Clean Up the Broadcast Decency Act
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council suggests a course of action for jumpstarting the Broadcast Decency Act, currently stalled in the Senate:

The FCC has reached a $1.7 million settlement with Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio company, which would clear them of all pending charges of indecency. While this might seem like a victory for our side the fine means little to a company with billion-dollar revenues. The Broadcast Decency Act, which would increase tenfold the fines that the FCC can levy was passed overwhelmingly in the House, but now is mired in the Senate - being held up by Senators who are using the bill to weigh it down with numerous amendments. Only by greatly increasing FCC fines will these enormous companies get the message. Why can't the U.S. Senate get the same message? Some of these amendments deserve our future attention, but not at the cost of this bill. I urge you to contact Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Ensign (R-NV), Trent Lott (R-MS), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Ted Stevens (R-AK) and John Sununu (R-NH) and ask them to set aside their amendments so that a clean version of the Broadcast Decency Act can be voted on by the full Senate and signed by the President. You can contact your Senators [here].

The Child Custody Protection Act (S. 851)
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Wanna stop an Episcopal priest from secretly transporting your minor daughter across state lines to have your unborn grandchild killed? (No, I'm not making this up.) The Family Research Council reports on new legislation to protect unborn children and their teenage mothers from the Left's guerrilla tactics:

[On June 3rd] the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Child Custody Protection Act, which would ban adults from taking minors across state lines for an abortion. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, an Episcopal priest, testified on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She explained why she volunteered to take a minor for an abortion: "I was stunned - a fifteen-year-old girl was going to have to get up at the crack of dawn and take multiple buses to the hospital alone?"

Ragsdale seems to think that riding the bus is more dangerous than an abortion. Yet she gave her testimony right after the testimonies of Crystal Lane and her mother Joyce Farley. When she was just 13, Crystal was taken out of state for an abortion by the mother of her 19 year-old boyfriend. Crystal's own mother never knew about the abortion until afterwards, when Crystal developed severe complications that required hospitalization. Sounds much more dangerous than the buses that most of us ride. To email your elected officials in support of this important legislation, click [here].

Practice Budget Control With H.R. 3800
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the National Taxpayers Union:

Tell Congress to Protect Family Budgets by Reforming the Federal Budget Process

The current Congress has one last chance to prevent the budget process from becoming a fiscal train wreck. Although budget process reform is not a "glamorous" issue like tax cuts or significant spending reductions, adoption of common-sense mechanisms like those contained in H.R. 3800 -- legislation introduced by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) and co-sponsored by more than 100 Members of the House -- will guide Congress towards a more fiscally-responsible future. House Leadership has finally heard the outcry from voters and from fiscally responsible members of their own party, so they are allowing the full House to vote on the strong taxpayer protections contained in the Family Budget Protection Act. Only a massive outpouring of support from voters will push these important taxpayer protections through Congress.

The alert contains further information on the bill, plus an easy-to-use e-mail form for contacting your Representative.

Thought Crimes Legislation
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from Concerned Women for America:

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) are planning to bring up the Kennedy-Hatch federal "hate crimes" amendment, perhaps as early as next Wednesday. They plan to amend the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (S. 1382).

"Hate crimes" laws violate the fundamental legal principles of equal protection and the limitation of criminal liability to actions - not thoughts or beliefs. Acts such as cross-burning and church desecration are already distinct federal offenses, and there is no evidence that authorities anywhere are prosecuting crimes less vigorously on account of the identity of the victim or perpetrator.

A "hate crimes" law can lead to "thought crime" as is found in totalitarian countries. To put it more to the point: This "hate crimes" law, which includes "sexual orientation," lays the groundwork for persecution of Christians in this country.

In Canada and Sweden, it is now a "hate crime" to criticize homosexuality in any fashion. Canadian broadcasters are forbidden to air any critical discussion of homosexuality, and private citizens have been hauled before "human rights" commissions and threatened with fines and jail time. In Sweden, a pastor was arrested at his church after he began reading Bible verses about homosexuality. The "gay" lobby is frank about its desire to persecute Christians in America in just the same way, and this "hate crimes" bill is a key step in that strategy.

The alert includes an e-mail form for contacting your senators, plus info on contacting the Capitol Hill switchboard.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Family Research Council reports on more legislation in defense of the unborn:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement in support of Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" legislation:

"We cannot deny the medical evidence now before us. From testimony taken during the recent partial-birth abortion hearings and advancements in the field of in utero technology, science is telling us unborn children as young as 20 weeks old can feel pain. The evidence we have is clear, and we should not keep that evidence from women.

"I'm sure pro-abortion proponents will come out in strong opposition to this bill, which will go a long way in exposing their hypocrisy on the issue of women's rights. Women have the right to know what happens when they have an abortion and they have a right to know the pain their unborn child will experience when it is being aborted. Anyone who would deny a woman such information is hardly a defender of women's rights.

"This legislation does nothing to infringe on so-called 'abortion rights,' it would simply require abortion providers to tell women seeking an abortion about the medical evidence on pain experienced by unborn children during an abortion. This legislation falls in the 'right to know' category. Those who oppose this legislation show that their true allegiance is to the 'abortion on demand' agenda - not women."

Use our Take Action page to express your support for this bill to your Senators and Representative.


Davis Amendment Update

The good news is that the Davis amendment to H.R. 4200 was defeated. The bad news? Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Hell) is poised to give it another try.


Quality Punditry

The Washington Times' Tony Blankley advises President Bush to rely on his sound instincts as to Iraq: America - The Strong Horse


And finally . . .

A dispatch from the holy city of Cleveland.

Defeat the Davis Amendment to H.R. 4200
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the Family Research Council:

When the House considers the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Defense authorization bill this week, Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) is expected to offer an amendment which would repeal current law and authorize abortion-on-demand at military hospitals. Rep. Davis's amendment will seek to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. Pushing abortion-on-demand in U.S. military facilities is an extremist view that does not represent the wishes of the majority of the American people nor of the military doctors who would be affected by the change.

* Under current U.S. law (10 U.S.C. 1093(b)) no abortions may be performed in military facilities, except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term or in cases of rape or incest.

* When President Clinton changed the military abortion policy in 1993, all military physicians refused to perform elective abortions. The administration then sought to hire civilian physicians to perform abortions. Therefore, if the House adopts the Davis amendment, in addition to taxpayer-funded facilities supporting abortion on demand, new personnel could be hired at taxpayers' expense to perform these abortions.

* Military treatment centers should not be forced to facilitate the taking of innocent human life.

The House of Representatives has voted consistently against attempts to mandate federal funding of abortions at overseas military medical facilities since 1996 and should do so again.

Contact your Representative and tell him or her to vote against the Davis amendment to HR 4200.

The alert includes a CapWiz utility for doing so.

And in the if-it-was-about-Islam-it-would-be-prosecuted-as-a-hate-crime department:

Check out the story on the latest instance of Christian bashing by Hollywood.

Keep the Base Realignment and Closure Process Alive
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An action alert from the National Taxpayers Union focuses on how the preservation of local pork is harming the nation and armed forces:

While our nation's military planners search for ways to get the most from the hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars our nation annually spends on defense, many in Congress and in state and local governments are more concerned with keeping military bases open in their home districts - whether they are a military necessity or not. The Department of Defense estimates that the 2005 BRAC round could yield as much as $6 billion in recurring annual savings. A delay of two years, as currently outlined in the Defense Authorization bill, will cost taxpayers billions of dollars without increasing our level of safety. This is money that could be put to better use improving the quality of life for our men and women in uniform or investing in new, modernized weapons systems.

The alert includes further details, plus an e-mail utility and sample message.

The Video Programming Choice and Decency Act
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Some good news from the Parents Television Council:

. . . [C]able choice may soon be a reality. A measure offered by Rep. Deal would allow cable or satellite operators to voluntarily offer customers cable channels on an "a la carte" basis, which means you will be able to pick and pay only for those channels you want.

Right now, cable and satellite companies force customers to buy big packages of channels that may contain programming they neither watch nor want to pay for. Why should parents have to subsidize cable channels that undermine their core values and beliefs? Why should a parent who wants their child to benefit from educational programming on the Disney Channel or the Discovery network also have to underwrite programs like The Shield, which recently featured an episode in which a police captain was forced to copulate a gang member at gun point? Or MTV's Spring Break which glorifies and glamorizes high-risk promiscuity and binge-drinking to young viewers.

Offering parents the ability to choose the channels they want, and to pay only for those channels, puts power back in the hands of the consumer and forces the producers of indecent or violent programming to fund their own raunch. These raunchy networks have been carried on the backs of American consumers long enough. It is time for this extortion to end.

Please Act Now!

Help us let Congress know you're fed up with lack of cable choice. Act now and send a message to the House Energy and Commerce Committee to support the Video Programming Choice and Decency Act of 2004.

The PTC has a sample message for your Representative and an e-mail utility here.

Codify The Oath of Allegiance With H.R. 3191
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Agape Press reports:

Kansas Congressman Wants to Codify Immigrants' 'Oath of Allegiance'

A Kansas congressman has introduced legislation that would codify the oath of allegiance immigrants must make when they become U.S. citizens. The bill would make it clear that new citizens must be loyal to their new country -- and would prevent that oath from being watered down.

Republican Jim Ryan was concerned about proposed changes to the oath of allegiance drafted by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Ryan says those changes were intended to make the language more modern, but instead would transform an absolute commitment to the Constitution into a conditional statement, weakening citizenship.

"What we're attempting to do with the oath of allegiance and with legal immigration is to continue to encourage those who are coming in that this is a great country and these are the standards that we've had in the past," Ryan explains. "We want to all be on the same page as we move forward, fighting this war on terrorism -- and I don't believe this is the time to lower those standards."

The Kansas lawmaker introduced HR 3191 in September 2003, which he says would codify into law what the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services wants to change. He says those who want to pursue the "American dream" need to realize it requires a full-time commitment to citizenship -- and a willingness to defend the United States. . . .

According to Ryan, HR 3191 -- which is working its way through the House Judiciary Committee -- would establish the oath of allegiance as federal law, giving it the same protection as the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. The names of more than 60 co-sponsors are attached to the legislation.

Use our Take Action page to ask your Representative to support this bill.

S. 2056 Stalled
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the Parents Television Council:

We urgently need your help. As you know, Congress is considering legislation that would severely punish broadcasters who violate indecency laws. Unfortunately that legislation has stalled in the US Senate. If the Senate doesn't vote on this bill, S. 2056, in the next few days, it will likely die.

We need you to take immediate action to tell your Senators and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to vote on S. 2056 now! The public is outraged over the Super Bowl halftime show, the F-word on television broadcasts, and the graphic sexual content on morning drive-time radio. If we are to be successful in our efforts to reduce the obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts from the public airwaves, then the FCC must have the power to impose meaningful fines and/or revoke station licenses of broadcasters who break the law. Don't let the broadcasters sweep our national outrage under the rug.

The alert includes links to talking points, and to contact information for all senators.

The Adoption Information Act, H.R. 1229
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the Family Research Council:

Pro-abortion advocates constantly scream about protecting women's health through access to "family planning services," although what they really mean is access to abortion. There does not seem to be real concern on behalf of abortion advocates to giving women real choices with real information.

Women seeking family planning services in federally funded health clinics rarely receive all the information necessary for them to make an informed decision. Information on adoption and referrals for adoption services are rarely discussed at all, and when they are, that information is often inaccurate and incomplete.

To remedy this and help women be educated on the resources available to them Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) has introduced the Adoption Information Act, H.R. 1229. This bill would require all family planning clinics that accept Title X funds to provide a detailed pamphlet of adoption information to all people seeking family planning services.

Specifically, this pamphlet must include comprehensive contact information for all adoption centers in the appropriate state. The legislation aims to ensure that women are provided with accurate and complete information to make informed decisions.

The alert links to the FRC's congressional directory, or you can use our Take Action page to ask your Representative to support this bill.

And on the same topic . . .

Wanna know if your favorite celebrity marched in support of sucking the brain out of a nine month old fetus? Click here.