Concerned Women for America

Following the defeat of an ordinance in Anchorage, Alaska, which would have prohibited discrimination based on people’s sexual orientation or gender identity, the anti-gay group Concerned Women for America rejoiced at the proposition’s defeat with warnings that such anti-discrimination ordinances open the door for the legalization of pedophilia and education classes to turn children gay:

Alaska is one of a dozen states that have not caved to the pressure of pro-homosexuality activist groups, liberal politicians, and the "mainstream" media to equate sexual behavior with race, granting it special protection under the law.

These so-called protections do nothing more than promote the acceptance of homosexuality and other sexually deviant behaviors. There is no evidence that homosexuals are disproportionately discriminated against in Alaska because it does not have this law.

But if homosexual groups continue to gain ground in equating homosexual behavior with race, they will have gone a long way toward making the courts impose homosexual "marriage" on every state.

…

Another danger is what happens in schools as the result of this type of legislation. Homosexual groups quickly move in to "educate" children on the LGBT struggles and "tolerance." This allows them to promote homosexual behavior not only as acceptable, but as good and desirable. We have seen how they have asked children, "How do you know you are not homosexual if you have not tried it?"

These troubles will beget more troubles. Currently there are cases making the arguments that polygamists are being discriminated against in the same way as LGBT groups. What about pedophiles, who now go by their version of GLBT: MAP, or Minor Attracted Persons? Are they being discriminated against?

When you protect "sexual orientation," that term can be defined in any number of ways at different points in time. Sure, they usually limit it today to heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, but the APA once identified about 22 different types of sexual preferences. The reason homosexual activists just stick with those three today is because that is all they believe society will approve. If you notice, they sometimes limit the reach of "trangenders rights" in many ways. But they will continue the fight for "sexual liberation" when we are "ready."

Think about it, they are gaining much momentum in re-defining the word "marriage." Nobody would have thought of that a few years back. Do you think it would be that difficult to redefine "sexual orientation?"

Concerned Women for America’s Chelsen Vicari on Monday hosted a call with Linda Harvey of Mission America and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute where they discussed their plans for a walkout on the Day of Silence, when students protest anti-LGBT bullying and bias by remaining silent throughout the school day. The walkout endorsers also include the American Family Association, Citizens for Community Values, Faith 2 Action, Liberty Counsel and Save California, all prominent supporters of the Religious Right’s anti-anti-bullying campaign.

We posted highlights from program where Higgins urged teachers to “plan activities that involve student communications so students are not allowed to do this” and Harvey warned that the Day of Silence is using children “as a tool” for an “ungodly agenda.” Harvey dubbed the Day of Silence a “God-dishonoring day” that makes children “bow before manipulative, exploitative and deceptive accusations.”

Higgins: What the Day of Silence does is ask kids to refuse to speak during instructional time in class, that they have no legal right to do and no school has to accommodate that, and so that’s what we’re doing is asking parents to call their school, ask if students are allowed to refuse to speak in instructional time, and if they are, to keep their kids home in protest about the disruption of instructional time for a political purpose.

…

Harvey: You can keep your kids home that day if you suspect or you find out that teachers are going to accommodate this protest silence in order to honor homosexuality, let’s be clear about what this is, this is a God-dishonoring day that honors sin, sinful, immoral behavior that most parents don’t want their children involved in.

…

Higgins: Christian teachers out there and if you’re working in a public school plan activities that involve student communications so students are not allowed to do this.

…

Vicari: So Christian families, it’s imperative really to take a stand against Day of Silence.

Harvey: Yes, because it’s teaching your children to dishonor [sic] what God finds sinful, it’s teaching even conservative parents who maybe are not believers it’s teaching your children to bow before manipulative, exploitative and deceptive accusations. They claim tolerance but they are creating division, hostility and they are undermining high standards for kids.

…

Harvey: Your child will remember this, you know the biggest lesson—of course the school is going to learn something as lots of kids are missing that day—but the biggest lesson is your child will learn that you don’t go along with this nonsense, you don’t let people lie to you and use you as a tool for their ungodly agenda.

American Values president Gary Bauer demanded Republicans oppose the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, writing in Human Events today that the bill is a “trap.” Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans all voted against re-authorization and Bauer insisted that they oppose the legislation because of “provisions allowing abused illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and programs for same-sex couples.” As Legal Momentum’s Lynn Hecht Schafran notes, protections for immigrants and women in same-sex relationships have “always been true about the bill but required clarification.”

Bauer, who regularly rails against the “war on religion,” the “war on Christmas” and the “social, political and cultural war in our country,” also expressed his anger that progressives are using the phrase “war” as part of “painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers,” and of course didn’t miss an opportunity to criticize Sandra Fluke:

Whether it’s the “war on science” or the “war on labor unions,” the left never tires of painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers. Now liberals are revisiting another fictitious conservative war, against women.

At the Women in the World Summit in New York last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blasted tyrants across the globe. “They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies,” Clinton said.

Then she compared Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to Sandra Fluke. “Women and girls…throughout the world,” she said, “are assuming the risks that come with sticking your neck out, whether you are a democracy activist in Burma or a Georgetown law student in the United States.”

It was absurd for America’s top diplomat to compare a chief target of one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes to the law student/abortion activist.

…

Obama cited Fluke’s “bravery” when he spoke about her. But a more apt word is “shamelessness.”

Speaking of shameless, while Clinton has made advancing women’s rights a major rhetorical theme of her time at State, the Obama administration has ignored and even supported egregious violations against women.

…

Whining about the “war on women” in a Politico op-ed last week, former Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm wrote, “Republican obsession with Planned Parenthood alone has become a form of legislative sexual McCarthyism.”

In case there was any doubt about the centrality of the “war on women” theme to the Democratic campaign, Senate Democrats are pushing to extend the Violence Against Women Act, with a vote by the end of March.

Most Republicans support the law, but it’s a trap. The legislation includes not only laudable programs like grants to battered women’s shelters but also provisions allowing abused illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and programs for same-sex couples.

…

Allusions to the Republican “war on women” will continue as a major Democratic campaign theme. But they’re just Democrats’ way of diverting voters’ attention from their own failures and injustices toward women.

Update: Concerned Women for America, a consistent opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, in an email to members today claimed that the law “destroys the family”:

VAWA, in its current form, is a boondoggle for feminist groups. It has morphed into a series of rigid and ineffective law enforcement programs that continue to spend approximately $455 million each year. Instead of helping women and children, this legislation creates a large bureaucracy and destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.

…

Finally, this bill creates a new series of expensive and unnecessary programs that further complicate the process of giving aid to these women and push a feminist agenda (such as one $15 million program that attempts to "re-educate" school children into domestic violence ideology [Section 302]).

VAWA harms women by diluting assistance to real victims and by tearing the family apart. Please call your senators today at 202-224-3121, and urge them to oppose VAWA. 

The Media Research Center criticized everyone from Perez Hilton and Gossip Girl to the cast of Jersey Shore for using the word “slut,” but after right-wing talk show host tagged law student and women’s rights advocate Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” the group that claims to stand up for “people and institutions that hold traditional values” has repeatedly come to Limbaugh’s defense. MRC’s Scott Whitlock said NBC’s depiction of Limbaugh’s sexist remarks as “ugly” represented “a left-wing attack” and Brent Baker dubbed coverage of Limbaugh’s rant a “left-wing effort to impugn and silence Rush Limbaugh.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber even tweeted in defense of Limbaugh, Barber even saying that Limbaugh “showed class.”

Apparently, the word “slut” is only acceptable when it is used by a right-wing ally.

Concerned Women for America, which describes itself as committed to promoting “decency” in the media, has been completely silent about Limbaugh’s tirade. But the group is happy to post a statement regarding the talk show host’s praise for CWA, along with claims about the supposedly sexist treatment of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin by the media.

Focus on the Family considers the word “slut” a profanity and blamed “hip-hop/rap culture” for making it “become acceptable and even in vogue to be called a ‘slut,’” and urged people to stop buying music with words like “slut” that “objectify women.” But the organization still hasn’t commented on Limbaugh’s misogynist rants. In 2009 the group defended Limbaugh with a video, “When the liberals came for Rush.”

While these so-called “pro-family” organizations love to claim that they promote decency and values on the airwaves, they are either unwilling or uninterested in criticizing a prominent conservative who spent four days straight calling a student a “slut” on national radio

Yesterday the US Senate voted 51-48 to kill the Blunt Amendment to the transportation bill that would have given employers the right to deny insurance coverage for any treatment that they objected to for any reason, representing a major setback for Religious Right groups who urged passage of the extreme amendment.

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink called the vote an affront to the First Amendment, although it is hard to see how anyone’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is being violated:

“Today the government, this time via Congress, again told Americans they must ‘conform or pay a price’ when it comes to their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion,” he said. “Americans are speaking out because they understand that they should not be forced to fight to protect what the Constitution already grants them under the First Amendment.”

National Right to Life Committee claimed that the mandate was part of an “abortion-expansionist agenda, even though neither abortions nor abortifacients are included in the new rule:

The Obama Administration has issued an initial mandate that requires nearly all employers to purchase plans that cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. NRLC has pointed out that the same authority could be employed by the Administration in the future to order virtually all health plans to cover all abortions. The focus now shifts to the House, where the same legislation, introduced as H.R. 1179 by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.), currently has 220 cosponsors (more than half of all House members). In addition, numerous lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated employers, challenging the Obama mandate as a violation of constitutional rights and of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"National Right to Life will continue to challenge the Obama Administration's abortion-expansionist agenda on Capitol Hill, and we will encourage millions of like-minded Americans to remember this issue when they cast their ballots in November," said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president.

Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly said that contraceptives “are not really medical care”:

"The contraceptive mandate is an introduction to the real ObamaCare, whereby a handful of leftists in D.C. impose the views of their big-money donors on more than 300 million Americans," said Schlafly. "If the Obama Administration's contraceptive mandate remains intact, then liberals will continue to demand that Americans pay for objectionable items and services that are not really medical care."

Tony Perkins of FRCAction warned that the Constitution has been “sacrificed”:

"Today, 51 senators, led by Sen. Harry Reid, sacrificed the Constitutional right of religious liberty on the altar of the Obama administration's radical big-government agenda. They turned a deaf ear to the very real religious and moral objections of millions of Americans and the First Amendment rights of all.

Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance maintained that the mandate was part of a growing “oppressive federal bureaucracy”:

"America's women refuse to accept this unconstitutional government order," said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America. The Obama Administration's HHS Mandate demolishes our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and conscience rights."

"Churches, religious organizations, and people of faith and conscience must have the right to choose their own health care and make their own moral decisions without having to submit to the one size fits all policies of President Obama and Secretary Sebelius' oppressive federal bureaucracy," Nance said.

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.

…

A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”

…

“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

Komen Crisis Reveals Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Anti-Choice Activists On Friday, we reported on how Religious Right groups reacted furiously to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s move to roll back their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood under the excuse that they won’t work with groups under federal investigation — as Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) opened a politically charged investigation into the women’s health organization.

Many Americans were perplexed by a move that would terminate potentially life-saving healthcare for tens of thousands of women in order to cater to the “pro-life” movement and few knew that for years the anti-choice community has campaigned and criticized the Komen foundation for its partnership with Planned Parenthood. So-called “pro-lifers” regularly attacked Komen for giving grants to Planned Parenthood to provide clinical breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals for women who may otherwise not be able to obtain them since they are uninsured or underinsured and may not have a primary care provider.

However, while anti-choice activists congratulated themselves for pushing Komen to end their partnership with Planned Parenthood, they attacked people who criticized Komen’s decision for their “bullying,” “mafia shakedown” and “gangsterism.”

Two major groups that claimed credit for having Komen cut its ties with Planned Parenthood are now attacking supporters of Planned Parenthood for doing similar advocacy work.

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance called Komen’s initial decision a “major victory for the pro-life movement” and boasted that “CWA helped usher in” the investigation which Komen used as an excuse to end its work with Planned Parenthood. But on Friday, Nance denounced the “mafia-style shakedown of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest also released a blistering statement on the “ugly and disgraceful shakedown” of Komen and Planned Parenthood’s “scorched-earth strategy”:

As a breast cancer survivor, I am troubled that the Komen Foundation has come under such heavy fire for their recent decision to tighten and focus their funding guidelines. This week we have all been witness to highly partisan attacks from pro-abortion advocates and an ugly and disgraceful shakedown that highlights Planned Parenthood’s willingness to pursue a scorched-earth strategy to force compliance with their pro-abortion agenda.

Contrast that with what Yoest said in support of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood:

As a breast cancer survivor, I applaud the decision made by the Komen Foundation to discontinue their partnership with the billion-dollar, abortion mega-provider, Planned Parenthood. The work of the Komen Foundation has life-saving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death. When I learned that the foundation was using donated funds to support abortion providers, I stopped running in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. In the future, I’ll be racing with them to support this courageous decision.

Komen says it is halting its funding of Planned Parenthood due to public pressure from pro-life groups and the impending Congressional investigation of the abortion giant. According to a report from the Associated Press, “Many of the allegations [which sparked the Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood] were outlined in a report presented to Stearns last year by Americans United for Life, a national anti-abortion group, which urged him to investigate.” [emphasis mine]

See that? The “public pressure from pro-life groups” on Komen and the AUL-inspired Stearns investigation was a great achievement, but advocacy to convince Komen to reverse their decision is “scorched earth” politics.

For Yoest, dubbed “the woman who got Komen to defund Planned Parenthood,” and other anti-choice zealots, the only acceptable advocacy work allowed is their own. AUL has now shut down and scrubbed their Team Life group for an upcoming Komen-sponsored marathon. But when opponents of Komen’s move to cutoff Planned Parenthood dollars did the same, AUL derided their “ugly and disgraceful” tactics.

Cindy Asmussen of Concerned Women for America’s Central Texas chapter pleaded with the organization’s members to boycott Macy’s over the company’s LGBT rights policy and to protest the Obama administration’s directive to combat discrimination against the LGBT community abroad. Macy’s has faced a torrent of criticism from Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association because the company fired a worker in San Antonio, Texas, who refused to abide by the company’s guidelines on LGBT customers. Asmussen said that members should stop shopping at the store until they rehire the employee:

As I strive to finish my Christmas shopping this season, the stores I choose to shop at are in the forefront of my mind. There are some companies that are actively supporting the lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) agenda in our nation; therefore, they will not be getting my business. In the past week, one more store has been added to my list - Macy's (also their affiliate company Bloomingdales).

The Macy's store in San Antonio, Texas, fired Natalie Johnson after she noticed a cross-dressing man wearing lipstick coming out of the women's dressing room; she politely told him the rooms were for women only. The man, and several friends who were with him, began shouting profanities at Natalie and demanded to speak with her supervisor. After the management of the store assured the man that Macy's was indeed a LGBT friendly store and transgender men could use the women's dressing rooms, the supervisor then summoned Natalie into an office where she was forced to choose between upholding the company policy or job termination. Natalie chose to defend her values and the belief that it is a dangerous precedent to allow men to change in a women's dressing room also used by young girls. For that, she was fired.

But Asmussen wasn’t just concerned about “the lesbian, ‘gay,’ bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) agenda in our nation” (apparently only the word ‘gay’ warrants scare quotes), as she went on to rail against the Obama administration’s efforts to fight both legal and social discrimination against LGBT people around the world, which she said infringed on the rights of people who don’t support LGBT rights and undercut ‘ex-gay’ reparative therapy:

On December 6 at the United Nations, Hillary Clinton championed LGBT "rights." She claimed that members of the LGBT community are born that way, and it is something they cannot change. We know from all of the facts and testimonies of those who have come out of LGBT lifestyles that this is simply a lie. They can and do change all of the time. It is a behavior and a choice, and this is why there are several nationwide ministries helping those who want to be free from this lifestyle.

Statistics and facts already prove the destructiveness of these behaviors (such as the high numbers of sexually transmitted diseases in the homosexual community). Yet despite that, LGBT activists want to alter OUR lifestyles by intimidating us into accepting what we know is not of God, by trying to inhibit our free speech rights and abilities to speak out against it, and by forcing us to use the same dressing rooms (and, in many cases, bathrooms) with the opposite sex.

Evidently, while Concerned Women for America wants their members to pressure companies that developed progressive policies regarding their LGBT customers, the group condemns the U.S. for pushing back against countries that criminalize homosexuality and discriminate against their LGBT communities.

A candidate with a long and ferocious anti-gay record as Michele Bachmann needs a campaign chairman with a similar history of activism against gay rights. Last week, Bachmann’s campaign announced that Tamara Scott will serve as her Iowa Co-Chair, with campaign manager Eric Woolson announcing, “We are proud to have the support of an honorable conservative leader like Tamara.”

Scott is the director of Iowa’s Concerned Women for America chapter, and last year successfully fought to remove three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court after they legalized marriage equality in the state. She claimed that the future of America and people’s potential to enter Heaven would be in jeopardy if marriage equality remains the law of the land, telling supporters, “This is a battle for your future as Americans, for your future as a society and for your future someday when you stand before the Throne.”

One reason Scott said that voters should oppose marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is that it would open the door for polyamory and legalizing marriages between people and inanimate objects. While speaking with Bob Vander Plaats, the head of The Family Leader, Scott warned that gay rights will lead to people marrying objects like the Eiffel Tower: