Organizations: Family Research Council

The Conservative Attack On Contraceptive Coverage

research •

Today, the Supreme Court will hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. Two companies are arguing that obligating businesses to provide insurance plans that cover contraceptive services free of charge intrudes on their owners’ religious rights. A victory for the companies could open the door for any private for-profit employer to interfere with its employees’ health care on the basis of the employers’ personal beliefs.

In this case, the plaintiffs are challenging commonsense public policy. The costs associated with birth control interfere with women’s ability to use it consistently and effectively, leading to higher numbers of unintended pregnancies. That leads to more abortions and negative outcomes for mothers, babies, and families who do go through with an unplanned birth.

Allowing women to plan their pregnancies yields healthier babies, more stable families, and better economic and social outlooks for women. There’s also evidence that covering contraceptives saves insurance companies, employers, and taxpayers money; one study suggested that unintended pregnancies cost taxpayers $11 billion each year.

Yet leading conservative politicians and right-wing groups insist on slapping a scarlet letter on contraceptive care, painting this sound health care policy as a question of religious intrusion. According to Rep. Steve King (R-IA), for example, “preventing babies from being born is not medicine.” And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) insists that the controversy over women’s access to contraception “is not about women’s rights or contraception, this is about the religious liberties that our country has always cherished.” However, these Republican critics are out-of-step with the mainstream. Polling shows that 99 percent of women – including most Catholic women – have used birth control, and most women approve of the contraceptive coverage rule.

Read more after the jump.
View PDF

Susan B. Anthony List’s Anti-Choice Machine

research •

Susan B. Anthony List has committed to spending at least $1.5 million on behalf of arch-conservative Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, continuing its pattern of support for extreme politicians. Although it is named for the nineteenth-century feminist pioneer, SBA List has little to do with championing the rights of women and everything to do with ending women’s access to abortion, mostly by supporting candidates who are fiercely opposed to reproductive health choices.

Using the 2013 Virginia election as a “proving ground” in advance of 2014’s midterm elections, SBA List is testing out electoral strategies that will further President Marjorie Dannenfelser’s vision of an anti-choice “political machine” as impossible to ignore as the National Rifle Association. An ad in April from the SBA List targeting Cuccinelli’s Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe, was the first paid advertising of the race. Beyond its efforts in Virginia, SBA List has pledged to focus its upcoming efforts on 12 key states, eight of which will host field offices pursuing electoral and legislative goals.

In addition to backing extreme candidates like Todd Akin, who infamously claimed that women are unlikely get pregnant from “legitimate rape” because their bodies have mysterious ways to “shut that whole thing down,” SBA List supports policies in line with its leaders’ radical perspectives on birth control and sex. Instead of endorsing preventive measures that could reduce the need for abortions, Dannenfelser has illogically argued that “contraception and family planning” are responsible for increasing the number of abortions. “The bottom line,” she has said, “is that to lose the connection between sex and having children leads to problems.”

Read more after the jump.
View PDF

Values Voters Summit Speakers Warn Of “Sexual Anarchy,” Sharia, And Hitler-Like Policies

This weekend, social conservatives are gathering in Washington, DC for the annual Values Voters Summit hosted by the Family Research Council. The event will feature speeches by conservative lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, as well as prominent leaders in the social conservative movement. People for the American Way put together a helpful primer on several controversial speakers who will take the stage. Here are just some of the extreme views that will be represented.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

Perkins: “It’s Disgusting” That Obama Supports Telling Kids With A “Perversion” That “It’s Okay To Be Immoral.” According to a letter from Tony Perkins: “The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. President Obama, Michelle Obama, Vice President Biden, and many White House staffers recorded and posted ‘It Gets Better’ videos on the first-ever White House web page devoted exclusively to the so-called LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) ‘community.’ Can you imagine George Washington, Ronald Reagan, or any other president telling school children that it’s okay to be immoral and that they’ll eventually feel better about it? It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that ‘lifestyle.’” [Perkins Letter via RightWingWatch.org, 8/18/11]

Perkins: Lawmakers Who Vote To Repeal DADT Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.” From Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update” on December 15, 2010: “How many brave men and women are liberals willing to sacrifice so that homosexuals can flaunt their lifestyle? The only reason for changing the present policy is if it would help the military accomplish its mission. So far, no one has produced a single reason how it would. Until then, the Senate has to ask itself: Do they want the blood of innocent soldiers on their hands just to appease the political base of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)? If they can live with that, then they’re unlike any human beings I’ve ever met.” [Tony Perkins’ Washington Update via Archive.org, 12/15/10]

Read more after the jump.

FRC’s Perkins Compares “Religious Freedom” Issue To Hurricane Isaac

video •

On August 29, the Media Research Center‘s CNSNews.com interviewed Family Research Council president Tony Perkins about “religious freedom” and the presidential election:

PERKINS: I see religious freedom as really a swirling storm, not unlike Isaac that’s been out here in the gulf, that, you know, people are feeliing the effects of, they’re seeing it. The Republican Party platform addresses it. Of course, the president can’t really address it because he is the one who’s facilitating it with his mandate, through his health care, we’ve got more companies filing suit against the administration over the health care mandate. So it is a fundamental issue. People understand, while they may not be solely focused on religious freedom, Americans understand our first freedom is a fundamental freedom upon which our other freedoms rest.

Read more after the jump.

FRC’s Tony Perkins Takes Tampa

In advance of next week’s Republican National Convention, party leaders are crafting an official platform that is “likely to be the most conservative in years,” according to Politico. The influence of the conservative movement – and social conservatives in particular – became apparent this morning when the platform committee rejected a proposal to recognize civil unions between LGBT couples.

In fact, Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins claims to have written the marriage plank of the platform himself. “You should read the entire plank on marriage, which I wrote. I’m very happy with it,” he said in an interview. Perkins also boasted that FRC had “help[ed] delegates hold the line on social issues,” and that he personally contributed to “amendments on conscience rights, abortion in health care, and stem cell research.”

Read more after the jump.

Rick Santorum: Some Obama Policies Are “Antithetical To The American Experience”

video •

On the August 17, 2012 edition of Family Research Council president Tony Perkins’ Washington Watch Weekly radio show, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) falsely claimed that President Obama had ‘waived’ work requirements for welfare recipients:

PERKINS: Well let’s take a – I want to get your take on the current state of affairs in this election as the Republicans go into their convention, I know you’re going to be one of the convention speakers, maybe you want to give us a little thought—a little highlight on what you might be talking about, a little preview. But where does the election currently stand today, you think?

SANTORUM: Well, you know, as you know, Tony, it always comes down to about a dozen states, and, you know, it’s how those candidates do in, you know, Pennsylvania, Ohio, you know, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, you know the states. And right now I’d say, you know, we’re looking at those polls, we’re probably a little bit behind. And that’s disconcerting to me given, you know, how outrageous this administration has been in its assault on the American values, everything from the values we just talked about to the values of free enterprise and the value of limited government and, you know, one of the things I’ll talk about at the convention is what the president’s doing with welfare and waiving a requirement that everybody in welfare is required to work. Those are the kinds of things that are, you know, antithetical to the American experience. It’s not who we are as a country, and one of the – you know, what I hope comes out of this convention is that we see very clearly crystallize in the eyes of the American public the clear and stark differences between Barack Obama’s America, and the America that, well, frankly, we built in generations past that created the greatest country in the history of the world.

Conservative Hostility To Women’s Rights Doesn’t Stop At Health Care

research •

Amid a decades-long crusade against abortion rights and a more recent uproar over access to contraceptives, conservatives’ efforts to intrude upon women’s control over their own health care are well publicized. But the GOP of recent years has also demonstrated that women’s physical safety, economic security, and equal access to the workforce are increasingly low on the priority list. For the first time since its initial 1994 passage, the GOP has put up a fight against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans on both the state and national level have sneered at the need for laws that address the fact that women still earn only about 75 percent of what men do for performing the same jobs. Conservatives have rejected legislation to mandate paid parental leave – something every other economically advanced country in the world requires. They are skeptical about allowing women to serve in military combat roles despite an on-the-ground reality that already puts women in dangerous combat situations. And they are dismissive of an Equal Rights Amendment that would afford the same weight to sex-based discrimination that the 14th Amendment currently gives race-based discrimination.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

The Violence Against Women Act, First Passed In 1994, Is A Multifaceted Effort To Address Violence Against Women. From the Urban Institute: “In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (P.L. 103-322). This event marked a turning point in federal recognition of the extent and seriousness of violence against women, and a commitment to address the problem from the federal vantage point. […] The resulting Violence Against Women Act for the first time recognizes the common barriers to legal protection faced by women victims of violent crimes. The four subtitles within the Act—the Safe Streets Act, Safe Homes for Women, Civil Rights for Women and Equal Justice for Women in the Courts, and Protections for Battered Immigrant Women and Children—target domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and protection against gender-motivated violence. The Act undertakes reform in legislation, rules of evidence, and the policies and procedures of law enforcement agencies and the courts. It creates new offenses and tougher penalties, mandates victim restitution, and begins system reforms that will, for example, shield victims during prosecution and increase consistency in sentencing. Recognizing that attitudinal change and knowledge are essential to practical implementation of legal reforms, VAWA authorizes support for prevention, education, and training and the development of systems for maintaining records on violent incidents and perpetrators and improving communication within the justice system.” [Urban.org, 3/1/96]

Read more after the jump.

Contraceptive Coverage: No Bitter Pill For Most Americans

research •

The arguments in favor of the new Health and Human Services (HHS) rule requiring employers to provide health plans that cover contraceptives with no cost-sharing are overwhelming. Yet, as is often the case in matters concerning women’s health and reproductive rights, what ought to be an issue of effective and practical modern public health policy has been reframed by the right as a threat to religious liberty. Despite an exception to the HHS rule allowing religiously affiliated employers to avoid paying premiums that support contraceptives by shifting the responsibility onto insurers, conservatives remain outraged. But the outside groups and politicians who persist in protesting over the issue are at odds with the American public.

The Origins Of The Uproar Over Contraceptive Coverage

The Affordable Care Act Requires New Insurance Plans To Cover Preventive Services For Free. From The New York Times: “Starting this year, insurers will be required under the Affordable Care Act to completely cover such services as annual physicals, childhood vaccinations and dozens of screening tests for everything from high blood pressure to abdominal aortic aneurysms.” [The New York Times, 9/19/11]

Read more after the jump.

FRC’s Boykin: “I Don’t Know” If Obama’s In Muslim Brotherhood

video •

QUESTIONER: My question is with all the visits that the Muslim Brotherhood has made to the White House, and President Obama’s acting as a catalyst between Libya and the Arab Spring, and Egypt, is he a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

JERRY BOYKIN (VICE PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL): You talking about our president?

QUESTIONER: President Obama.

BOYKIN: Yeah, let me tell you something that you probably don’t know. And my answer is I don’t know. But Jeremiah Wright was a member of the Nation of Islam. How many of you realize that? He came out of college and joined the Nation of Islam. The theology of the Nation of Islam is James Cone’s liberation theology. Jeremiah Wright looked at the hierarchy in the Nation of Islam, realized he’d never get to the top because of Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X, so he left Nation of Islam, went back and got his Ph.D., went to Chicago and planted a “Christian Church” and took James Cone’s theology and changed it to black liberation theology and began to teach the same thing in a “Christian,” and I use the term loosely, “Christian church.” So Mr. Obama sat under the teachings of James Cone, and it wouldn’t have mattered whether he was in the Nation of Islam or whether he was in a Christian church. He got the same theology, which was James Cone’s Marxist liberation theology, which runs parallel to the whole doctrine of Islam, which is all about social justice up to a point where Islam turns right and says there’s no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet, and Marxism turns left and says we’re an atheist therefore we’re communist. So he got the same thing, so I mean, I can’t—if he says he is Christian, I accept that he is a Christian. But the question is what kind of theology did he get in that Christian church.

[via Right Wing Watch]

Read more after the jump.