Family Research Council

At the end of last year, MorningStar Ministires hosted a New Year's Conference featuring presentations from Rick Joyner, Kamal Saleem, Jerry Boykin, and others.  Clips from that conference have now begun showing up on the MorningStar TV website like this one featuring Boykin explaining that the massacre at Sandy Hook was not at all surprising because "when you remove God, it is always replaced with evil" and placing the blame on video games and pornography, which he claims inevitably leads people to bestiality and pedophilia:

Sometimes you really have to wonder whether anyone on the Religious Right has ever used YouTube before. Last month, conservative news outlets including Fox News and groups like Concerned Women for America jumped on a LifeNews post which alleged that Planned Parenthood was promoting ways to cover-up domestic abuse. They were upset that back in August, a Planned Parenthood-affiliated Facebook page posted a video by a British anti-domestic violence group entitled “How to look your best the morning after”:

Even the author of the original LifeNews article admits that the video, made by the organization Refuge, is a shrewd message against domestic abuse, as towards the end the woman is confronted by her abuser returning home and ends with:

65% of women who suffer domestic violence keep it hidden.
Don't cover it up.
Share this and help someone speak out.

Using the video to attack Planned Parenthood was a bridge too far for one anti-choice blogger, who wrote that “the video is actually a clever, if chilling, parody opposed to covering up domestic abuse.”

But right-wing activists intentionally and flagrantly misrepresented the video, claiming that it was actually a pro-abuse video, while others like Concerned Women for America insisted that Planned Parenthood came up with the video’s title, “How to look your best the morning after.”

Of course, anyone who has used YouTube before knows that the account which uploaded video, not a Facebook page which simply shares it, creates the video title.

That brings us to today’s radio alert from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who unbelievably and almost comically claimed that Planned Parenthood promoted domestic abuse and gave the video its title.

Perkins: Planned Parenthood’s reputation isn’t the only thing taking a beating, so are its teenage followers. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. The abortion industry can cover anything up and their latest video proves it. In the footage, Planned Parenthood coaches girls on looking good after they’ve been physically abused. “I’ve had a bit of a rough time,” says a girl with bruises, “but I’m going to be doing a talk today on how to cover-up.” She shows teenagers how to use makeup to hide the assault. “If you’ve got some bruising,” she says with a choking motion, “you can always pull your hair down to the side or use a scarf.” The tape is from the UK but Planned Parenthood calls it, “How to look your best the morning after.” And this is the kind of education taxpayers are spending millions on? When Planned Parenthood’s not promoting violence against babies, they’re condoning it among teenagers. So if anything should be sporting cuts, it’s Planned Parenthood’s budget.

Seeing that the FRC also opposes the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, we are not at all surprised that it is now grossly misrepresenting an anti-violence video to call for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood.

Apparently, Republicans were the big winner of the 2012 election! Or so says Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who on Friday told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins that conservatives in the House won a “mandate” in 2012.

“I think if you look at the country, even in the results of this election, we’re still a center-right nation,” Scalise said in the interview, “the House and the House conservatives did win and we’re there with a mandate to fight for the values that we believe in."

That’s right, losing the White House by a 332-206 electoral vote margin, losing seats in the U.S. Senate and losing the popular vote in House elections, all equals a GOP mandate. In fact, the House GOP may have lost its majority if it wasn’t for partisan gerrymandering.

While it may seem that only a fringe Republican completely detached from reality would interpret the 2012 election as a GOP victory, Rep. Scalise is the incoming chairman of the ultraconservative and influential Republican Study Committee.

Perkins, who hosted a morbid webcast the day following the election, agreed with Scalise’s fanciful election analysis, which comes as no surprise as FRC vice president Tom McClusky signed an equally delusional letter arguing that House Republicans received an electoral mandate.

Perkins: I would argue that the House of Representatives today is probably one of the most conservative Houses in modern times.

Scalise: I think if you look at the membership of the House and especially the RSC, as you mentioned we’re the largest caucus in all of Congress, we represent over 165 members of Congress that are in the RSC, it’s two-thirds of the House Republican majority. So you could say we’re a majority of the majority. But I think more importantly if you look at the reach across the country, RSC members, just looking at members of the Republican Study Committee, we represent over 100 million people. So when you talk about the view of the nation and what was a mandate coming out of this election, the fact that over 100 million people are represented by elected an conservative — conservatives to represent them — says that there’s a mandate to push for conservative values and to fight for the things that we believe in and that will actually solve the great problems facing this country.

Perkins: That’s a significant bloc of votes.

…

Scalise: You know, with probably one of the most radical liberal presidents that we’ve had in our history, I think people are counting on us to be that only line of defense and to fight to make sure that number one that we still push conservative solutions. I think if you look at the country, even in the results of this election, we’re still a center-right nation. When you have conservatives that run as conservatives, typically we win, most of our members got re-elected and if you look at the new members, thirty-five new members are coming in on the Republican side and all but four of them have joined the RSC and they ran as a very difficult climate as conservatives and they won. We shouldn’t be ashamed of or shy away from our principles, we’re disappointed in many things that came out of the election, but we ought to be proud of the fact that people sent us in the House back to be a check and a balance and not act like we got defeated because the House and the House conservatives did win and we’re there with a mandate to fight for the values that we believe in.

• The Family Research Council is facing a sexual harassment lawsuit. 

• One of America’s largest megachurches has been rocked by a sexual and physical abuse scandal. 

• The Texas pastor who endorsed Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill now says he never read it.

• Gary Bauer joins other Religious Right activists in blaming the Sandy Hook shooting on abortion rights, evolution and secular government. 

• Frank Gaffney says conservatives should oppose Chuck Hagel if he nominated to be Secretary of Defense because he has “pro-Islamist views.”

• Bryan Fischer really wants Rick Perry to run for president again. 

• Buster Wilson believes liberals are out to murder members of the NRA: “The left will be the ones too [sic] blame if more deaths arise from this twisted logic of hate.”

• FRC is now bravely boycotting UPS.  That'll show 'em!

• Eastern Michigan University has settled a lawsuit filed by a former student who was dismissed from the school's counseling program for refusing to provide counseling to gay clients.

• Twitchy might literally be the most pathetic website we've ever seen.

• Does anyone at MRC ever do any basic research before spouting off?

• Jennifer Roback Morse says there is no "war on women" ... but there is a "war on women's fertility."

• Finally, Roger Schlafly explains why President Obama won re-election: "Non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture. Democrats never persuade voters based on reason or logic. They gain voters by increasing government dependence and by promoting changes to immigration policy, family law, and schools that increase the population wanting to undermine Americanism."

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities failed to capture the 2/3 vote needed for ratification in the U.S. Senate today due to fierce Republican opposition. Many Republicans and their allies in the conservative movement claimed that the treaty codifies abortion into law, even though that preposterous claim was rejected by the National Right to Life Committee and Sen. John McCain. Along with the false charges about abortion, opponents of the treaty claimed it will undermine U.S. sovereignty and harm children. Critics like Rick Santorum warned that the treaty may kill his disabled daughter; Glenn Beck said it could create a “fascistic” government and Sen. Jim Inhofe alleged the treaty would help groups with “anti-American biases.”

One of the lesser-known but extremely active opponents of the bill was homeschooling activist Michael Farris.

During an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he claimed that the treaty will prompt the United Nations to ‘get control’ of children with glasses or ADHD and remove them from their families.

Farris: They’re called living documents, just like the disgraced living Constitution theory, which means the treaty doesn’t mean today what it’s going to mean tomorrow what it’s going to mean ten years from now. So you never know what you’re signing up for, that by itself is a good enough reason to leave it alone and to never enter into one of these things. But in particular, you hit the nail on the head Tony, the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty. My kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled, now the UN gets control over them; my child’s got a mild case of ADHD, now you’re under control of the UN treaty. There’s no definitional standard, it can change over time, and the UN, not American policymakers, are the ones who get it decided.

While speaking with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, the two warned that the treaty could lead to the deaths of disabled children, all the while admitting they have no evidence it would do such beyond their pure speculation.

Fischer: Disabled newborn babies in the UK are being put, oftentimes overriding the wishes of parents, on this death pathway where no matter what the parents want the doctors say this kid cannot live, severely disabled, too many congenital deformities, we think the best thing for this kid is just to be starved and dehydrated to death. It seems to me that although that’s not specifically contemplated in this treaty that could be an outcome.

Farris: Whether they thought about it or not, that’s exactly what Rick Santorum said in our press conference. He was holding his daughter Bella and she’s of the category of child that in Britain they would take that position because her official diagnosis is ‘incompatible with life.’ So when the doctor gets to decide, the doctor empowered by the government—these doctors aren’t doing it on their own, they are doing it because the government says they have the power to do it—the doctor/government deciding what they think is best for the child. It goes to the point of deciding whether the child lives or dies, it is that crazy. If we want to live in a Brave New World like that where the bureaucrats and the government and the UN all tell us what to do, fine, but this is the beginning of the end of American self-government if we go here, it’s just crazy, we cannot let this happen.

After warning that the treaty will kill children, Farris told conservative talk show host Steve Deace that the treaty will create a “cradle-to-grave care for the disabled” and said if the U.S. ratifies it “signing up to be an official socialist nation.” Farris claimed that the treaty will treat the parents of disabled children like child abusers in order to grow government power and implement “coercive socialism.”

“Everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement” if the treaty passes, Farris maintained, “it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law.” Deace agreed and said the treaty will “due in freedom and liberty.”

Farris: Every parent with a disabled child is going to be in the same legal position as if they’d been convicted of child abuse. We are taking away parental decision-making power in that area. The other thing that everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement. The United States resisted all the UN treaties of a certain category that began being proliferated in the 1960s; the first was the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Our country said no that is coercive socialism, we’re not going to do that. So we rejected all those treaties ever since 1966. Yet we’re signing up now for our first economic, social and cultural treaty which means as a matter of international binding law that goes to the supremacy clause level in our Constitution, we’re signing up to be an official socialist nation, cradle-to-grave care for the disabled. Maybe Americans want to do that, but I think we’d want to do it as a matter of domestic law, not as a matter of international law. I personally don’t think that’s any business of Congress to do that sort of thing but I certainly don’t want to be doing it when the United Nations tells us to do it. So those are two big ways it will affect every American and there are more.

Deace: Michael Farris is here with us from Patrick Henry College, also from the Home School Legal Defense Association, talking about another attempt to usurp American sovereignty, to essentially do an end-run around the Constitution and then of course due in freedom and liberty through an effort through the United Nations.

…

Farris: If they can get this one through, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW, which is the women’s treaty with all kinds of junk in that one, and then a whole host of other UN treaties that the Obama administration wants to send our way, it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law through the use of treaties and they are going to do a full-force attack. We’ve got to stop them now. It’s not like just the camel nose in the tent, it is that too, but we don’t want a camel’s nose in our constitutional system, that’s what we don’t want.

• FRC claims that reports that the organization has defended Uganda's proposed draconian anti-gay legislation is due to the "cozy relationship between the liberal media and unreliable sources like HRC" and is "fostering a culture of hatred and violence--that same culture that led to the attempted mass murder of the entire FRC office."
• Apparently, you can't be against abortion without also being against gay marriage.
• It seems that Erick Erickson is wise enough to realize that running for public office might not be a good idea, given his record.
• Any sort of immigration reform legislation will simply "legalize millions of voters for a much larger government."
• Buster Wilson solves the Middle East crisis once and for all by noting that there is no such thing as Palestine because "God gave the jewish people this land all the way back in Genesis."
• Beware! "It is even possible that the current round of secessionist petitions were begun, not by secessionists, but by those who want to increase the Federal government’s power" and are pushing a false flag secession effort in order to give the government an excuse to implement martial law.

• Michael B. Keegan @ Huffington Post: Dear Fellow White Men.
• Asawin Suebsaeng @ Mother Jones: The Latest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory: Obama's Third Term.
• Alvin McEwen: Hate group is livid over SPLC's lawsuit against 'ex-gay' group.
• Zack Ford @ Think Progress: Fox News Freaks Out: Gay-Inclusive Marriage Forms Will Destroy Society.
• Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion: Walid Shoebat Claims Jewish Ancestry “On Both Sides.”
• Warren Throckmorton: Unconditional Love Reparative Therapy Style.
• Josh Feldman @ Mediaite: Bill O’Reilly Confronts Atheist Leader And His 'Merry Band Of Fascists' Over The War On Christmas.

Conservative organizations have come out strongly against the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, with Rick Santorum leading the charge. The groups are upset about the treaty ensuring that people with disabilities have equal rights because they claim it is “pro-abortion.”

Article 25 of the Treaty reads in part: 

States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In particular, States Parties shall:

(a) Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes;

Anti-choice activists are angry about the inclusion of the phrase “reproductive health” in the nondiscrimination clause, according to LifeNews:

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, has previously noted the pro-life concerns, saying abortion advocates put language in the treaty in Article 25 that requires signatories to ‘provide persons with disabilities… free or affordable health care including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs.’” “Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense” he said. “Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to neutralize the threat during the mark-up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Unfortunately, his amendment (which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign) was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) after a debate.”

Several pro-life groups are on record opposing the treaty, including Eagle Forum, Family Research Council Action, CitizenLink, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, and others.

In addition, the Home School Legal Defense Association and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) have also came out against ratification.

But Perkins’s claim that the treaty “could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled-at taxpayer expense” is simply false.

The State Department makes clear that the treaty “does not include abortion” and the phrase “reproductive health” in Article 25 “does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion.”

The Convention is firmly rooted in the principles of equality and non-discrimination. As the Chairperson and many other delegations, including the United States, have noted on countless occasions over the course of negotiations, the treaty reinforces existing rights and is aimed at assuring that persons with disabilities will be treated on an equal basis with others.

This approach was reflected in oral statements and in various places in the written travaux preparatoires, including in a footnote to the draft text of Article 25 that appeared in the report of the Seventh Ad Hoc Committee.

In this regard, the United States understands that the phrase "reproductive health" in Article 25(a) of the draft Convention does not include abortion, and its use in that Article does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion. We stated this understanding at the time of adoption of the Convention in the Ad Hoc Committee, and note that no other delegation suggested a different understanding of this term.

Even the National Right to Life Committee reported after the text was adopted that no delegate interpreted “reproductive health” to mean abortion and that “delegates from pro-life nations ultimately accepted this language.” “The committee responsible for enforcing compliance to this treaty would be going way beyond their mandate if they were to interpret the term ‘reproductive health’ to include abortion,” the NRLC said:

The legally undefined and controversial term "reproductive health" remains in the document despite the fact that the term has never appeared in any other UN treaty. However, all parties maintained that the term does not include abortion and that its inclusion in this treaty cannot be interpreted to create any new rights such as a right to abortion.

The final version of Article 25 (a) on health states that nations signing and ratifying the treaty shall: "Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. . . . ."

Delegates from pro-life nations ultimately accepted this language because they were assured and became confident that it does not include abortion or create any new human rights such as a right to abortion.

For example, during the debate the Treaty Chairman, Ambassador McKay of New Zealand, stated repeatedly that the use of the term "reproductive health" in this treaty does not create any new human rights such as abortion. He even added a non-binding footnote to the record of negotiations, not the treaty itself, which he claimed would preclude any such misinterpretation of the term.

Numerous delegates from nations throughout the world including the European Union agreed with Chairman McKay that the term "reproductive health" does not include abortion. No delegate from any nation stated that it does.

In light of all these statements and the language of the treaty, the committee responsible for enforcing compliance to this treaty would be going way beyond their mandate if they were to interpret the term "reproductive health" to include abortion. It is crucial that they do not because nations that sign and ratify a treaty are required to change their laws in order to comply with the treaty.

But for the Religious Right, even definitive evidence that the treaty’s language does not refer to abortion doesn’t change their mind that the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities must be defeated.