By James Tillman

WASHINGTON, DC, November 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)—Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank said on Wednesday that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), the current military policy handling homosexuals in the armed forces, is likely to be repealed in the next year's Department of Defense authorization bill, according to The Advocate.

DADT, an administrative policy initiated in 1993 by President Clinton, permits homosexuals to serve in the military if they keep their homosexual behavior and attractions secret, and ensures that military recruits will not be asked if they are homosexual.  Nevertheless, the service of homosexuals in the military remains explicitly prohibited by law, despite the DADT policy.

The legal ban has long been a target for homosexualist advocates, even while others have criticized the administrative policy as misleading or excessively permissive.

Frank said that he has been in communication with the White House, Nancy Pelosi, and other congressional leaders.  He said that the White House was committed to repealing the measure, mentioning as an anecdote that the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had switched from speaking about 'if' DADT would be repealed to speaking about 'when' DADT would be repealed.  "That's because Rahm called him up," Frank continued. "The White House has been consistently committed."

Such action would fulfill President Obama's recent promises delivered in a speech to the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign.

"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford—for our military's integrity—to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie," the President said.  "So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy."

Frank's remarks, however, are some of the first that indicate the timing and the method whereby the White House would attempt to lift ban on homosexuals in the military.  President Obama has been harshly criticized by homosexual advocates for failing to act quickly enough to lift the ban.

Adding their voice to those crying for the ban's repeal, the American Medical Association also voted on Tuesday to oppose the DADT policy, contending that such a policy harms homosexuals by keeping them from being honest with their doctors.

Not all of those lobbying the White House are attempting to lift the ban, however; much evidence suggests that members of the armed forces largely wish to retain it.

An open letter recently signed by more than one-thousand military flag and general officers urges President Obama to retain the current law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military, saying that changing it "would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Such arguments have been echoed by other members of the military.

"The presence of openly gay men ... would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale," according to Sergeant Major Brian Jones, Ret., in testimony before Congress in 2008 regarding the repeal of the ban.

"I find it surprising that we are here today to talk about this issue of repealing the 1993 law," he said. "Our Soldiers are over-tasked with deploying, fighting, redeploying, refitting, and deploying again. ... With all of the important issues that require attention, it is difficult to understand why a minority faction is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more important issues."

Despite such objections, the Defense Department reauthorization bill could be voted on next year and take effect by October 1, 2010, according to Frank.  He also said than an executive order could prevent homosexuals from being discharged from the military even before then.

"Once the bill is passed, even if it hasn't yet taken effect at that point, the president could justify a stop-loss order because it would no longer be the law—it's just a matter of time," Frank said.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Obama Criticizes People with "Old Attitudes" in Keynote Speech at Homosexualist Dinner 

Obama to Allow Open Homosexuals in Military 

Former President Clinton Calls for Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy 

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 12, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A leading pro-life congressman said today that there will be at least three empty seats at tonight's State of the Union address.

In a press release, Congressman Steve King, R-IA, said that in addition to the gallery seat left empty by President Obama in honor of victims of gun violence, "There will be another empty seat in the gallery during Obama’s last State of the Union address. I have reserved it to commemorate the lives of more than 55 million aborted babies, ‘the chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world.’"

"My seat on the floor of Congress will also be empty," said King. "I will be in the Member’s chapel praying for God to raise up a leader whom he will use to restore the Soul of America.”

“The first tears we have seen him shed in seven years were for the victims of the tragic Sandy Hook School shooting," King noted. "As far as we know, Obama has never shed a single tear for even one of the more than 9 million babies aborted under his watch. He is the most pro-abortion president ever."

King said he was "sickened... by a president who would veto the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, H.R. 3504 that would protect the lives, at least of those who survived the attempt on their lives, by abortionists."

Yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX, promised that he himself would leave a seat open for abortion victims at the State of the Union address if he is elected president. King has endorsed Cruz for president.

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 12, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is now saying a 1994 article reporting that he made a donation to Planned Parenthood was a "misquote."

“I never donated to Planned Parenthood,” he told Jennifer Rubin, the neoconservative columnist at The Washington Post. “I’ve been strongly pro-life for 20 years."

The issue flared to life after rival Marco Rubio said, “Chris Christie personally contributed to Planned Parenthood.”

In 1994, Christie told a local New Jersey newspaper, "I support Planned Parenthood privately with my personal contribution and that should be the goal of any such agency - to find private donations."

But on Sunday's "Face the Nation" program, Christie said he never gave money to Planned Parenthood. That deepened the confusion.

“Listen, this is a quote from 21 years ago," he told Rubin for her column on Tuesday. "I’m convinced it was a misquote."

However, Christie later hired the man who wrote the article for the Newark Star-Ledger, Brian Murray, as his spokesman in the governor's office.

Murray had no comment, according to the The Weekly Standard.

Christie said even at the time, he opposed taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, even though he sought a county office as a pro-choice Republican.

"Understand what was going on. In 1994-95, I was fighting against county funding of Planned Parenthood even though I was pro-choice,” Christie said.

As governor, he has repeatedly vetoed Planned Parenthood funding on economic grounds.

However, Christian voters are unlikely to vote for Christie in the primaries for numerous reasons, including his stated indifference to religious liberty and history of appointing pro-abortion judges.

Christie said he welcomes the latest criticism as "a great sign our campaign is gaining traction.” The most recent Monmouth poll puts him in fifth place in must-win New Hampshire, behind Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In addition to vetoing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, Christie has promised to sign the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, if it reaches his desk as president. So has every other Republican presidential hopeful.

For her part, Rubin has criticized pro-life pledges in general, and one administered by the Susan B. Anthony List in 2012 in particular, saying such statements "detract from the central premise of a campaign: to select a candidate whose views and judgment voters trust. There’s no pledge for that."

She also said that former House Speaker John Boehner's resignation was an act of "selflessness."

"Truth be told, no other responsible leader could have or will please the crazed tea party segment for whom governing is an annoyance and posturing is the objective," the Post's conservative blogger wrote.

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 12, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - A group of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender activists have urged the Supreme Court to overturn a Texas abortion restriction, because transgender men desperately need to have abortions.

Last week, the Obama administration and numerous state attorneys general filed briefs opposing more stringent health and safety regulations imposed by Texas House Bill 2. So did a coalition of more than a dozen LGBT pressure groups and their allies, including the Human Rights Campaign the National LGBTQ Task Force, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), Immigration Equality, and the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

“The movements for reproductive health, rights and justice are indispensable for LGBTQ people," their amicus brief states. "Our work, as repro[ductive] and LGBTQ advocates, is inseparable as we are working for the right to live our lives fully and the right to choose how we use our bodies.”

"A ruling that favors discrimination under the guise of ‘women’s health’ would negatively impact LGBTQ people,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, in a statement.

"Many of us — cisgender women, transgender men, intersex and gender non-conforming individuals, among others — can get pregnant and rely on a full range of reproductive health options, including abortion,” Carey continued.

The legal plea puts the justices at the intersection of two competing priorities of the sexual revolution: abortion and transgender theory.

In the last several years, a number of social activists have begun to insist that, due to new theories divorcing gender from biological sex, men are having abortions.

In July 2013, Lauren Rankin wrote an article entitled, “Not Everyone Who Has an Abortion Is a Woman – How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue.”

Two months earlier, the New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) said it would no longer present itself as a group fighting for women's rights. "We want to make sure that NYAAF isn’t just working toward every woman’s right to access affordable abortion care, but every person’s right, regardless of their gender," the group wrote.

Their was one of 45 amicus briefs filed opposing the Texas pro-life law, which has closed more than half of the state's abortion facilities since being signed into law by then-Governor Rick Perry.

The Obama administration said that the regulations of H.B. 2 "disserve the government’s interest in protecting women’s health, and they would close most of the clinics in Texas, leaving many women in that state with a constitutional right that ‘exists in theory but not in fact,’” in the words of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr.

The bill's supporters say the restrictions are intended to prevent women from experiencing subpar care in substandard facilities.