Press coverage and commentaries: Freedom2Care In the News
May 13, 2015
Anna Paprocki, staff counsel for Americans United for Life and an Illinois resident, said S.B. 1564's suggested protocols turn the state's existing conscience protections into "a false promise. You can have a conscientious objection to abortion, but you still have to tell patients about abortion and the so-called benefits of abortion," she said. Paprocki explained that the consensus among pro-life organizations is that the law's requirements would involve pro-life health professionals and facilities promoting abortion by giving such information. "You have to reasonably believe that these people may perform abortions when you give out this information," she said. "So now we're asking crisis-pregnancy centers to hand out information on places they reasonably believe will perform abortions, and that violates their consciences and violates the core mission of crisis-pregnancy centers."
May 11, 2015
On today's campuses, left-leaning administrators, professors, and students are working overtime in their campaign of silencing dissent, and their unofficial tactics of ostracizing, smearing, and humiliation are highly effective. But what is even more chilling-and more far reaching-is the official power they abuse to ensure the silencing of views they don't like. They've invented a labyrinth of anti-free speech tools that include "speech codes," "free speech zones," censorship, investigations by campus "diversity and tolerance offices," and denial of due process. They craft "anti-harassment policies" and "anti-violence policies" that are speech codes in disguise. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) 2014 report on campus free speech, "Spotlight on Speech Codes," close to 60 percent of the four hundred-plus colleges they surveyed "seriously infringe upon the free speech rights of students."
May 9, 2015
This is about the power of the state to to close or fine Christian business owners, this is about the left trying to silence us and telling us we don't have a right to live our lives according to our sincerely held beliefs. When Secretary Clinton, when President Obama say, ‘you've got the freedom of religious expression,' to them, that just means you get to go to church and say what you want inside church. That's not religious liberty. Religious liberty is the ability to live our lives according to our faith 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
May 9, 2015
"I'm betting that when it comes to doing the right and good thing, the Little Sisters of the Poor know better than the regulators at the Department of Health and Human Services," Bush said. "From the standpoint of religious freedom, you might even say it's a choice between the Little Sisters and Big Brother - and I'm going with the Little Sisters." But even as he struck the conservative chords on religious freedom, Bush sought to position himself as a social conservative capable of reaching out to those of all beliefs. Bush declared that "some moral standards are universal" and can't be shifted by public opinion, referencing his opposition to abortion and his efforts to keep Terri Schiavo alive, as well as the need to fight sex trafficking and stand up for oppressed minorities.
May 1, 2015
On the rights of conscience, by unilaterally creating a "right" to abortion, the Court created a situation where for the past 40 years abortion funding has been a constant source of religious liberty concerns-most recently with the coercive Department of Health and Human Services mandate. Why would the Court want to repeat these mistakes now on marriage? After all, there simply is nothing in the Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. Whatever people may think about marriage as a policy matter, everyone should be able to recognize the Constitution does not settle this question. Unelected judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and then say the Constitution requires them everywhere.
April 30, 2015
The House voted late Thursday night to overturn the District of Columbia's law prohibiting workplace discrimination based on reproductive health choices. Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) sponsored the disapproval resolution in the House, while 2016 GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a companion measure in the Senate. Republicans maintained the disapproval resolution would ensure religious employers' First Amendment rights are protected. "This is not a war on women. It is an outright war on religious liberties," said Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.).
April 30, 2015
"America was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and faith-based employers deserve the ability to hire people who share their beliefs. The measure passed by the D.C. Council, however, discriminates against religious and pro-life Americans, violates their conscience rights, and runs completely counter to the ‘free exercise' clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. As a proud pro-life Catholic, I condemn this form of discrimination and urge the president to reconsider his veto threat of our joint resolution."
April 30, 2015
That question of knowing one's parent plays a significant, yet under-the-radar, role in the marriage cases before the Supreme Court. Among others, two women, Heather Barwick and Katy Faust, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in which they discuss their experiences as children raised by women in same-sex relationships who felt deprived of their fathers. Katy expanded on this theme in a recent piece she penned titled, "Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent."
April 29, 2015
Nowhere are the consequences of redefining marriage clearer than with religious liberty. And yet the Obama administration's Solicitor General Donald Verrilli admitted that religious schools that affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman may lose their non-profit tax-exempt status if marriage is redefined. Alito asked Verrilli whether a religious school that believed marriage was the union of husband and wife would lose their non-profit tax status. The solicitor general answered: "It's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue."
April 29, 2015
Should pro-life organizations be forced to hire pro-abortion employees? That's the question the House of Representatives will answer on Friday when it votes on a resolution to condemn a measure the District of Columbia City Council approved. A top pro-life advocate in Washington provides more background on what's happened and how RHNDA abrogates the rights of pro-life groups. "RHNDA was adopted by the D.C. City Council late last year and transmitted to Congress on March 6 for a Congressional review period of 30 legislative days. The law will be enacted at the expiration of the 30 day period unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted. On April 21 H.J. Res. 43 was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line vote of 20-16," says Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association.