FIC Blog

Pro-lifers around the country have reason to celebrate today…and NARAL and Planned Parenthood are taking it on the chin. The Hartford Courant, by way of the Chicago Tribune, has the breaking story:

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a Massachusetts buffer zone of 35 feet that includes sidewalks and public walkways outside abortion clinics violates the free speech rights of sidewalk counselors

(Naturally, the Tribune found a picture of the three pro-buffer zone protesters in attendance. I guess they weren’t part of the media entourage seen in the photo above, from Faith and Action on Twitter.)

Check out NARAL Pro-Choice CT’s pout party as they lie about the nature and intentions of vigil participants:

From my experience as a participant in 40 Days for Life, I can attest — as many have — that I have never seen any act of violence, intimidation, or harassment on our part. I have, on the other hand, seen 40 Daysers offer a folding chair (accepted) and water (declined) to a woman who looked dreadfully pale and began leaning against a pole while waiting for her ride by herself on the sidewalk after exiting the clinic, abandoned by the security escort. That’s the kind of person who frequents 40 Days for Life in Hartford. We don’t bite.

Back in 2010, FIC quoted a NARAL Pro-Choice CT e-mail blast indicating that NARAL had plans to press for a buffer zone law in Connecticut. In their own words,

It is just this sort of protection that clients in Hartford could use to ensure access to Hartford GYN and their legal right to obtain an abortion. We will be working to secure a buffer zone in the coming year and we’ll keep you posted on our progress.

FIC’s e-mail response to NARAL’s email became the subject of a post at Capitol Watch where one commenter going by the pen name ‘Reading Comprehension’ claimed we ought to “put in a call to the Supreme Court” because “they have repeatedly settled the issue.” Four years later, we can’t help but ask Mr. or Ms. Reading Comprehension: is your phone ringing? It just might be SCOTUS!

Stay with us as we monitor the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases; we have now been told to expect a decision Monday morning.

FIC has enthusiastically supported the Fortnight for Freedom every year since the federal government decided it would force people of faith to subsidize abortifacient drugs through their businesses. This year we face the prospect of an imminent Supreme Court ruling, the first one on this issue. I know the suspense grows with every passing day that we receive no word (via Alliance Defending Freedom on Facebook, it will be tomorrow or Friday); meanwhile, Colorado Christian University emerged victorious from U.S. District Court in Denver, and EWTN plans to appeal its loss in Atlanta. Don’t bite your nails down to nubbins — put those fingers to work on Twitter! Use the tag #ReligiousFreedom to show your support for Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, and the many others whose livelihood rides on a favorable decision. Sign up for our e-mail list to stay informed about a possible rally here in Connecticut. And, of course, join us in prayer — the single most important action any of us can take.

We also encourage FIC members to attend local Fortnight for Freedom events. Our own Peter Wolfgang will be keynoting the Fortnight event at St. Paul’s Church in Glastonbury on Wednesday, July 2nd at 7:00 pm. And My Father’s House, the charismatic retreat center in Moodus, will hold several Fortnight events over the holiday weekend.

It’s long overdue. We know. But it’s coming.

FIC’s website will be overhauled before the end of this, our 25th anniversary, year.

The present website is, in internet terms, ancient. It was last upgraded in 2006 and much of what is on it is still from that era.

The new website will be simpler, easier to use…and fitted particularly to today’s battles. And so will the new blog.

FIC Blog made quite a splash in its 2006 debut, thanks to Brian Brown’s decision to include an “Opponents” list of blog links. Our frenemies loved/hated it and did their part to drive up our traffic. Unfortunately, they also trolled the comboxes and drove away those FIC members for whom we hoped to create a local, online community of pro-family citizens.

A lot has happened since then. Social media has largely replaced blogging and FIC’s day-to-day activities are now more likely to appear on our Facebook or Twitter feeds than in this space.

But blogs still have their uses. You can see it here with the addition of new voices such as FIC policy assistant Nicole Stacy’s posts. Nicole and other FIC writers have things to say, things that can be linked to on Facebook or Twitter but should not originate there.

That is why a new FIC Blog will be part of the website overhaul.

This blog itself is a successor to Connecticut in the Crosshairs, the first FIC blog, which posted its first item ten years ago this October. Between Crosshairs and FIC Blog, we have maintained one of the longest-running blogs in Connecticut. But just as this present blog replaced Crosshairs, a new blog will replace this one in the long-awaited overhaul of our homepage.

The present content will all be archived, just as it was for Crosshairs. And we will continue to post at this site until the new one is up and running. In fact, we just updated FIC Blog’s links.

The defunct blogs Pray Connecticut, Marriage Debate and Rick Green’s CT Confidential have all been removed, as well as the semi-defunct blog of Judy Aron who, like Green, has moved out of state. Reflecting FIC’s prioritizing of the fight against assisted suicide, we have added the pro-true dignity blogs of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Wesley Smith’s Human Exceptionalism. We have also added The Courant’s sleepy religion blog Beliefs: Faith in Connecticut (Psst, Bernie Davidow, wake up. Post something.)

With the new blog, we will return to the original idea of creating an online forum for Connecticut’s pro-family citizens to interact. In the meantime, we invite you back to make the most of the present FIC Blog.

In early 2004 I was afire with election fever. There was an excitement in the air for Republicans that I have not experienced since, even in 2010. It was my freshman year of college, and partisan politics divided roommate against roommate — though usually in a spirit of sportsmanship and good humor, such as when two of my friends drew a line down the middle of their door and let their stickers, articles, and posters face off.

I made phone calls and carpooled with friends to see the President; I attended College Republicans tailgates and bake sales. When the weather grew warm I took to my feet and led a flyering campaign around campus. Because I was equal parts zeal and naïveté, I sometimes said, did, and thought things that 2014 Nicole would find cringe-worthy. One politically naïve move I don’t regret, though, is a poster I created that read “Support the Muslim Women of France.”

At that time, the French parliament was poised to ban religious identification from public places. It is worth noting that, although the law was widely believed to target the hijab (the headscarf worn by some Muslim women), it was broad enough to include a yarmulke or an “excessive” cross. In government and in culture, France reached an extreme secularism long before we ourselves began to hear calls for faith to be shoved into a dark corner where it won’t perturb anyone else. It’s not entirely difficult to understand, given the divergent history and outcomes of two revolutions. Nevertheless, under the old lie that one can’t be both a patriot and a Godly person, France was prepared to expunge outward symbols of faith that Americans generally tolerate.

Even three years after the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists, it never occurred to me not to support the public expression of faith. Sadly, a vast majority of the French populace apparently favored the law.

Why do I bring this up now? The results of two UConn studies show that indicating a religious affiliation on a résumé can kill job prospects. Once again, this is true across a broad range of denominations, but is particularly true for Muslims.

If only liberal New England had been examined, I could easily put this down to the usual “villain” of the story — secular intolerance — and move on. The part of the article that raises my eyebrows has to do with how the results of the same experiment played out in the Bible Belt. There, I am compelled to follow the data where it appears to lead.

As I have railed against the federal mandate forcing my fellow conscientious-objectors to subsidize abortifacients, I’ve been painfully aware of the mockery and condescending assumptions directed at Catholic women: a minority of a minority…brainwashed by the domineering patriarchy, no doubt. If I added that some of my friends wear chapel veils, all you-know-what would surely break loose among the feministas. Now we stand at the cusp of a potential Supreme Court vindication, and I wonder, do we still need the oppressive government to defend us from one another? That would be a hollow victory indeed.

The Family Institute has defended Baptists, Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews against outrageous, unwarranted attacks on their faith and freedom. Why not Muslims too? Throughout the HHS Mandate battle, the refrain has been “An attack on one is an attack on all.” Now, I would not be a Christian today if I did not believe Christianity is true. In accord with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), I also reject a complete, senseless lack of restrictions, because there are certain human rights concerns I share. However, I just cannot conceive of passing over an eminently qualified job applicant because of her faith. I sure hope I’m in a clear majority there.

As Franklin, with his typical wit, so eloquently put it: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Father’s Day is here again, and once again we are prompted to reflect on the mysteries and glories of the inseverable bond between a father and his child. This past week or so, the web has been full of tributes that are difficult to top, such as Buzzfeed’s moving pictorial of dads meeting their newborn babies. You can tell it’s love at first sight, and it just might make you cry a little.

Not to brag, but I have an awesome dad. What keeps me utterly humbled and grateful is the awareness that it didn’t have to be this way. This July will mark my parents’ 32nd wedding anniversary–a Rock of Gibraltar in this shifting cultural milieu.

A tribute to fathers is necessarily an implied tribute to mothers, and perhaps more so than the other way around. We ought to keep this in mind in light of hype surrounding a recent study that documented changes in men’s brain activity from active parenting, a study that included homosexual couples. Some outlets managed to report on the facts without irresponsible conjecture, but others took the facts on a joyride to serve a shameless advocacy ‘journalism’ suggesting–in a bizarre but not wholly unpredictable inversion of the single-motherhood-by-choice phenomenon–that Mom is an expendable party. Certainly, humans are adept at compensating when they must. That compensation is needed at all puts the lie to the idea that another man is just as good as Mom.

My mom and I are two peas in a pod in many ways. From her side of the family I get my petite stature, my Catholic faith, and probably my ability to gently but firmly stick to my guns. I’d also be lying if I said we haven’t had opportunities to bond over…ahem…occasional male incomprehensibility, as it appears to women. That said, there have always been things that my dad and I shared pretty much exclusively: our penchant for hard core roller coaster riding (while Mom says “See you back on the ground”), or our appreciation of slapstick and ridiculous comedy. A mere word or gesture can launch us, giggling, into a lengthy, memorized routine.

Dad showed me that there can be fun and levity in politics, and Dad’s example has strongly impressed upon me the value of honesty even when it’s really inconvenient. There are also unanticipated ways in which I have apparently changed my dad’s life. He once credited me, on national TV no less, with getting him to listen to classical music, which according to him would garner him a healthy razzing from his college rock buddies.

I’ve tried, now and then, to imagine life without Dad. My brain short-circuits before I get anywhere; it’s just not something I have much stomach to contemplate.

Some people, in this lovely but broken world of ours, have to imagine life with Dad. HuffPo, one of the loudest voices in the above-mentioned advocacy journalism category, just the other day published this bittersweet piece whose author can finally stop imagining and embrace her dad in the flesh (why, one wonders, can’t HuffPo put two and two together?). Others, like Alana Stewart–conceived via sperm donation, which she speaks from the heart about in this must-read NPR interview–are still searching.

Biology alone doesn’t make a good dad. Even so, the adage “blood is thicker than water” rings true.

This Father’s Day I pray to the Father of us all that we who are close to our dads will never take it for granted, and that those who aren’t will find reconciliation, joy, consolation, and peace.

From all of us at Family Institute of Connecticut, Happy Father’s Day.

In the furor that resulted, rightly, from LiveAction’s revelation that a Planned Parenthood staffer gave what she thought was a 15-year-old girl a graphic personal endorsement of sadomasochism, it is understandable that some good news about high school students’ habits may have been overlooked. The results of the CDC’s 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey are in, and they have implications for both the nation and the state of Connecticut (this is not the same survey on which we reported in March. To view survey questions, click here; to learn more about the CDC’s methodology, including question development and limitations of the survey, click here).

The Hartford Courant reports that smoking and drinking among Connecticut high school students are at a 17-year low. Also:

The number of students who reported ever having had sexual intercourse fell slightly, to 41.1 percent, in Connecticut. Nationally, the number also slid, to 46.8 percent.

“It’s encouraging that high school students are making better health choices such as not fighting, not smoking, and not having sex,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden.

From the time I first became aware of the YRBS, I have found that it provides a refreshing counter-narrative to the popular idea that the sulky, secretive, hormone-crazed beast that materialized in your house at approximately the same time your sweet 11-year-old mysteriously disappeared cannot possibly be expected either to understand the value of delayed gratification or to modify his or her behavior. The quote above shows a clear majority, as well as including an expert opinion, and may be enough to help a young person who is struggling to resist peer pressure.

In their hurry to take credit for lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates, the Guttmacher Institute –a.k.a. Planned Parenthood’s research arm– ignores such trends. They’re not good for business. At LifeNews.com, Dr. Michael New eviscerates Guttmacher’s analysis, even using their own studies.

Is There Bad News?
Unfortunately, there are clouds in this blue sky. Here’s a particularly troubling statistic identified by the Courant:

High school students who reported being physically forced to have sexual intercourse jumped a statistically significant 2 percentage points, to 9.2 percent. Nationally, 7.3 percent of students reported being forced to have sex.

Jillian Gilchrest, public policy director of Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, noted that the survey only reflects the responses of youths who felt safe to disclose that they had been forced to have sex.

I was instantly reminded of a passage from chastity educator Jason Evert’s book If You Really Loved Me (pg. 30):

A poll in Rhode Island asked seventeen hundred students in grades six through nine if it is OK for a guy to force a young woman to have sex if the two of them have dated for six months or more. Two-thirds of the guys said this was acceptable–and half of the girls did as well! 86 percent of the young men said that it was OK to rape your wife, and 24 percent said that it was OK to rape a date if you spent “a lot of money” on her. Modern culture tells us that if something feels good and we want it, we should have it. Go ahead. Gorge yourself. But when this mentality seeps into the minds of the youth, we end up with grade-schoolers who don’t see a problem with rape.

That book was published in 2008. I wonder how we’re doing now?

Better to Light One Candle…
Let’s not lose sight of the dark areas. Still, a steady diet of bad news is no good for a Gospel (Good News) people. Be encouraged by the positive trends, publicize, and celebrate them!

There, There Sandra

Voters Prefer Man With Less Notoriety

Like El Niño, I’m sure this can be blamed on the War on Women: Though she still advances to the final round, Sandra Fluke, the best known of all candidates for California’s 26th State Senate district, placed second to school board member Ben Allen. Allen’s website describes his priorities as:

• Creating jobs and opportunities for all residents;
• Developing a long-term plan to get the state budget in line;
• Challenging the culture of corruption in Sacramento and protecting taxpayers;
• Fixing our troubled schools;
• Preserving our natural resources and open spaces
• Making higher education more affordable; and
• Most importantly, making sure that all of our communities, every zip code, every ethnic group, women and men are represented in our State Capitol.

Seems like free birth control just isn’t at the top of the list in Santa Monica. Wonder if Sen. Murphy is feeling nervous about his investment?

What’s the one election so important, according to Chris Murphy, that — although it is taking place on the other side of the country — he simply cannot resist getting involved?

Who is this up-and-coming public servant of such rare caliber?

Oy vey.

I doubt anyone has forgotten, but just in case: it’s the woman who became famous for being insulted by Rush Limbaugh (a very exclusive club, that) after intentionally applying to a Jesuit college to force a confrontation between free birth control and the First Amendment. Predictably, this has proven to be a losing proposition. Unbelievably, she also pleaded financial hardship for students who already demonstrated some willingness to exchange fifty grand a year for the benefits of a Georgetown diploma — which include the reasonable expectation of a six-figure starting income. One would hope that if a student got one message out of an education this prestigious and expensive, it would be “Don’t stomp on the Bill of Rights.”

Senator Murphy, this says more about your judgment than I ever could.

Family Institute of Connecticut Action has expended more energy in opposition to the HHS abortifacient mandate than any other federal issue with which we have ever been involved–an issue that, please God, will be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of religious liberty before the end of June.

The mandate is part of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) and our friends at Defenders of the Faith have alerted us to a June 8th event about that law. Details are below. We encourage FIC members to attend.

The Developing Conflict: The Church and the Affordable Care Act Sunday, June 8, 2014 1PM Russell Hall St. Catherine of Siena 265 Stratton Brook Road West Simsbury Special Guest Panelists Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. Director of Education The National Catholic Bioethics Center Philadelphia, PA Daniel P. O’Connell Chairman St. Francis Care Board of Directors Jeff Mateer, Esq. General Counsel The Liberty Institute, Dallas, TX What it means for Faith, Family and Freedom.

An RSVP would be greatly appreciated so we can better prepare for the event: email: stcathy@comcast.net Phone: 860-658-1642 Defenders of Faith The Second in the Series: The Catholic Church in the Public Square Presented by Defenders of Faith.

Former Governor Lowell Weicker says the Connecticut GOP is “irrelevant.”

No one disputes that the CT GOP has been in an exceedingly weak position for decades, a legislative superminority at certain points in the Rell years and even less influential in the Malloy era, with the Democrats now in control of the Governor’s office as well as both chambers of our General Assembly, every other constitutional office and all seven seats of our Washington delegation.

How did it come to this? Here’s Weicker’s explanation:

On WNPR’s Where We Live, Weicker said the GOP needs ideas that are focused on Connecticut, and not just on following the national party’s playbook. “A southern strategy does not work in the state of Connecticut,” Weicker said. “We’re not a religious right state…”

Someone please tell me, when did the CT GOP ever do the things Weicker complains of? When did it ever pursue a Connecticut-as-religious-right-state strategy?

Was it when Jodi Rell signed gay civil unions into law? How about when Rob Simmons voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal? Maybe it was when Nancy Johnson voted AGAINST the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? Was that it?

When was this mythical time when the CT GOP supposedly employed this strategy? Because we here at Family Institute of Connecticut are still waiting for our “irrelevant” CT GOP to at least give it a try.