NATIONAL EAGLE FORUM CAPITOL HILL REPORT
August 19, 2019
This past July, recipients of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Title X grants had to implement several institutional changes to qualify for funds. These changes target abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, who have manipulated the Title X federal funding stream into supplementing their “reproductive health services” for too long.
The changes, announced in February 2019, are meant to restore the integrity of the Title X programming, which is the only federal grant program providing low-income individuals with access to comprehensive family planning and preventative health services. Specifically, some of the provisions include:
In response, Planned Parenthood announced that it would be forgoing Title X. The organization brought in more than $1.6 million in revenue and received $563.8 million in government funding for the year ending on June 30, 2018. On top of that, Planned Parenthood is still receiving government money in the form of Medicaid reimbursements, which accounts for the majority of its government funding. Planned Parenthood will have no problem continuing their abortion services to millions of women.
In reference to HHS’s rule change, Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said:
"Imagine if you show up as a patient to a health center and the doctor's only ability is to refer you to prenatal care, and you may have already decided that you want to have an abortion," McGill Johnson said. "Federal regulations will ban that doctor from actually giving you advice and referring you to abortion."
For them, abortion is a necessary piece of medical care. They even have a section on their Planned Parenthood Action website dedicated to defending and implying their use of Title X funds for abortion procedures: “By giving women more control over if and when they have children, Title X allows women to have more control over their lives, including their health, careers, and economic security.”
Unfortunately, Americans have also funded abortion globally. In 1984, President Reagan took a step to prohibit this through his Mexico City Policy, which prevents global health organizations that receive U.S. federal funding from providing abortion services. Unfortunately, the policy is not law and has been rescinded by both the Clinton and Obama administrations. President Bushand President Trump both reinstated the policy at the beginning of their Presidential terms.
Although HHS’s Title X rule change and President Trump’s implementation of the Mexico City Policy are good measures, the policies are too easily swayed by Presidential opinion and action. If a Democrat administration were in power, both policies would most likely be reversed. The American people need Congress to enact a permanent ban on the federal funding of abortion to prevent this catch-22. In the meantime, Eagle Forum will continue to support policies preventing government-funded abortion.
Written by Ryan Neuhaus, August 13, 2019. Originally published in the Washington Examiner
Recently, a coalition of 75 organizations including Planned Parenthood, National LGBTQ Task Force, the ACLU, and the National Abortion Federation released a 116-page blueprint outlining a policy agenda aimed at advancing policies for women and children in the name of “sexual and reproductive health care, rights, and justice.” However, after reading over the policies, one quickly realizes that they would substantially harm American families without bringing forth "rights" or "justice."
Parental rights, for example, are targeted for elimination. The coalition deemed parental consent for an abortion as detrimental to the empowerment of “girls and youth assigned female.”
If the true goal of the coalition is to help empower young women, shouldn’t they encourage young women to look to their mothers, their families, or at least an experienced adult such as a judge for guidance in potentially intense and emotional times? After all, considering that adult engagement is required for getting your ears pierced or taking an aspirin at school, surely making a life-ending decision such as abortion is worth a conversation with someone who isn’t going to profit from it.
Cutting out mothers seems like the most glaring oversight of all.
“Of all familial relationships, the mother–daughter one is most likely to remain important for both parties, even when major life changes occur,” write the authors of a study led by Kathryn Bojczyk of Florida State University. “Multiple theoretical perspectives recognize the mother–daughter bond as lifelong, intimate, and developmentally important.”
Distancing a mother’s guidance regarding the health and well-being of their children is terrible policy.
Research conducted by Paula Goodwin of Purdue University and Osman Galal of UCLA has shown that traditional family structures have positioned women to directly impact the overall health and well-being of their families. If the true intent of pro-abortion activists were to provide healthcare to women, while respecting and valuing women, taking mothers out of the decision-making process alongside their children would be viewed as irresponsible, as it devalues motherhood and endangers adolescent women.
Good policy would uphold parental and adult engagement laws, as mothers and fathers are at the heart of a child’s education and healthcare. And parents will be the ones helping pick up the pieces when things go wrong. Judicial bypass laws also at least ensure that someone with the child’s interest in mind is looking at the needs of all.
Perhaps the abortion lobby’s desire to cut out parents has to do with the fact that they want unrestricted access to minors to make an abortion sale. The substantive work of Dr. Michael New has shown conclusively that when a state passes a law ensuring that parents are involved in the decision, the overall statewide rate of abortion decreases by an estimated 13.6%.
Abortion has harmed millions of women across the United States. Often portrayed as a safe medical practice, abortion has been found to scar the lining of the uterus, damage the cervix and other internal organs, lead to eating disorders, depression, suicidal thoughts, and even death. Complications from botched surgeries have resulted in hysterectomies, ending girls' chances ever to have children of their own later in life.
The overriding problem with the healthcare proposal coming from abortion advocates is a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes healthcare. Pregnancy is not a disease cured by abortion. Pushing an agenda that distills all women’s interests down to the presence or absence of abortion ignores needs for economic advancement, access to education, or a level playing field in the law.
A blueprint for healthcare that values and strengthens the lives of mothers and children is a good idea. It won’t be achieved if we cut the ties between adults and children. The real question is who can be better trusted to help a child make an abortion decision, the people who have devoted their lives to a child, or the people whose goal is to make a sale?
Ryan Neuhaus is Students for Life of America’s Florida Regional Coordinator.
Author: Stephen Done
Many men I know, including myself, experience same-sex attraction. Some of the greatest healing they have experienced is being able to talk to others about it - to stop hiding from it and from others. They and I have learned that it is good to acknowledge the experiences, problems and struggles that we face. It is good to take them head on and not hide them from others. It is good to want to give others courage in the face of difficult circumstances. It is quite another thing to say "I struggle with this, so I'm going to jump in and embrace it, and I'm going to leave my wife and children over it."
I'm not saying that experiencing same-gender attraction is not a struggle. It certainly is difficult. It certainly is hard. I'm not saying it's wrong to talk about how difficult it can be to navigate. Talking and asking for support is helpful and good. But it is wrong to use it to excuse breaking commitments and call that act a good thing.
Those who discuss their experience publicly in order to announce that they are now going to have romantic and sexual relationships with others of their same gender frequently claim they are acting out of love. They say they are justified in walking out on their wife (or husband) and children. They claim they are being brave. But breaking solemn commitments is not just and brave, and it is not love.
Let me say it again. Breaking promises and commitments of faithfulness to one's spouse and children in order to pursue other sexual partners - regardless of their gender - is not brave. It isn't praiseworthy. It is selfish.
Were a man to announce he left his wife for another woman, there would be no praise for his choice. There is no reason why these situations are any different. Essentially, these men and women leave their spouses and family in search of different sexual partners. That so many people in society, especially the media, seem ready to praise these actions is quite a serious, concerning matter.
I have personally witnessed the devastation and lifelong trauma that parents who leave their families plant in the hearts of their children and spouses. I have seen the brokenness that comes from mothers and fathers abandoning their posts. These wounds are especially deep when parents part because one of them wants to seek other sexual partners.
The society we live in has so greatly magnified the sex act and the accompanying affections that this form of love has become our god.
C.S. Lewis once said that love "begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god." And so this love has become a demon. By justifying the breaking of solemn vows, it is leaving pain, bitterness and destruction it its wake.
Sex is not the foundation of a good marriage. Sex and hormones alone will not make a marriage work. Good marriages are made of friendship and common goals, and for many centuries the decision to marry was not tied so deeply to romance and affection. Though our society no longer believes it, men and women who experience same-sex attraction can have happy, fulfilling marriages with the opposite sex.
Given the experiences of many men I know who left the homosexual lifestyle, I am concerned that men or women who leave their families in order to live out their sexual inclinations will find, as did my friends, that the lifestyle will not bring them the contentment or fulfillment they are seeking. In cases where spouses and children are involved, this would be especially tragic.
Some people say men and women who experience same-sex attraction and marry someone of the opposite gender were shamed into it. They claim this justifies ending the current marriage now that same-sex marriage is more acceptable. They assert there is no other way or other choice to be made. But there are other ways. There are other choices. The struggle does not justify the breaking of commitments, and while experiencing same-gender attractions is not a choice, breaking solemn vows is.
Claiming that these men and women are shamed into marrying someone of the opposite gender imposes a narrative that may not actually be true. For instance, I was attracted to my wife when I married her. It was only years later, as a result of repeated exposure to the common societal narrative, that I, for a time, convinced myself that I married her out of duty.
When I first discussed my experience with same-sex attraction publicly, my main purpose was to try change the narrative around same-sex attraction. But there was also some streak of attention-seeking that fueled my announcement. I was not disappointed in that wish. My post received 90 likes and loves on Facebook and 44 comments from family and friends praising me and giving me support. I loved that praise. I loved that support. But I soon realized that very few people reached out to my wife, though she was experiencing a lot of pain. I am still surprised that less than a handful of people said anything to her, asked how she was doing, or offered support.
I am quite concerned that in the current social climate, women, men, and children whose spouses leave do not receive the support and comfort they should. They have to endure deep pain and anguish while their former husband or wife gains attention and praise.
I grieve for the wives and children of any man who chooses to end his commitments to them. I grieve for the children and husbands whose mothers and wives leave them. I hope and pray that more people in our society will recognize and speak out about the need for strong fathers, strong mothers and strong commitments and will cease to praise such acts of selfishness.
I have faith that in a future day men and women who stick by their spouses as they work through difficult things - as so many of the men and women that I know and love do - will no longer receive the ridicule and distain that they currently do from some in society. In that day they will receive the respect that should be afforded anyone who does their best to live according to their commitments and promises and keeps trying.
Many young people are deciding they no longer want to live as the biological sex they were assigned at birth. These children start putting pressure on their parents to let them begin the process of transitioning to the sex they think they really are. This transition process will include using powerful puberty blockers, extreme hormone treatments such as giving testosterone to girls who want to become boys, and top and bottom surgery to change their sexual body parts.
Utah parents are taking their children to the University of Utah health center for these services. The clinic is called the GEMS Clinic (Adolescent Gender Management & Support Clinic) at Eccles Primary Children’s Outpatient Services. The GEMS Clinic states that it helps teens affirm their gender through treatment and support.
According to their website by the third appointment the children can start puberty blockers and hormone therapy. They state, “that before preforming gender-affirming surgery (top or bottom), most surgeons prefer that you take hormones for at least 12 months and you establish a relationship with a mental health therapist.” How can doctors who are pledged to do no harm, do these horrible things to children? How can they give them life altering, dangerous drugs and surgery that will forever change and endanger their lives?
Further more, notice in the paragraph above where the U of U says they want the child (patient) to have a "relationship with a mental health therapist." If Equality Utah gets their way and passes a ban on conversion therapy, patients will have a relationship with a therapist who is unable to do nothing but affirm the gender of choice.
From LifeSite News: Click here to read how Italy is putting an end to this child abuse
In Regards to the “Original Intent” of those Who Created the First Amendment and the “Religious Clause” Let Us Examine The FACTS.
The following FACTS debunk the FALSE position that government is intended to take an adversarial position against religion.
IMMEDIATELY after approving the words of the First Amendment, those who created what is now our First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”) passed a resolution requiring George Washington to establish a national day of thanksgiving and prayer:
A NATIONAL THANKSGIVING.
[From Sparks's Washington, Vol. XII, Pg. 119.]
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Vol.1, Pg. 56
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A. D. 1789, Geo. WASHINGTON.
Happy Birthday America!
My name is Gayle Ruzicka. I Am President of Utah Eagle Forum and also, along with so many people you see here today, a founder of this organization. The day that we got Roe v. Wade, I determined that I would never stop fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade. I want to share with you some of the things that have happened over the years as we've worked towards this goal. Back in 1991, I had just moved in the state two years before that, we passed a bill. I want to tell you about that bill because we worked hard. We spent two years traveling around the state, organizing and planning to make this happen. This bill was a bill that said that life begins at implantation of a fertilized egg.
We went on from there, in this bill, to talk about the rights of the unborn. In this bill, it said the policy of the legislature in Utah, under the Utah Constitution, which recognizes that liberty and life, founded on inherent and inalienable rights, are entitled to protection of the law and due process, and that the unborn children have an inherent and inalienable right that are entitled to protection by the State of Utah, that the State of Utah has a compelling interest in the protection of human life, including that of unborn children.
It goes on again and talks more about the Utah Constitution and the protection of the unborn, giving unborn children the very same rights as children that are born. As people, as all of us in the State of Utah, that is what we need to work for. That bill passed. It was signed by the governor and passed. And you know what? It went all the way to the Supreme Court. It got cert. That is important. Very few bills ever make it all the way to the Supreme Court. This one got there. On the way, we had a lot of mishaps and people playing games with it and trying to stop it from passing, I mean, getting all the way there. But it went there. It made it. But when it got there, sad to say, one of the judges, one of the justices had retired Byron White. We needed his vote to overturn Roe, so it was struck down.
But that doesn't mean we give up. That was 1991 and I have not given up one day since then. I have worked, every year, to see that something ... we try to get something passed. We have passed lots of bills over the years and we have worked our way toward that very thing of going back to the gold standard, the standard that says life begins at conception, the standard that says the unborn child has a constitutional right to life just like you do, like all of us do, And we're going to do that. We're going to keep going and we are going to do that. That is our goal. I think everybody in this room who loves those unborn babies would agree with that, that those little babies have that right. I want you to know that I will not stop fighting, and I'm sure all of you in this room feel the same way, or you wouldn't be here today. We will not stop until we pass that same bill again, and this time, make sure it's upheld. Thank you.
Thursday, May 30th, 2019 - Governor Gary Herbert hosted legislators and local elected officials for a dinner and a private showing of the movie Unplanned sponsored by the Utah Pro-life Coalition. Utah Eagle Forum and pro-life supporters from the coalition were also invited to attend the movie.
Before the movie, Governor Herbert addressed legislators, here are a few highlights of his remarks:
Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is part of our Declaration. It's pretty hard to pursue life, liberty, and happiness if you are not allowed to grow and develop. That's what happens with the unborn child, and so that's the concern that we all have…What can we do to promote life and the pursuit of happiness? Not only for those who are born, but for the unborn..."
We would like to thank the Governor for his support and the elected leaders who came to see this important movie. It is our goal to end taxpayer funded abortions as we work toward our ultimate goal to end all abortions.
If you would like to get notified of future events, please signup for our email list.
The Utah County Liberty Forum is held every 2nd Wednesday of the month and sponsored by Utah Eagle Forum. To receive notices of the next Liberty Forum Meeting click here.
The presentation features guest speakers Governor Gary Herbert, Speaker of the House Brad Wilson, Senate Majority Whip Dan Hemmert and Phil Dean, State Budget Director & Chief Economist. Learn about The Tax Reform and the Equalization and Reduction Act that passed the House Revenue and Taxation Committee during the Legislative Session and may now be part of a Special Session in 2019.
An issue that will affect all Utahns. Learn about The Tax Reform and the Equalization and Reduction Act that passed the House Revenue and Taxation Committee during the Legislative Session and may now be part of a Special Session in 2019.
Governor Gary Herbert
Speaker of the House Brad Wilson
Senate Majority Whip Dan Hemmert
Kristen Cox, Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget
Listen, Ask Questions and Share Your Opinion
Utah County Liberty Forum on Wednesday - May 8, 2019.
10:00 am to 12:00 pm - Provo City Library in the Ballroom - 550 N. University Ave. Provo, Utah
Click here to visit our Facebook Event and RSVP
Sponsored by Utah Eagle Forum ∙ www.UtahEagleForum.org
Written by Ryan Neuhaus, April 18, 2019. Originally published in The Daily Signal.
Brigham Young University is known for a lot of things: a great football team, superior academics, but most of all, being the flagship school of the Mormon church (also known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Yet today, BYU’s identity is being challenged. Not by political forces from Washington, but from within its own student body.
What began as an effort to reform the enforcement of BYU’s honor code has morphed into a movement that could end up opening bathrooms to the opposite biological sex, and would compromise the school’s unique and defining mission.
The honor code is a voluntary contract that students agree to before enrolling at the university. It contains a set of standards that students and faculty agree to uphold while attending BYU.
The #RestoreHonor movement, led by a group of students who garnered support after creating an Instagram account (@HonorCodeStories), which went viral, has attracted over 37,000 followers and prompted hundreds of students to submit anonymous stories to the page’s creator.
This student-led movement has now resulted in a petition that has garnered over 22,000 signatures and is calling for the university to self-impose a ban on discrimination on the basis sexual orientation and gender identity.
That might sound fine, but in practice it would be very bad.
In other schools—and, in fact, in other U.S. cities and states—similar policies have been used to require institutions to open up their bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-specific spaces to members of the opposite biological sex. This would create obvious privacy and safety concerns for many students.
Some have also taken advantage of this ambiguity to use these policies as a weapon against those who hold traditional views about marriage or the reality of biological sex.
Such a policy would also undermine BYU’s religious mission. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continues to uphold a traditional view of marriage and sexuality, and Brigham Young should remain free to operate consistent with these religious beliefs.
Beyond the school’s own mission, this policy would do a disservice to students by adding to confusion over sexual orientation and gender identity.
Since sexual orientation and gender identity are fluid and subjective by their very definition, it’s hard to determine what constitutes discrimination on these terms. It’s much easier to determine discrimination on the basis of an immutable and objective trait like race or biological sex.
#RestoreHonor organizers are not just calling for a sexual orientation and gender identity anti-discrimination policy. They are also asking the school to change its policy on same-sex relationships, which would mean breaking with the doctrines and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And those teachings are rooted in reality itself.
The traditional understanding of marriage is based on the fact that children deserve a mother and a father, that men and women are complementary, and that biologically, reproduction can only occur when a man and a woman comprehensively unite to procreate. BYU’s policies on romantic relationships reflect this truth.
This truth is not discriminatory. It is never discriminatory to recognize and uphold the unique and important roles that mothers and fathers play in the lives of children.
Speaking as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and a current student at BYU, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that this conviction should not considered discriminatory by those who live the LGBT lifestyle. Understanding that others may have different opinions on marriage, I also believe that everyone ought to be treated with dignity and respect, including LGBT individuals.
My beliefs are founded in the principles that this country was built upon, and the knowledge that God loves each and every one of us as his children.
BYU’s current policy is consistent with these beliefs. The school welcomes any and all students, regardless of their identity. It also encourages us to live our lives consistent with our beliefs. It is up to students to decide whether or not BYU is the right fit for them.
Not everyone agrees with me or my church on the meaning of marriage, and that’s OK, so long as we all remain free to speak and act in accordance with our different beliefs.
If we are all to remain free, we must recognize that the traditional view of marriage and sexuality is a legitimate point of view to hold. But sexual orientation and gender identity policies are increasingly used to punish that view until it is no longer welcome in the public sphere.
Self-imposing a sexual orientation and gender identity policy and putting BYU’s code of conduct in conflict with the church’s broader teachings would be a mistake.
A healthy understanding of human dignity should lead us all to treat others with respect and compassion, even when our beliefs conflict. In an attempt to negotiate and find common ground, BYU has publicly discussed the honor code, publishing a Q&A and privately meeting with the disgruntled students leading the movement.
True tolerance is not a one-sided affair. It requires the understanding of both parties involved. BYU has done its part to hear out the concerns of the #RestoreHonor movement, and #RestoreHonor should recognize that. People should remain free to disagree with BYU’s policies, but we should not misconstrue a disagreement over marriage and sexuality as an attack on the dignity of LGBT people.
One can hold to principled, traditional views on these matters while approaching LGBT issues with great compassion. The other side, like many of us, want to protect the right to live and speak according to one’s beliefs.
For that right to truly extend both ways, Brigham Young University and the church it represents must be free to disagree with the LGBT community.
Ryan Neuhaus is a graduate of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation and a graduating senior at Brigham Young University.
Volunteers of Utah Eagle Forum.