Union leaders line up behind same-sex ‘marriage,’ Obama
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 19, 2012, ( >LifeSiteNews) – Although their membership is evenly split, 90 percent of all union contributions go to the Democratic Party. Now, as it has become a wedge issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, a number of the nation’s largest unions have endorsed same-sex “marriage.”
The UAW, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, and other top unions have issued statements supporting same-sex “marriage.” Many state-level unions have followed suit, particularly in states like Maryland, where the issue is on the ballot this November.
While some unions have backed gay nuptials for a few years, others, such as the UAW, announced their support only after President Barack Obama announced his position had changed on the issue.
Obama, who had previously opposed redefining marriage, changed his views in May in response to mounting pressure from the homosexual lobby and, in his words, the role of religion and conversations with his teenage daughters about the issue. Since then, same-sex “marriage” has become a major part of the Democratic Party platform.
Historically, more than 90 percent of all union political spending – which totaled a staggering $4.4 billion between 2005 and 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal – has been in support of Democratic candidates for office.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
This is one reason why groups like the National Right to Work Committee argue against compulsory unionism laws that force many workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. While virtually all union political spending goes to support Democrats, the rank-and-file union members who finance that support are about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, just like the rest of the country. Yet many have no choice about where the union spends their money.
Up until recently, that coerced financial support for Democrats had been largely based on economic and workplace concerns. Democrats favor a higher minimum wage, taxpayer-funded healthcare, and other measures that union officials claim benefit the workers they’re paid to represent.
The same-sex “marriage” issue is not related to workplace concerns, nor is it something most working families support. A CNN exit poll taken during Ohio’s 2004 battle to ban same-sex “marriage” showed that 64 percent of union members and 63 percent of those living in union households voted in favor of the ban in defiance of the AFL-CIO’s public opposition.
Former union negotiator Phil Burress was one of them. He chaired the campaign to protect traditional marriage, and was appalled at what he saw as union officials’ betrayal of their members’ values. Burress told CNS News that he considered the AFL-CIO’s backing of the homosexual and transgender agendas to be “a stealth campaign.”
“I know union workers,” he said, “and on these social issues—especially dealing with marriage—the AFL-CIO does not represent the rank-and-file workers.”
Union bosses, he added, “certainly talk with workers when it comes to negotiating contracts, but when it comes to taking public policy stances, they don’t talk to the membership at all.”
Similarly, when Michigan, a labor union stronghold, voted to amend the state constitution to block gay “marriage” and “civil unions,” a Detroit News poll showed two-thirds of union members voted for the amendment. Meanwhile, AFL-CIO and MEA teachers union officials campaigned against the marriage amendment. Because it was an issue, not a candidate they were campaigning against, they were able to do so with union treasury dues, not PAC money.
After passage, the Michigan ACLU filed suit to limit the marriage amendment’s enforcement. The plaintiff in the case? “Pride at Work,” the homosexual activist arm of the AFL-CIO.
Even though union members overwhelmingly supported the ban on gay “marriage,” their dues money was spent fighting it, both before and after the vote.
Mike Goschka, then a Michigan state senator and a member of the United Steelworkers Union, was angry. He told Focus on the Family he thought the issue was as bad for society as legalized abortion.
“I was 19 years old and abortion was made legal,” Goschka said. “I didn’t have a clue back then, but this is on our watch. We simply cannot stand idly by and watch the demise of the culture.”
“Polling data show that the American people continue to be closely divided on the issue of ‘gay marriages,’” Stanley Greer, Senior Research Associate at NILRR wrote on his blog. “And in the dozens of states that have held ballot measures or referenda on the particular question of whether public policy should recognize and encourage same-sex unions, majorities have voted ‘No’ every time, most recently in North Carolina this spring.”
“Rank-and-file union members have disparate views on this controversial issue, just as other Americans do,” continued Greer. “With evident contempt for the views of millions of rank-and-file unionists, AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka and other union bosses are using their forced dues-funded empires to assist a controversial political agenda.”
Same-sex “marriage” legislation is on the ballot this year in Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.