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:

• Creating a financial and physical separation between an organization’s healthcare facility and abortion facility.
• Eliminating the requirement that recipients must offer abortion counseling and refer their patients for an abortion.
• Implementing better reporting of Title X subrecipients to better ensure funds are not being used for abortion.  

The announcement is not surprising given the fact that the Hyde Amendment, a traditional rider placed in spending bills, prohibits the use of tax-payer money to fund abortion. The updated rule provides Americans with the transparency they need to ensure their money isn’t being used by abortion providers.
 
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.

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.

Transcript:
​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.

​https://www.abortionfreeutah.org

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.

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.