2008: Connecticut’s Families Fight Back
February 1st, 2008 by Peter
Next week marks the start of the 2008 session of the Connecticut General Assembly—and anti-family lobbyists are already launching new attacks on faith and family! But their attacks are being met by a new force that has risen up in the last few years to fight for our values: Family Institute of Connecticut Action.
Here are FIC Action’s legislative priorities for 2008:
Stop the abortion industry from providing “sex education” in our public schools. This week’s Hartford Business Journal reports that “The Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood is gearing up for a strong legislative push this session for the state to provide ‘real’ sex education,” in part because they fear that local boards of education are “hamstrung” by “public disapproval.” The same article quotes me:
We would oppose any further involvement by Planned Parenthood because whatever they’re pushing, it’s really about abortion…They are the nation’s largest abortion provider and should be the last folks involved in sexual education.
Watch for further information on what you can do to keep the abortion industry out of our public schools and away from our children.
Stop same-sex “marriage” and “transgender” special rights. Pro same-sex “marriage” activists have said that 2008 will mark their biggest push yet for re-defining marriage if the Supreme Court refuses to impose it on Connecticut. “Transgender” activists plan to re-introduce a special rights bill which will prevent boards of education from disciplining or declining to hire teachers who are cross-dressers or who have had sex-change operations. Watch for further information on these issues and on what you can do for a constitutional convention which will finally let the people decide the future of marriage in Connecticut.
Pass a parental notification bill. Connecticut is one of only six states in the country that has not passed a law requiring minor girls to obtain parental consent or at least notify their parents before getting an abortion. Last year, for the first time ever, we had a hearing on parental notification. This year we will fight to pass this bill, which has led to a decline in abortions in other states.
Pass a bill protecting the right to homeschool. Connecticut has some of the best laws in the country for parents who wish to homeschool their children. But the State Department of Education and the Department of Children and Families have begun to harass parents who withdraw their children from public schools in order to homeschool them. FIC Action will work to pass a law that stops this harassment and protects the right of parents to homeschool their children.
Pass a bill supporting fatherhood in Connecticut. Last year a bill creating a task force to study the causes of fatherlessness in Connecticut was unanimously approved by the Select Committee on Children but was never voted on in the Senate. Since then, the violent deaths of several local toddlers has reminded our state that children left in homes without both biological parents are at higher risk of abuse than those raised in traditional family structures. We will do all we can to pass a bill that protects children by promoting fatherhood.
Monitor threats to religious liberty at the state Capitol. Last year a bill exempting Bible colleges from secular licensing processes-and, therefore, protecting them from harassment by a state government with no competence in theological matters-died in committee. Since then, officials in state government have expressed a willingness to work with these Christian institutions to resolve their concerns. FIC Action will continue to monitor the situation and, if it should become necessary, re-introduce the bill protecting Bible colleges.
The list above is subject to change depending on how issues develop during the legislative session.
FIC Action has broken the anti-family stranglehold at our state Capitol. We have a long way to go in protecting our values and building a more family-friendly Connecticut. But thanks to your previous support, the pro-family movement now has a voice in Connecticut’s halls of power. We hope we can continue to count on you as we work to break the pro-abortion and pro same-sex “marriage” monopoly of influence at our state legislature.
I don’t understand what a bill “promoting fatherhood” would consist of. Can you elaborate?
Have any of you seen the news that the appeal in the Parker/Wirthlin case against Lexington Public Schools (for homosexual indoctrination of young children in school) has been denied? (FamilyLeader.net has a link to the story, I believe.)
I have not read the story yet, but there is a possibility the case will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
I find it interesting that our politically correct society so demonizes smoking (and rightfully so) to our youth, but would then also consider allowing an openly gay, transgendered, or cross dressing teacher in a classroom.
This is not about discrimination. This is about denying and even promoting genuine human frailties that should be clinically treated as opposed to championed, and especially to our vulnerable, developing and impressionable youth.
There is a rightfully placed line of distinction that separates tolerance from negligence, or even recklessness, and it has nothing at all to do with discrimination, and everything to do with common sense and common decency. . As the sage adage reminds us, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”
Most, if not all police departments now require job applicants to undergo physiological testing as part of the screening process. Perhaps the time has now come that we also require the same standard of our prospective teachers as well.
And for those so afflicted with these disorders, the time is also now long overdue that we stop providing them more outlets and excuses for continuing to wallow in their ever-deteriorating denial, and more opportunities for treatment. A tough but charitable and necessary choice must be made to abandon political correctness, with its surface-level, false and deceptive nicety and long term harm, and to replace it with tough love, with its initial bitterness and substantive, long term benevolence, nurturing and help.
Doug
Please forgive the typo in my last post.
Regarding the testing of police department applicants, I meant to say “psychological” testing, not “physiological” testing.”
Doug