — and now we can understand why. Since the second half of the 19th century, scientists have known how the major components of food —fat, carbohydrates, and protein — are used by the body. In the 20th century, the vitamins and minerals vital to human nutrition were identified. If we choose to look at the federally mandated nutrition facts label appearing on most prepackaged food, we can tell fairly accurately what the impact on our bodies will be from everything we stick in our mouths. 'Even for those of us who aren't preparing for the Olympics, our daily lives are regulated by nutritional information.' - How did this surfeit of waistline-saving (or guilt-inducing) information come to be? In America, we can trace its origins to one man, Wilbur Olin Atwater, a 19th-century agricultural chemist whose research laid the groundwork for the science of nutrition in this country. The son of a Methodist minister, Atwater was born in Johnsburg, N.Y., in 1844. He completed his undergraduate degree at Wesleyan University in 1865 and earned a Ph.D. in agricultural chemistry at Yale in 1869. His doctoral thesis on maize represented the first modern chemical analysis of a food conducted in the United States. In 1873, Atwater landed a position as a chemistry instructor at Wesleyan. Two years later, he made history by establishing America's first state agricultural experiment station at the school. He started working with local farmers on fertilizer trials and conducting experiments on field crops. However, Atwater soon began to shift direction, focusing his research on the composition of foods and human nutrition. Atwater's first research paper, published when he was 34, dealt with the measurement of the fat content of foods. Atwater's work gradually won recognition for himself and the emerging field of nutrition. From 1879 to 1882, he analyzed the nutritive value of fish and invertebrates for the U.S. Fish Commission, and he did similar studies on meat for the Smithsonian Institution. In 1885 and 1886, he evaluated workers' diets in Massachusetts by analyzing data collected on the foods they ate. Atwater's landmark research showed that cheaper sources of fat, carbohydrates and protein can be just as useful to the body as more expensive ones. Atwater's studies helped plant the term "calorie" firmly in our collective consciousness, and they underscored a fact that still reverberates in America: On the whole, we eat too much fat and sweets and don't get enough exercise. In 1896, Atwater published the definitive collection of data on the foods we eat. "The Chemical Composition of American Food Materials" spelled out the fat, carbohydrate and protein content of every type of food that had been analyzed to that point, along with the "fuel value" (in calories) of each. The tables were expanded in 1899 and reprinted with minor changes in 1906. The findings stood until 1940 and served as the model for today's USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 8, a catalog of the nutritive value of American foods relied on by dieticians and nutritionists. Atwater died on September 22, 1907, leaving a legacy that still influences the health of Americans. His careful studies of nutrition and those that followed helped spur federal policies that have done much to alleviate childhood hunger. We see reflections of his influence on the labels of products in our grocery stores, and we're beginning to see nutritional information on the menus of restaurants. Today's familiar food pyramid, a quick and easy visual guide to the recommended daily intake of food, is a tribute to Atwater and his successors. Although Atwater achieved great things, he was never boastful about his abilities. "I have a strong faith in what may be accomplished by energy and devotion to any cause even when one's abilities are not great," he once wrote. "I am not gifted with any remarkable talent in any direction. Years ago I made up my mind that whatever I accomplished must be the result of plodding and not of genius and so I work along in my moderate way." It's clear that Atwater sold himself far short in that self-assessment. The man was certainly persistent, but he also possessed the genius of knowing how to devote his talents to the betterment of people's daily lives — even those going after Olympic acclaim. A book and magazine editor with the National Geographic Society for three decades, Paul Martin spent the last ten years as executive editor of National Geographic Traveler. He is the author of "Secret Heroes: Everyday Americans Who Shaped Our World" (William Morrow 2012).

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: A century of freedom and free markets: Celebrating Milton Friedman

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

A century of freedom and free markets: Celebrating Milton Friedman Jul 31st 2012, 13:54 Exactly a century ago, the United States was a highly charged magnet for immigrants around the world.  Thousands entered Ellis Island each day on the hope of making a better life for themselves and their families.  Two of those immigrants were Jeno and Sara Friedman; they would become the parents of Milton Friedman, one of the most influential and important economists of the 20th century. Dubbed the "grandmaster of free market economic theory" by The New York Times, Friedman's writings, especially his 1980 book "Free to Choose," authored with his wife Rose, refuted popular claims that "more government" would improve the quality of our lives.  Milton Friedman was the most ardent spokesperson advocating the complete opposite. Voluntary choices of individuals rather than arbitrary dictates of the state, he argued, should be the default mode of human life. Government is justified only insofar as it preserves, protects and defends individual liberty. On the 100th anniversary of his birth this week, one may wonder what the Nobel laureate would say about the more controversial policies now unfolding across America.  What would Friedman have thought about the recent advances in school choice, the idea he developed in 1955?  How would he react to government's decision to tax Americans who do not purchase health care? Would Friedman take a position regarding the financial impact of soaring public union pensions on state economies?  As an expert on monetary policy, certainly Friedman would have an opinion regarding the federal government's bailout of the financial industry and its impact on our personal freedom. 'On the 100th anniversary of his birth this week, one may wonder what the Nobel laureate would say about the more controversial policies now unfolding across America.' - On school choice — the principle that all parents should have access to their child's education funding so that they may choose whatever learning environment is best for their child — I believe Milton would say we've come a long way, but not nearly far enough. Today there are 39 voucher and tax-credit programs in 21 states and the District of Columbia offering more than 200,000 children educational freedom.  In the past two years alone, more advancement has been made in school choice than in the previous 20 years.  Yet most American parents still are not free to choose their child's school. Limited by financial resources of their parents, children living within arbitrarily drawn boundaries are assigned to government-run institutions. The competitive, diverse, and innovative system of high-quality educational options Friedman advocated is not yet a reality. On health care, Milton likely would have disagreed with the massive centralization of an industry -- a consequence of the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, its central tenet -- that Americans are forced through taxation to engage in certain behaviors-- resembles what Milton's parents tried to escape when coming to the U.S. in 1894. The results, Friedman might have said, would be a lowering of quality accompanied by a significant increase in cost.   Friedman was particularly dismayed at how unions continue to drive up taxpayer costs in places like California. Today, public employee unions and their largess have contributed to multiple cities to filing for bankruptcy.  Friedman believed a free nation should never be held hostage to monopolies, including trade unions. He would have been heartened by progress made by strong leaders in several states to bring the public sector more in line with the private sector. Still, Friedman would likely have agreed that much more needs to be done as teacher pension liabilities alone approach $1 trillion. As for those bailouts, it is highly doubtful Friedman would support propping up any institution that cannot compete in the free market. Milton's writings on monetary policy were sternly against actions that could cause inflation. But he also did not favor "easy money," which has become the worldwide solution to the ongoing financial crisis. Friedman believed banks, governments, and individuals must keep their fiscal house in order. Ultimately, we can rely only on Friedman's writings to determine what he might have said to the issues we face today. Yet we can rest assured; at the core of his work was a commitment to the freedom of individuals over the collective force of a centralized government. Just like in the early and mid-20th century, today the threat of central power and planning is threatening Americans' freedom and quality of life. And although Milton Friedman is no longer with us, the vision he expressed through his writings endures.    Since his passing in 2006, the Friedman Foundation has sponsored annual events around the world to spread the ideas espoused by Milton Friedman. On July 31, more than 140 events will be held in 50 states and in 44 counties honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Friedman, on what would have been his 100th birthday. From California to Chile, Vermont to Venezuela, Pennsylvania to Pakistan, and Illinois to Iran, thousands will gather to remember Milton Friedman and to keep his work alive. These events are reminders that free markets are about much more than economics.  As Friedman wrote in his book, "Capitalism and Freedom":  "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."  Economic freedom lies at the heart of liberty; to live with the freedom to choose, to build our own lives, is what motivated people like Friedman's parents to seek America's shores many years ago. Enlow is president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the legacy foundation of the late Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and his wife Rose.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: This is one October Surprise Obama surely sees coming

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

This is one October Surprise Obama surely sees coming Jul 31st 2012, 11:00 Get ready for this year's "October Surprise" — the news event in the weeks before the presidential election that has the potential to push the remaining undecided voters behind one candidate and decide the outcome. Here's a sneak peek at the "surprise." In late October, President Obama announces his campaign is tapped out of money and unable to answer the final round of attack ads from his opponent, Mitt Romney.  This scenario is no longer outside the realm of possibility.  On a recent conference call with potential donors, President Obama said: "If things continue as they have so far, I'll be the first sitting president in modern history to be outspent in his reelection campaign." The president then asked his donors "to meet or exceed what you did in 2008."  That is a pretty high bar to clear.  In 2008, Obama shattered all campaign fundraising records by bringing in more than $700 million. His GOP opponent, John McCain, raised only $316 million, giving the Democrat a tremendous advantage. It is a different ball game this time around. At the moment, President Obama's campaign has $170 million in the bank while his GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, has $144 million. But the Romney money machine is gaining momentum.  It raised more money than the Obama campaign in May and June. Romney's donors also appear to have more money: Only 17 percent of Romney's donations have been less than $200, compared to 40 percent of Obama's donations that came in at less than $200. The big money going to Romney also has more ways than ever to avoid limits on donations. Keep in mind this is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for unlimited contributions to outside groups and created the super-PACs. Since January 2011, the GOP super-PACs have collected $228 million while Democratic super-PACs have deposited only $80 million. "Restore Our Future," the super-PAC supporting Romney, now has $21.5 million in cash on hand.  The super-PAC supporting the president, "Priorities USA," has only $2.7 million in cash on hand. So the total dollars behind Romney already exceed the total dollars behind the president. And the money differential is showing up in the television advertising wars. The DNC has spent $12 million on advertising so far while the RNC has spent $11 million. But as of July 26, the pro-Romney "Restore Our Future" super-PAC has spent roughly $54 million on TV ads. The conservative American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS groups have spent a total of $94 million on TV ads. That is about five times the spending of all Democratic super-PACs combined. One point of optimism for the Democrats playing in this big money game is that the DNC and Obama campaign are sitting on $135 million in cash, slightly more than the $111.9 million Romney and the RNC have in the bank. But Obama's campaign is burning through its money at a faster rate than the Romney team. The Obama campaign spent twice as much as the Republicans in June.   The incumbent's campaign purchased more TV ads, paid more than twice as many employees as Romney and spent millions of dollars on public opinion polls, according to FEC filings. In May and June combined, the Obama campaign spent 20 percent more than it took in, records show. The Wall Street Journal reports "some Democrats worry that the overhead built by the Obama camp over the past 15 months will prove impossible to sustain. Unless fundraising picks up, the Obama campaign may enter the season's final stretch confronting hard choices: paring salaries, scaling back advertising or pulling out of swing states in a bid to control costs, these Democrats say." In an interview with USA Today, Democratic strategist Mark Mellman said 80 percent of advertising dollars  are probably wasted, but there is no way to know it is a waste until the campaign is over.  Of course, the Romney campaign is delighting in its fundraising advantage. One incredible fact of this 2012 campaign is that, without spending a dime on ads in swing states, the Romney campaign can still compete because of ads being paid for by pro-Romney super-PACs. "You don't want to be caught flat-footed and unable to close out a campaign," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse told USA Today. Indeed.  Team Obama is already screaming for help from past donors to stave off any October shock. But will Democrats who once heard that the president might raise $1 billion for this campaign be convinced he is not playing the Shepherd Boy — who cried wolf so often that people stopped believing his calls for help. Right now the numbers show there really is a wolf at the Democrats' door in the form of surging GOP money. An earlier version of this column originally appeared in The Hill newspaper and on TheHill.com. Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: In Utah, GOP finds new Love

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

In Utah, GOP finds new Love Jul 27th 2012, 11:30 The most intriguing political race of 2012 is a congressional campaign hidden away in central Utah. Republicans are in full attack mode against the only Democrat in Utah's congressional delegation. No surprise that the Republican candidate is a Mormon. The surprise is that she is a black woman. As the Washington Post noted in a recent profile of 37-year-old Mia Love: "If she wins, not only would she help Republicans keep control of the House, but she would become the first black Republican woman to serve in Congress. Love, who is Mormon, also could go a long way toward helping presidential candidate Mitt Romney, putting a fresh face on his church and his Party as both try to appeal to an increasingly diverse nation." Those dynamics help to explain why a little congressional race in Utah is getting a lot of attention in Washington. Love has already been endorsed by GOP heavyweights like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Ann Romney. 'Love has already been endorsed by GOP heavyweights like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Ann Romney.' - Love is running against Jim Matheson, a six-term Democratic incumbent who serves on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. He is the co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative and moderate Democrats in Congress known for bucking their party's leadership. The last remaining Democrat in the Utah delegation, Matheson won his 2010 re-election race by less than 5 points. Because of population gains, Utah gained a fourth congressional seat after the 2010 census and the GOP-dominated state legislature has redistricted Matheson into the new district with even more registered Republicans. Moderates in Congress are fast becoming an endangered species – on both sides of the aisle. According to the 2010 National Journal Rankings, Matheson was more conservative than 51 percent of his colleagues in the House and more liberal than 49 percent. This makes him one of the most centrist members of Congress. In 2008, there were 56 Blue Dogs – conservative Democrats -- in the House. After the 2010 elections, there were only 26. To strengthen his conservative credentials, Matheson voted against President Obama's health care reform law and voted in favor of holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over Fast and Furious. It seems to be working for him. A June poll from Desert News/KSL showed Matheson leading Love by 15 points. The incumbent also has a commanding lead in fundraising with more than $1 million dollars in his campaign war chest. But keep in mind that Love only locked up the GOP nomination at the state convention in April. The amount of money she has collected since then has been roughly equal to what Matheson has raised. Love is attracting national attention as the conservative mayor of Saratoga Springs and one of the few African-Americans in Utah. The state has a 1.3 percent black population compared to the nation's 13 percent black population. If Love wins, she will instantly become a conservative celebrity – a new face for conservatism and a lure for the GOP to use to recruit more candidates who are female and persons of color. Like Marco Rubio, her parents are immigrants and she is uniquely qualified to reach out to the growing immigrant population who views the GOP as hostile. If elected, Love will join Reps. Allen West of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina as black Republican members of the House. Love does not mouth West's fiery Tea Party rhetoric. But there is no doubt that she is a strong conservative. She is pro-life, pro-gun and favors eliminating the Department of Education and the Department of Energy.  She also says that she would like to join the Congressional Black Caucus so that she can "try to take that thing apart from the inside out" because, according to her, "They sit there and ignite emotions and ignite racism when there isn't. They use their positions to instill fear. Hope and change is turned into fear and blame. Fear that everybody is going to lose everything and blaming Congress for everything instead of taking responsibility." The daughter of Haitian immigrants, Love could well be the messenger that the GOP has been waiting for to rebuild and rebrand themselves a forward-looking party with fresh new ideas for a changing, diverse electorate. On the campaign trail, Love recounts how her father told her on the day of her college orientation:  "Mia, your mother and I never took a handout. You will not be a burden to society." Both of her parents worked very hard, with her father taking on a second job as a janitor to put their three children through school. Born in Brooklyn, N.Y., Love worked her way through college and graduated from the University of Hartford. She also worked as a flight attendant for Continental Airlines. In her endorsement, Ann Romney called her an "example for Washington." As Utah goes, so goes the nation?  Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama's second-term agenda will prove devastating to U.S.

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Obama's second-term agenda will prove devastating to U.S. Jul 27th 2012, 12:00 Americans may think they know what President Obama would do if he wins four more years. But, in reality, they have no idea just how radical and far-reaching his agenda would be. Obama himself has been clear about using another term to "reform" our financial sector and ensure the implementation of ObamaCare. The president also has said he would attempt progressive-style immigration reform, with the presumption of amnesty for illegal aliens. 'Will we, the American people, allow ourselves to be fooled again?' - Many figure Obama would continue his relentless expansion of federal government power; increasing even further his crushing, multitrillion-dollar intergenerational debt; and pursue a weak foreign policy coupled with the evisceration of America's military. These generalized ambitions, however, do not scratch the surface of the specific, transformative assault that is planned upon our country. Months of painstaking research into thousands of documents have enabled Brenda J. Elliott and me to expose the detailed template for Obama's next four years -- the one actually created by Obama's own top advisers, strategists and associated progressive groups. This second-term blueprint is laid bare in our upcoming book, "Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed."  We found that, just as in 2008, when Obama concealed his true presidential plans behind bland rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the federal deficit, his 2012 re-election theme of creating jobs conceals far more than it reveals about his true agenda for a second term. Here are some of the second-term plans we uncovered: • The re-creation of a 21st-century version of FDR's Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs; • An additional government-funded jobs program that provides "good jobs" capable of supporting a family with a "decent standard of living." • A new government mandate to force businesses to provide twelve weeks of paid benefits to employees who need time off to care for a new child, a sick family member, or their own illness. Plus, a higher, required minimum wage that would raise the floor for all employees. •       An expansive, de facto amnesty program for illegal aliens via both executive order and interagency directives linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol. •     Plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-1B visas and green cards. •     Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and health care centers. A "federal solution" to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated "equitably" across the United States. •     A National Infrastructure Bank that would evaluate and finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance" and would finance "transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, wastewater, and other infrastructures." •     The wresting of control of the military budget from Congress by placing an "independent panel" in charge of military spending while slashing  the defense budget in shocking ways. •      Spreading the vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces even thinner by using them to combat "global warming," fight global  poverty, remedy "injustice," bolster the United Nations and step up use of  "peacekeeping" deployments; •     A new "green" stimulus program and the founding of a federal "green" bank or "Energy Independence Trust," which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in "clean energy. " •  A "green Manufacturing" revolving loan fund to create 680,000 manufacturing jobs and 1,972,000 additional jobs over five years •     Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the federal government. How did we obtain this expansive blueprint? By investigating the policy papers and legislative proposals of the same progressive shadow groups that crafted Obama's first term. Obama's first-term strategy did not materialize out of thin air. The president's signature policies, including the "stimulus," defense initiatives and even ObamaCare, were crafted over years by key progressive think tanks and activists, usually first promoted in extensive research and policy papers. Some first-term plans were even recycled and modified from older legislative attempts that had previously been pushed by progressive Democrats. Many of these same progressive groups and activists have been hard at work planning Obama's second-term strategy: jobs, wages, health care, immigration, defense, even electoral reform. One joke going around the capital after the rare Washington earthquake of August 2011 was that Obama had proclaimed it: "Bush's fault." Yet it was Bush who must be credited with dusting off an old American saw that well applies to his White House successor: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Will we, the American people, allow ourselves to be fooled again? Aaron Klein hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC Radio and is senior reporter for WorldNetDaily.com. His new book (August 7) is titled, "Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: New gun laws will do nothing to stop mass shooting attacks

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

New gun laws will do nothing to stop mass shooting attacks Jul 30th 2012, 19:12 In the wake of the Colorado tragedy, Democrats in Congress have wasted no time introducing new gun control legislation. Today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a bill that bans the sale of ammunition online and by mail. Last Thursday, six Senate Democrats proposed amending the cybersecurity bill to ban magazines holding more than 10 bullets. President Obama also promoted renewing the Assault Weapon Ban, announcing, "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities." The reaction is understandable, but despite the best of intentions, the laws won't stop these attacks from occurring. Take the Lautenberg and McCarthy proposed ban on online ammunition sales. The proposal would make rules for buying ammunition the same as for buying a gun. But the Colorado killer was able to legally buy a gun from a dealer and, under the proposal, he still would have been able to buy the ammunition. The requirement of a photo ID seems equally irrelevant in this case. The law also would mandate licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days. But what good would that do? The Colorado killer apparently planned his attack at least four months in advance. If he were trying to hide his ammunition purchases, he could easily have spread them out over time. 'Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen.' - What the ban would do is raise the cost of buying ammunition. But does anyone really believe that even a 20 or 30 percent increase in the price of ammo would be the difference that stopped someone intent on committing suicide or spending the rest of their lives in jail from buying ammo? It isn't like these guys have to worry about making payments on past due credit card bills. We have already tried the magazine ban and it won't be any more helpful now than it was when the Federal Assault Weapon Ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. Further, the guns in several recent mass shootings (including the one in Aurora and last year in Tucson) have jammed because of the large magazines that were used. The reason is simple physics. Large magazines require very strong springs, but the springs cannot be too strong, or it becomes impossible to load the magazines. Over time, the springs wear out, and when a spring loses its ability to push bullets into the chamber properly, the gun jams. With large springs, even a small amount of fatigue can cause jams. President Obama's discussion of AK-47s is no more helpful, but given his long involvement in the gun control debate he surely must know what he was saying was incorrect. The civilian version of the AK-47 is not the machine gun used by militaries around the world. The civilian version merely looks like the military version on the outside, but its inside guns are the same as a deer-hunting rifle. The civilian version uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger) and does the same damage. If Obama wants to campaign against semi-automatic guns based on their function, he should go after all semi-automatic guns. After all, in 1998, as an Illinois state senator, he supported just such a ban -– a ban that would eliminate most of the guns in the United States. But no published peer-reviewed studies by economists or criminologists find the original federal or state assault-weapons ban reduced murder or overall violent crime. Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Initial data for 2011 shows that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people. The big problem with gun control is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, and not those intent on committing the tragedies like those in Colorado, who obey these laws.  It is hard not to notice, but very aggressive gun control hasn't prevented multiple-victim public shootings in Europe. In last year's shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year's wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy. The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want. If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it is about time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was prohibited to carry guns into the theater.   All the public mass shootings in Europe fit this rule. Take Switzerland, which has very liberal concealed carry laws. The country also has had several big public mass shootings over the last decade, but there again all of their attacks have taken place in the few areas where guns are banned. Last week, President Obama promised that gun control was going to be an important topic in the presidential campaign. The issue was really always there, even if it wasn't being openly debated. Whoever wins the presidency will likely determine who controls the Supreme Court and the fate of gun control laws.   Bans, like the gun-free zones, can be counterproductive.  Hopefully, the debate will finally acknowledge that well- intended laws are not enough.   John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and co-author of the just released "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future" (John Wiley & Sons, March 2012).

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama administration chooses Planned Parenthood over women's health

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Obama administration chooses Planned Parenthood over women's health Jul 30th 2012, 16:37 The Obama administration's decision this month to award $3.1 million in federal funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other family planning groups in New Jersey comes as no surprise. Despite the $15 trillion national debt, the administration seems willing to keep borrowing to support the nation's largest abortion provider. And this isn't the first time the Obama administration has stepped in to ensure that taxpayer dollars continue to flow to its favorite abortion provider even at the expense of women's health care. Last summer the Obama administration threatened to pull $4.3 billion in Medicaid funding from Indiana after the state's legislature voted to prohibit all health care contracts with and grants to any "entity," including Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions or operates a facility where abortions are performed. Just months later, the Obama administration flagrantly disregarded New Hampshire's decision to cancel a $1.8 million contract with Planned Parenthood in favor of contracting with health care facilities that offer women full-service care. Ignoring the will of the residents of New Hampshire, the administration directly awarded a $1 million contract to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. 'Keeping the coffers of the abortion mega-provider flush with taxpayer cash was more important to the Obama administration than health care for poor women and their families.' - Fast-forward to this past March, when the Obama administration exposed its paramount loyalties to Planned Parenthood yet again. After the Texas Health and Human Services Commission issued a rule excluding abortion providers from participation in the Texas Women's Health Program (Texas WHP) because it wanted to prioritize funding to organizations that would provide quality, comprehensive health care to low-income women and their families, the Obama administration stepped in and pulled all federal funding for the Texas WHP. Notably, Planned Parenthood stood to lose nearly $47 million under Texas' reprioritization of funding. However, keeping the coffers of the abortion mega-provider flush with taxpayer cash was more important to the Obama administration than health care for poor women and their families. The Obama administration denied funding for basic health care to women in need in an attempt to force Texas taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. So much for caring about women's health. July has been a particularly lucrative month for Planned Parenthood at the expense of women's health. In addition to New Jersey, the Obama administration's loyalty to Planned Parenthood and to ensuring unfettered access to abortion providers at the taxpayers' expense was further exposed when the Obama administration contracted directly with Planned Parenthood in Tennessee after state officials stopped taxpayer funds from going to organizations that provide abortions. And just last week, the Obama administration overrode North Carolina's decision to redirect funds away from Planned Parenthood, and directly awarded $426,000 in federal grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state. Clearly, the Obama administration has exhibited a pattern and practice over the past year of intervening to protect one of its closest political allies that is also the nation's largest abortion provider currently under congressional investigation. But what is truly surprising and remarkable about this symbiotic devotion between the Obama administration and Planned Parenthood is the disturbing disregard for women's full-service health care and the willingness to use women and children as hostages to force continued funding of the abortion mega-provider. Planned Parenthood loves to portray itself as an organization motivated, not by abortion politics and profits, but by an overarching concern for women's health, asserting that "in many communities it is the only source of affordable quality health care for women." Like most claims made by Planned Parenthood, this assertion falls apart upon closer examination. Notably, faced with the loss of millions of dollars in Medicaid and other government funding, Planned Parenthood's CEO Cecile Richards claimed that Indiana's law denying funding to abortion providers would prohibit "nearly 10,000 women from accessing preventive health care." However, according to their own statistics, Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana serve less than 1 percent of the state's Medicaid patients, while providing more than 50 percent of the state's abortions. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of Indiana women receiving Medicaid were getting their basic health care elsewhere. Many are likely receiving care at community health centers which, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers, provide health care to the nation's underserved populations, including the uninsured, those on Medicaid and Medicare, migrant workers and people living in rural areas. Nearly 40 percent of the income for these centers comes from Medicaid. What is true in Indiana is likely true across the country. According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, community health centers provide more than 9,000 doctors, 10,000 nurses, and 8,000 health care delivery sites across the nation. These centers, and others like them, provide more comprehensive health care to serve the needs of American women -- a fact readily acknowledged in states that have reprioritized their healthcare funding. Remarkably, Planned Parenthood's "quality" health care does not even provide mammograms to women. Rather, Planned Parenthood must refer women to other clinics for this important, often life-saving, test. For pregnant women, Planned Parenthood's provided "services" are overwhelmingly abortion in contrast to providing pregnant women with prenatal care or adoption referrals. Indeed, the disparity between Planned Parenthood's provision of abortion and its provision of other pregnancy services has increased annually since 1996. It is time that women's lives and comprehensive, physical needs were treated as a priority. Seven in 10 Americans -- both those who self-describe as pro-life and pro-choice -- say they don't want their tax dollars to fund abortion. And yet, Planned Parenthood pulls in more than $1 million a day in taxpayer monies. Outside of Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration, there is little support for redirecting funds from full-service health care facilities and physicians to the abortion mega-provider. It's time to put women's health care above Planned Parenthood's desire for taxpayer dollars. Kellie Fiedorek is staff counsel at Americans United for Life.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Colorado judge's order on ObamaCare restores faith to the system

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Colorado judge's order on ObamaCare restores faith to the system Jul 30th 2012, 13:32 Faith just won a round in court. As President Obama's mandated insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs takes effect on August 1 for ordinary businesses, the Health and Human Services mandate's ultimate survival suddenly appears blessedly jeopardized. Federal district Judge John J. Kane of Colorado on Friday issued a temporary injunction blocking the mandate from being applied to Hercules Industries, a family-owned manufacturer of air-conditioning products. That the order comes from a non-conservative judge – Kane is a former public defender and Peace Corps deputy director sponsored by liberal former Sen. Gary Hart and appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter – is an especially huge development, striking more deeply at the mandate than conventional wisdom anticipated. 'While the injunction doesn't block the mandate nationwide, it sends an unmistakable message.' - Most of the attention to the fight against the mandate has focused on faith-affiliated schools and charitable institutions, many of them Catholic but some Protestant, which argue that the mandate grossly infringes their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. Dozens of lawsuits from such institutions are pending. Comparatively little attention, though, had been paid to the private businesses that also object to paying for prescriptive contraception, sterilization or abortifacients. Left-leaning observers seemed to blithely assume that no officially secular organizations had a leg to stand on when claiming a faith-based exemption from a federal, executive edict. Judge Kane utterly destroyed that notion. Making clear that such an injunction can only be issued before full consideration of the case if the plaintiff has "a likelihood of success on the merits" and risks a "threat of irreparable harm," Kane still imposed what he termed this "extraordinary remedy" to block implementation of the mandate against Hercules Industries. While the injunction doesn't block the mandate nationwide, it sends an unmistakable message that the HHS requirement will be on shaky legal ground wherever challenged. Citing precedent, Kane wrote that the weakness of the mandate's legal position looks "serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful" based on statutory grounds alone, without even considering the significant constitutional challenges raised by Hercules. As Kane summed it up, the government's stance amounted to an assertion that "a for-profit, secular employer… cannot engage in an exercise of religion." This is poppycock – and dangerous poppycock at that. It amounts to a claim that an individual employer, or a closely-held family corporation, does not enjoy the right to religious exercise unless those rights are channeled through a church in a formal worship setting. In effect, it says only churches, not individuals or family businesses, have protections for what Madison and Jefferson called "the rights of conscience." In the text or footnotes of his decision, Kane used strong language against various arguments put forth by the Obama administration. As in: "I reject it out of hand." And: "a distinction without substance." Another argument is "irrelevant in this context." And "the balance of the equities tip strongly [my emphasis added] in favor of injunctive relief." The ramifications of this decision could be enormous. If even a secular entity enjoys a "likelihood of success" on the merits of the challenge to Obama's sweeping edict, then the dozens of suits filed by explicitly faith-related institutions probably enjoy a particularly strong likelihood of victory in court. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court already has devastatingly shot down the Obama administration's cramped interpretation of religious liberty in other contexts. In a unanimous decision earlier this year – yes, unanimous, with even the most liberal justices, including Obama's own two appointments ruling against the administration – the high court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC blasted Obama's position as "untenable," "remarkable," "extreme," and possessing "no merit." Granted, the specific issue at hand in Hosanna-Tabor was different from the one in the Hercules case. What is very similar, however, is that in both cases – and in several others pushed by the Obama administration – the Obama team seeks to define religious liberty extremely narrowly while asserting that government has "compelling interests" in overriding various religious concerns. The administration positions profoundly trample on a 400-year American tradition of leaving wide room for faith to operate, unfettered by state prescription or proscription. On religious freedom, the Obama legal team is a veritable Augean Stables of faith-limiting, legal-theory detritus. It is eminently appropriate that these stables be overcome by a company called Hercules. Quin Hillyer is a Senior Fellow for the Center for Individual Freedom and a Senior Editor of The American Spectator.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »