A new national religion?

Excerpted from "The Shifting Definition of Religious Freedom," Breakpoint commentary by Eric Metaxas, April 13, 2015 - Just this month, we watched a family-owned pizzeria close its doors after its owners received hate mail and death threats from around the country. Their offense? Giving the wrong answer to a question about whether they'd cater a gay wedding.

But gay columnist Frank Bruni recently took it to the next level in the New York Times, writing that it's time Christians get with the program and “take homosexuality off the sin list.” The lived experience of same-sex couples ought to trump what he calls the “scattered passages of ancient texts” condemning his lifestyle. Wow.

As for freedom of religion, Bruni suggests a new definition: “freeing ... religious people from prejudices that they ... can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

Writing at National Review, Yuval Levin says what we're witnessing isn't so much the suppression of free exercise of religion as it is the establishment of a new national religion; the religion of secular liberalism. And dissenters must be forced to worship at its altar and affirm its creed of anything-goes sexuality.

Given the likely outcome of this summer's Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage, Rod Dreher asks what will it be like to be a Christian in our brave, new society—and what will become of orthodox Christianity now that the price of professing it could be our credibility and livelihoods.

Friends, the fight for religious liberty is far from over. And as John Stonestreet and I have been saying again and again, it’s time for the Church to wake up, to pray, and to publicly defend our religious rights and our brothers and sisters under assault for their beliefs.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody, MEd: “Beyond the significant public policy battle over what marriage means, social issues agitators both inside and outside the church are advancing arguments that try to pry Christians off of our moral foundation, the Scriptures. New York Times commentator Frank Bruni suggests that ‘the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.’ Clearly Bruni has little understanding or respect for the divine inspiration, authority, unity, integrity and timelessness of the Scriptures that many of us trust with our lives both here and for eternity.

“Even some within the church are making similar arguments. These arguments seem to boil down to the notions that Bible writers injected personal bias and that science had not yet enlightened the early church. Therefore, Scriptures prohibiting and condemning homosexual behavior (and by extension, it would seem, Scriptures prohibiting any sex outside of marriage) can be thrown out like potshards from an ignorant, ancient culture.

“The trouble is that in the pursuit of social activism, these views undermine Scripture in order to reinterpret Scripture, leaving no real Scriptures at all. For if Bible writers did not actually write God-breathed words but instead injected their own personal bias, why would we elevate the Bible over, say, the Aeneid, or the works of Shakespeare, or the New York Times?

“If today's claims of science trump millennia of biblical truths, why would anyone persist in believing in the miracles described in the Bible or in anything supernatural at all? Following this train of thought, Jesus' virgin birth, healings, miracles, resurrection and promised return become a bunch of bunk to be debunked by science and social activists. Jesus Himself becomes suspect, since He unwaveringly treated Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative. (What can we expect from an unschooled Galilean?)

“Rejecting this Bible-devaluing approach is not to say that nothing in the Bible is culturally based, but that we must discern between superficial cultural symbols and deep and consistent moral teaching in the Bible. Contrary to the assertions of those who would remake in their own image the Bible's teachings on sexuality, the evidence from Genesis through Revelation is far too compelling, deep and consistent that God clearly designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman in a lifelong relationship uniquely geared to raising children.”

Action

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced legislation that would shrink religious freedom and marginalize faith-based organizations simply because they view boys as boys and girls as girls based on biology. By inserting "gender" issues into federal program requirements and by leaving the definition of gender open to liberal interpretation, while also leaving out any exemptions for those who view gender biologically and according to faith tenets, this legislation holds the potential to unfairly discriminate against and exclude faith-based organizations from funding. Click here to learn more and to send your senators an editable pre-written message to oppose S 262.

Resources
CMDA’s Same-Sex "Marriage" Public Policy Statement
CMDA’s Marriage Public Policy Statement
CMDA’s group letter supporting Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

Silence on religious persecution and killings

Excerpted from "Christians thrown overboard left to drown by Obama," commentary by Kirsten Powers in USA Today - When a throng of Muslims threw a dozen Christians overboard a migrant ship traveling from Libya to Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi missed the opportunity to label it as such. Standing next to President Obama at their joint news conference Friday, Renzi dismissed it as a one-off event and said, "The problem is not a problem of (a) clash of religions."

As Renzi was questioned about the incident, Obama was mute on the killings. He failed to interject any sense of outrage or even tepid concern for the targeting of Christians for their faith. He just can't seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace.

Religious persecution of Christians is rampant worldwide, as Pew has noted, but nowhere is it more prevalent than in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where followers of Jesus are the targets of religious cleansing. Pope Francis has repeatedly decried the persecution and begged the world for help, but it has had little impact. Western leaders — including Obama — will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded. The president's mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually extracted after public outcry over his silence) are few and far between. And it will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries-old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians were at that moment being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered for their faith.

A week and a half after Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being "people of the cross." Seven of the victims were former students of my friend and hero "Mama" Maggie Gobran, known as the "Mother Theresa of Cairo" for her work with the poorest of the poor. She told me these dear men grew up in rural Upper Egypt and had gone to Libya seeking work to support their families. They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Rather than hectoring Christians about their ancestors' misdeeds, Obama should honor these men and the countless Middle Eastern Christians persecuted before them.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody, MEd: The president's reticence on the international persecution of Christians, coupled with his administration's policies that threaten domestic religious freedom, is puzzling yet alarmingly consistent.

As the Washington Post reported, the Obama administration waited months before appointing a replacement for Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook, a reputedly ineffective ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, a position that should function as the State Department’s religious freedom watchdog. The administration had taken more than two years to appoint Cook, a failure of action that evidenced an extremely low priority on religious freedom.

The U.S. Commission on International Freedom, by contrast, explains that "As Americans, religious freedom reflects who and what we aspire to be as a nation and people. For the vast majority of people across the globe, religion matters: Fully 84 percent of the world’s population identifies with a specific religious group."

Pro-life colleague and Catholic scholar Dr. Robert P. George serves as vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). He notes, "Abuses against Christians span the globe. A key reason is the confluence of two factors. First, there are more than 2 billion Christians in the world. Second, according to a Pew Research study, in one-third of all nations, containing 75% of the world's people, governments either perpetrate or tolerate serious religious freedom abuses. A six-year Pew study found that over six years, Christians were harassed in 151 countries, the largest of any group surveyed."

Though our own political leaders may shrink back from responsibly responding to the worldwide persecution of Christians, our persecuted brethren are standing tall as a shining example of courage and faithfulness.

• The Christian Post reports, "A number of the 21 Coptic Christians who were recently shown being beheaded in a horrific video by Islamic State militants in Libya were reportedly whispering the name of Jesus as their heads were being hacked off their bodies."
• Christianity Today reports, "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, arrived in Cairo to offer condolences for the previous martyrs in Libya: 20 Coptic Orthodox Christians and a sub-Saharan African. 'Why has Libya spoken so powerfully to the world?' asked Welby during a public sermon. 'The way these brothers lived and died testified that their faith was trustworthy.'"

As we move on our government to stand up to persecution, may we also personally imitate the trustworthy faithfulness of this great cloud of witnesses.

Action

1. Write to your elected officials (simply enter your zip code under "Find your elected officials" on our legislative action website) and urge them to take appropriate and strong legislative, diplomatic and military action to stop the persecution and killings of Christians overseas and to advance religious freedom worldwide and at home.
2. Consider serving our brethren overseas, some of whom experience great hardship under governments hostile to Christians, on a Global Health Outreach or Medical Education International trip.

Resources
USCIRF 2014 Annual Report

Abortion and human trafficking: CMA commentary in Washington Post

Reprinted from “The Hyde Amendment’s effect on human-trafficking victims,” commentary by CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody, published in the Washington Post, March 21, 2015: In annual appropriations bills since 1976, Democrats routinely have united with Republicans in passing the Hyde Amendment, which simply prevents taxpayer monies from funding abortions except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. Americans overwhelmingly oppose opening public coffers to the abortion industry.

Nevertheless, Democrats increasingly have been injecting abortion partisanship into human trafficking programs. Congressional hearings revealed how Obama administration officials denied a grant to a faith-based organization over abortion and other morally objectionable issues.

Many would note that abortion would only add to the trauma that human trafficking victims have already experienced. Yet even the Hyde Amendment does not disallow government-funded abortions in cases of rape, nor does it prevent abortions paid for with nongovernment funds. So protests over the Hyde Amendment in this trafficking-victims program are little more than partisan politics designed to enforce a radical abortion ideology. Jonathan Imbody, Ashburn. The writer is vice president for government relations for the Christian Medical Association.

Resources
CMDA Resources on Human Trafficking
CMDA Resources on Abortion

Action

Educate yourself (CME credit available) with CMDA’s comprehensive online education modules on recognizing, reporting and caring for victims of human trafficking: www.cmda.org/TIP

Marriage merits: CMA commentary published in The Tennessean

Reprinted from “Tennessee affirms opposite-sex marriage, not bigotry,” commentary by CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody, published in The Tennessean, March 13, 2015 - Re: "Discriminated after crossing state lines," March 6, 2015 - In a letter to the editor, a Chicago resident complains that Tennessee does not recognize in law the fact that Illinois considers him married to another man; he labels Tennessee's legal definition of marriage a matter of discrimination and inequality.

The state of Tennessee retains a constitutional right, highlighted in the Supreme Court's recent Windsor decision, which deemed a federal definition of marriage as usurping states' rights, to determine by objective qualifications and definitions who qualifies for a marriage license. Tennessee also uses objective qualifications to determine which of its citizens can vote, practice medicine, own a gun or teach in public schools.

These qualifications only constitute "discrimination" in the sense of discerning the relevant factors that merit granting legal status and privileges.

Why would Tennesseans legally define marriage as between a man and a woman?

Social science research clearly demonstrates that marriage between a man and a woman in a lifelong, exclusive commitment offers society, and children in particular, unique benefits — economical, educational, psychological — that no other relationship offers as well.

These benefits have led governments for millennia to recognize and endorse in law the marriage of a man and a woman.

A state's recognition of the unique benefits of man-woman marriage does not preclude love, respect, dignity or the extension of a host of government benefits and privileges to non-married citizens.

It's simply an objective affirmation of what marriage is and an endorsement of the unique benefits it provides to society and children.

Jonathan Imbody, VP Government Affairs, Christian Medical Association

Resources
CMDA Marriage Public Policy Statement
CMDA Same-Sex "Marriage" Public Policy Statement

Action
Learn how to legislatively counteract the politics of same-sex marriage to prevent harm to children served by faith-based groups providing social services:

• Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act - S 667 - would ensure that organizations with religious or moral convictions are allowed to continue to provide services for children
• Youth services bill OPPOSED for gender / religious freedom issues threatening services by faith-based organizations to runaway youth - S 262

DC tramples religious freedom in healthcare

Excerpted from "Sen. Ted Cruz seeks to upend D.C. laws on contraception coverage, gay rights," Washington Post, March 18, 2015 - Last month, more than a dozen prominent conservative groups and Catholic institutions asked Capitol Hill leaders to overturn the two D.C. laws, calling them “unprecedented assaults upon our organizations.” The laws would restrict the ability of private groups to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

One, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, would prevent employers from taking action against workers based on their decision to use birth control or seek an abortion. The other, the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, repeals a longstanding, congressionally imposed measure exempting religiously affiliated educational institutions from the city’s gay nondiscrimination law.

As is the case for all D.C. laws, the two are now under a mandatory 30-day review period before Congress. Without congressional action, they could take effect as early as next month. That happened last month with the city’s marijuana-legalization law, when, despite threats from House Republicans, no lawmaker introduced a measure to stop it. Some Republicans feared a vote on marijuana legalization could expose a rift between conservative and libertarian wings of the party.

Freshman Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who co-introduced the measures [disapproval resolutions of Congress to overturn the DC laws], issued a statement Wednesday saying “what the D.C. Council has done is a major threat to the fundamental right to religious freedom for D.C. residents and organizations, and a brazen display of intolerance.” As evidence that Congress would be within its rights to disapprove the D.C. measures, Lankford pointed to a Supreme Court decision last year that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act if doing so conflicts with owners’ religious beliefs.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “The Washington Post suggests that these recently enacted DC ‘laws would restrict the ability of private groups to discriminate based on religious beliefs.’ In fact, the laws target and discriminate against religious groups by dictating that they must hire individuals who directly contradict the groups' tenets, standards and mission.

“That's a flagrant violation of First Amendment freedoms, as upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in the Hosanna Tabor case and by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“What the ironically entitled Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 actually does is repeal a measure that for decades had advanced tolerance by ensuring that the DC Human Rights Act could not be used to coerce religiously affiliated schools into violating convictions of conscience.

“The DC Council apparently has decided, however, that there is not enough room in the District for religious dissenters who question the Council's edicts on sexual morality. Their discriminatory laws inject unconstitutional governmental coercion that subverts the democratic process of free speech and debate that historically has shaped American public opinion and values.

“Intolerance does not advance tolerance.”

Resources
www.Freedom2Care.org - CMA's one-stop-shop for news, analysis and resources on freedom of faith, conscience and speech.

Action

Protect conscience freedom in healthcare - HR 940, which would preserve patient choice and protect pro-life professionals from discrimination for moral and ethical views.

Protect freedom of faith and conscience related to abortion - S 50. No health professionals should be forced to choose between their careers and following the principles of ethical medicine.

CMA commentary in Washington Times magazine

Excerpted from "Selling suicide," commentary by CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody, published in The Washington Times online magazine, American CurrentSee,

Compassion & Choices, the never-say-die advocates for state-sanctioned assisted suicide, seem to have mastered the art of putting lipstick on a pig. Whether or not Americans learn to see through their euphemisms and illogic may well determine the fate of many vulnerable patients, including those in California and 20 other states where the organization now is leading a well-funded lobbying campaign to legalize assisted suicide.

Reincarnated from a previous life when known as The Hemlock Society, the more politically correctly named Compassion & Choices non-profit organization claims on its website, "For over 30 years we have reduced people’s suffering and given them some control in their final days."

That claim would come as news to the medical and pharmaceutical professions, which, unlike non-profit advocacy groups, actually are trained and authorized to prescribe and provide medications that reduce suffering. Pain medication reduces suffering; lethal pills end lives. Suicide does not control death; it merely accelerates it.

The group also claims to "increase patient control and reduce unwanted interventions at the end of life." Yet the law has long recognized patients' right to decline "unwanted interventions at the end of life." Given the pressure by insurers, unscrupulous heirs and uncompassionate caretakers on vulnerable, depressed and disabled patients to end their lives early, assisted suicide represents the real threat of an "unwanted intervention at the end of life."

[As evidenced by polling], government-leery conservatives tend to critically analyze the smooth rhetoric designed to advance state-sanctioned assisted suicide, no doubt wondering:

• Would state governments that sanction suicide block the media, watchdog groups and the public from investigating suspected abuses? (Yes; Oregon's assisted suicide law actually stipulates that "information collected shall not be a public record and may not be made available for inspection by the public.")
• Might activist judges liberally construe and expand the phrase "pain" to mean not only physical but also psychological pain? (Yes; European courts already have slid down that slippery slope.)
• Could courts determine that disabled persons' inability to ingest lethal pills means that they must be allowed to request euthanasia--thus empowering doctors to actively kill their patients? (Almost certainly, under equal access principles.)

Critical thinkers who have studied history and health may also ask probing questions such as:

• Can physicians help kill their patients and still follow the Hippocratic ethic, which protects patients by forbidding physicians to "give poison to anyone though asked to do so" and insists on, "first, do no harm"? (No.)
• Can physicians can accurately predict a patient's life expectancy? (No.)
• Can physicians treat most patients' pain? (Yes, and updating legislation could ensure even more aggressive pain treatment.)

Anyone with a loved one facing a difficult illness, depression or financial hardship should ask:

• Might family members not learn of their loved one's suicide until after she's dead? (Yes--as under Oregon's law.)
• Could legalizing suicide send suicide-vulnerable young people a deadly message? (How could it not?)
• Would vulnerable patients be pressured into requesting assisted suicide? (Only when heirs, insurance companies and governments could save money with a quick death rather than expensive healthcare ... or when caregivers became tired or uncaring ... or when a depressed patient felt like a burden on others.)

Read rest of commentary...

Action

1. Check this list of states considering legalizing assisted suicide.
2. If your state is included on this list of state legislative issues, will you join in your local state efforts to help stem the tide and defeat physician-assisted suicide? Contact communications@cmda.org to get involved.

Resources
Physician-Assisted Suicide Fact Sheet
CMDA Physician-Assisted Suicide Ethics Statement
State Legislative Issues

CMA commentary in Baltimore Sun

Excerpted from "Assisted suicide is not 'death with dignity'," commentary by CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody, published by the Baltimore Sun, February 21, 2015 - An advocate for a Maryland "death with dignity" bill complains, "Why is it that I can put my dying pet to sleep to end its suffering, then have to sit with my dying spouse at a hospice?" ("Md. needs a death with dignity law," Feb. 18).

The comments suggest exactly why assisted suicide is far from "death with dignity."

Unlike animal pets, human beings possess the ability to transcend their physical bodies to achieve dignity and purpose.

The fact that a caretaker expresses regret at "having to sit with my dying spouse at hospice" unwittingly illustrates the pressures that can be brought to bear on the vulnerable, the disabled and the dying to end their lives prematurely.

The unpleasant truth is that when sick, elderly or disabled individuals are experiencing challenges that render them weak, depressed and extremely vulnerable, their caretakers will all too often prefer emotional relief to persevering in care-giving; insurers and governments will save money with a quicker end to life; overeager heirs may want to cut care short to preserve their inheritance; and coldly pragmatic health workers may want to clear the bed that patients nearing the end of life "uselessly" occupy.

As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop observed, the "right to die" becomes the duty to die. We should instead focus on palliative care, assisting families with vulnerable patients and upholding the true human dignity that transcends our frail bodies.

Action

1. Check this list of states considering legalizing assisted suicide.
2. If your state is included on this list of state legislative issues, will you join in your local state efforts to help stem the tide and defeat physician-assisted suicide? Contact communications@cmda.org to get involved.

Resources
Physician-Assisted Suicide Fact Sheet
CMDA Physician-Assisted Suicide Ethics Statement
State Legislative Issues

CMA recognized at March for Life

Excerpted from "March for Life reflects abortion awareness among young generation," Washington Times, January 23, 2015 - The 42nd March for Life again lived up to its reputation, drawing hundreds of thousands of mostly young marchers who oppose abortion.

Sara Silander, a 21-year-old senior from Jacksonville, Florida, who is president of Georgia Tech Students for Life, said, “I have always been taught that we should respect the dignity of everyone, including the unborn. We’ve always been told to protect the minorities, the impoverished and everyone, and that is so important, but we have also include the unborn.”

“I drove all the way from Michigan with my friends to be here. And I wanted to be here to walk for the unborn. I believe that little babies are just as precious inside of the womb as they are outside of it,” said Stephanie Mestizy, 25.

Several speakers talked about choosing life even when the unborn child is found to be imperfect. Eight or more of every 10 unborn children with disabilities are aborted. “That’s just wrong, isn’t it?” said Jeanne Monahan-Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington Republican and a leader of the Congressional Down Syndrome Caucus, said her son, who was born with that distinctive chromosomal anomaly, has strengthened her convictions that every life matters. “That extra chromosome has brought my family a whole bunch of joy,” she said.

Mrs. McMorris Rogers and other speakers addressed the legislative drama on Capitol Hill: Instead of voting as promised Thursday for a bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks because of the ability of a fetus to feel pain at that stage of life, the House took up — and passed — a bill to block federal funding of abortions, especially in the new health care insurance plans.

Rep. Christopher Smith, New Jersey Republican, said the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which he introduced, is necessary to end people’s “complicity” in paying for abortions, especially when they oppose the procedures. The House will soon take up the pain-capable bill, Mr. Smith added. “We will bring it to the floor and we will pass it.”

“The Senate will stand with the House” as it passes pro-life legislation, said Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina Republican.

The now-massive March for Life is held on the Jan. 22 anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a federal constitutional right.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “I enjoyed the privilege of representing you on stage just moments before the massive crowd of half a million pro-life marchers took to the streets to peacefully and impressively mark the Supreme Court's tragic 1973 decision opening the door to abortion on demand. Besides demonstrating the visible strength of the swelling pro-life movement, the March for Life also aims to influence public policy by having marchers visit their lawmakers after the march.

“This year a few otherwise pro-life GOP lawmakers managed to delay a planned vote on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks. That is the stage of fetal development at which when our own members and others have testified that babies have all the architecture needed to feel pain yet lack the pain inhibitors that protect fully developed individuals. A few GOP representatives questioned a rape exception requirement that simply ensured reasonable compliance by stipulating that the rape must have been reported to authorities. The bill does not affect abortions sought during the first five months of pregnancy.

“As an alternative, the House of Representatives passed another CMA-backed bill, the No Taxpayers Funds for Abortions Act. That's good, and we expect in this new, more pro-life Congress to pass more bills backed by popular opinion, which disfavors government abortion funding, favors a ban on late-term abortions and favors parental involvement when minor girls are considering an abortion.

Action

1. Maybe marching in the streets hasn't been on your bucket list, but you might consider joining next year's March for Life simply to join hands with hundreds of thousands of other committed believers to demonstrate your support for the notion that every life is a sacred gift from God. Perhaps you could organize a passel of students or fellow church members to join you. You will be standing alongside many people just like you--normal, church-going believers who may not be politically inclined but sense a call to put some kind of action to their life-honoring values.
2. Voice your values by urging your lawmakers to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill will ban abortions after 20 weeks, when our own members and others have testified that developing babies have all the architecture needed to feel pain at intense levels. Click here to use our Freedom2Care pre-written, customizable form.

Resources
March for Life
CMDA resources on abortion
Fetal pain testimony
President Obama's statement

Pro-life movement makes gains in election

Excerpted from "Polling Shows Impact of Abortion Issue in Mid-Term Election," National Right to Life News, November 6, 2014 - A new post-election poll of actual voters conducted by The Polling Company/ WomanTrend, found that the issue of abortion once again played a key role in the mid-term elections, and that National Right to Life and its state affiliates were key to getting out the pro-life vote for pro-life candidates.

Twenty-three percent of voters said that the abortion issue affected their vote and voted for candidates who oppose abortion. This compares to just 16 percent who said abortion affected their vote and voted for candidates who favor abortion, yielding a 7 percent advantage for pro-life candidates.

These poll results help explain the victories experienced by the right-to-life movement in Tuesday’s elections. Despite being vastly outspent by pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List, pro-life candidates won Tuesday by significant margins. There were 26 races in which a candidate supported by National Right to Life was running against a candidate supported by the pro-abortion PAC EMILY’s List. Nineteen (73 percent) of the National Right to Life-supported candidates won.

“The abortion issue has played a key role in every major election since Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980,” said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president. The poll also found that voters heard and saw the right-to-life message in the days leading up to the election.

Editor's note: As a 501(c)3 organization, CMA educates on issues and legislation but does not endorse candidates for office.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Activist electioneering is hard but potentially productive work, and this round of advertising, phone calling and one-on-one conversations leading up to the November 4 elections paid off for the pro-life cause. The House of Representatives gained at least seven pro-life members, and the Senate's switch of party control (the GOP will have at least a 53-47 edge, with not all races decided) means that pro-life bills now should at least gain a vote.

“To some followers of Christ, following politics seems at best pointless and at worst counter-productive. Some believers disdain or shrink from the controversies and contention that mark modern politics. Some even decry any public policy involvement including voting, asserting that engaging in worldly politics is beneath heaven-bound Christians.

“Here's a case for robust Christian engagement in public policy:

1. Scripture (Romans 13) teaches that God has ordained governments for two primary purposes—to punish evil and to reward good.
2. While God provides everyone with a conscience to subjectively sense right and wrong (Romans 2), God's Word and His Spirit enable believers uniquely to objectively and spiritually discern good and evil (1 Corinthians 2).
3. In a democratic republic such as the United States, We the People—including We the People of God—possess the power, privilege and duty to guide our government toward truth and justice.
4. When believers disengage from public policy and refuse to guide their government as political leaders, activists and voters, their government suffers a critical loss of counsel regarding truth and objective standards of justice.
5. This dereliction of duty by believers, who by the gifts of God's revelation and Spirit know right from wrong most clearly, opens the door to control of the government by power-seeking individuals with a self-concocted, upside-down worldview.
6. When subjective ideologies and arbitrary assertions replace the Judeo-Christian objective standards that formed the foundations for Western governments and justice, evil becomes good, and good becomes evil.
7. In the absence of objective standards, ideology replaces the rule of law and justice, and government enforces its ideology with unchecked power. Individuals holding opposing worldviews and the politically powerless suffer most, and no one remains safe from arbitrary autocratic attack."

Action

1. Join our Freedom2Care coalition Federal Registry on LinkedIn (registration is free) to gain updates on opportunities to advise government officials, serve on federal commissions and secure federal jobs.
2. Visit our Freedom2Care legislative action website for easy-to-use forms to voice your values to your legislators.

Resources
Defending Life 2014 - a state-by-state legal guide to abortion, bioethics, and the end of life, by CMA legal partner Americans United for Life.
CMDA Abortion Ethics Statement
Remember to Remember: The Modern Implications of Abortion by Dr. John Patrick

Choosing to live

Excerpted from "The Courageously Mundane Faithfulness Of Kara Tippetts," Breakpoint commentary by John Stonestreet, November 7, 2014 - A young Oregon woman with a brain tumor recently made the choice to die. But a Colorado woman facing a terminal disease is choosing to live. What can we learn from their stories?

Oregon allows physician-assisted suicide; California doesn’t. Brittany Maynard chose November 1 as the day she would end her own life, with the help of a doctor. And I’m sad to say she carried through with her plans—despite the enormous outpouring of love and prayers from people across the country who urged her to change her mind.

One of those people was Kara Tippetts, a 38-year-old married mother of four who knows well the fear and pain of a stage 4 cancer diagnosis. Her approach to illness has been to rest on the grace of God and to find power in living faithfully moment by moment, squeezing the goodness out of each day, and exhibiting, no matter what the prognosis, “mundane faithfulness,” which is the name of her blog.

Kara tells a story of mundane faithfulness in her new book, The Hardest Peace.

Kara has used her voice to reach out to Brittany Maynard, asking her to reconsider, gently telling her that there’s more to life than good physical health and the avoidance of suffering. “Suffering is not the absence of goodness,” Kara says in an open letter to Brittany, “it is not the absence of beauty, but perhaps it can be the place where true beauty can be known. ...That last kiss, that last warm touch, that last breath, matters—but it was never intended for us to decide when that last breath is breathed.”

Kara has been learning that lesson on her own journey. Go to her blog and you’ll see that Kara is not throwing around a lot of cheap Christian clichés. Here’s an entry from October 18:

“How do you love when you are at the bottom of yourself? The last gulp of a drink you feel tentative to swallow? How do you swallow that last gulp of life and fight to live it well? I’m struggling today,” she writes, “and I knew it would be a hard one. Chemo brings a low that I struggle with words to describe.”

And then on October 20: “...The hand held, the time spent reading together, the little loves that when faced with death have become the giant important moments in my life. The time praying together, laughing together, cooking together and crying together. They add up to a life well lived. [They] are simply the best of life.”

Friends, let's pray for Kara and for all those facing terminal illness—as well as for their families. And let’s also pray for our culture, that we learn that life is always a gift, without exception.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: "Even if moving stories like those of Brittany Maynard prompt some to think we need to legalize assisted suicide, it's crucial to remember that such laws affect many more people and have many more consequences than originally imagined. The elderly, the handicapped and the depressed all become much more vulnerable under assisted suicide laws. You as a health professional know that much can go on behind the curtain that will never show up on a chart or in court. What appears on a document as a voluntary decision may in truth be coerced or otherwise improperly influenced--by an unduly negative presentation of a prognosis, or by family members who want an easy way out for themselves.

"Laws teach principles, and assisted suicide laws teach that suicide is not only good but a right. The right to die too easily becomes the duty to die. How many elderly patients already consider themselves a burden? How many heirs already wish their benefactor would die? What is a severely depressed teen supposed to think when society legalizes suicide?

"I know from conducting on-site research in the Netherlands what happens when the medical community and society make medical killing normal. I spoke to a son whose father, who had chosen euthanasia out of fear and a lack of his wife's support to choose life-extending surgery, told the doctor he didn't want to die after the doctor had administered the first shot to put him to sleep. The doctor ignored his statement and quickly administered the lethal injection. A grandfather asked for help with a painful thrombosis and instead died at the hands of a physician who interpreted his request as one for euthanasia.

"When doctors gain the power to kill, no patient remains safe. Hippocrates helped transform medicine with a proscription against assisting suicide--a measure that for the first time protected patients. Do all in your power to see that your state does not turn the clock back to the days when patients had to fear their physicians."

Action
State Legislative Issues - Physician-Assisted Suicide

Resources
Jonathan Imbody Senate Testimony on Euthanasia
Kara Tippetts, blog
"Small wonders" - Kara Tippetts - World magazine
CDD STAT Interview with Kara Tippetts
Euthanizing Medicine, a presentation on the implications of legalizing physician-assisted suicide
Top Reasons Why Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legal

CMDA offers marriage principles

Excerpted from "Leading Christian medical association unanimously affirms traditional marriage," Life Site News, October 13, 2014, - The Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) unanimously adopted its Same-Sex "Marriage" Public Policy Statement September 18, criticizing the “radical revisionist view” which “ignores millennia of legal and cultural affirmation” of marriage, and endeavors to replace it with a subjective concept of marriage based on emotional relationship.

The CMDA said this skewed belief is divorced from the natural and objective elements of marriage - physical union and procreation.

“Marriage is a consensual, exclusive and lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, expressed in a physical union uniquely designed to produce and nurture children,” the CMDA statement said.

“The universal recognition of conjugal marriage by virtually every civilization throughout history, arrived at from both secular and theistic perspectives, testifies to the natural evidence for marriage, its objective structure and its significant contribution to human flourishing and societal stability.”

The CMDA statement was released just a few weeks prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 6 dismissal of five U.S. states’ petitions to review lower court decisions overturning their marriage protection amendments.

The CMDA said that recognition of marriage as being between one man and one woman does not necessarily impede acceptance of other consensual relationships.

“The core debate hinges not on a moral evaluation of various types of relationships, but rather on the objective qualities that make marriage, marriage,” the CMDA statement said.

The benefits to children raised by both a mother and a father, the greater economic stability of intact families and the high cost to government and society when marriage breaks down were all listed by the CMDA to illustrate the government’s stake in preserving marriage.

The CMDA also critiqued court decisions that have asserted that support for marriage is not rational and instead based on hostility toward homosexuals, saying that these judgments have paved the way for religious persecution toward proponents of traditional marriage.

“Once the government adopts an official position that opposition to ‘same-sex marriage’ is based solely on animus and constitutes discrimination, the state can assert a compelling interest to advance this social policy--even if doing so means trampling the rights of religious conscientious objectors,” the CMDA statement said. “This assertion of government power to enforce the ideology of the state threatens not only the individual exercise of conscience but also the entire constitutional balance of the church-state relationship.”

“Such an aggressive, state-sponsored squelching of the free exercise of religion, as expressed in faith-based dissent, creates a powerful deterrent to free speech and the exercise of conscience,” the CMDA said. “Apart from the intervention of courts and/or a reversal of societal values, faithful supporters of conjugal marriage stand to face a virtual ideological Inquisition of increasing intensity.”

The CMDA statement concluded with a list of policy recommendations that would protect the rights of faith and conscience in law and policy, and in particular safeguard against legal assault of physicians who practice in accord with their conscience.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Why even get involved in such a controversial area as same-sex marriage? How does this apply to healthcare professionals?

“A number of medical organizations have officially endorsed same-sex relationships, with sanctions and the censure of dissenting members sure to follow. The administration, through the Dept. of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, has begun to require assent to its same-sex marriage ideology as a condition for receiving federal grants. As same-sex issues politics takes root in our legal system and professional organizations, you will likely find yourself at risk as a healthcare professional or student if you:

• deviate from governmental or professional organizational same-sex policies when counseling or treating patients regarding their sexuality;
• decline to provide a requested recommendation for a same-sex couple seeking to adopt a child;
• affirm, during a medical school or placement interview, the moral principle of reserving sex for male-female marriage;
• do not fulfill requests by same-sex couples for reproductive services such as in-vitro fertilization (physicians already have been sued successfully for this on grounds of discrimination).

“The church in Germany in the 1930s failed to heed the warning signs, succumbed to state coercion and experienced the absolute disintegration of their religious freedom. The tragic loss resulted in part because naïve people of faith opted for compromise with the rising Nazi regime and failed to confront ruthless oppression as Hitler marched toward absolute power.

America is not fascist Germany, but the principle remains the same: Government tends to increase its own power at the expense of individual freedoms--unless We the People take action. “Now is the time to determine to remain faithful, to defend truth and religious freedom--and also to prepare to take a stand in the face of pressure and even persecution.”

“Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, ‘Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews’” (Esther 4:13, NASB).

“But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank...” (Daniel 1:8, NASB).

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great...” (Matthew 5:11-12, NASB).

Action
Use our easy, pre-written form at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to urge your legislators to support the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act--S.1808, which prohibits discrimination because of moral beliefs regarding marriage and sex.

Resources

1. Read the CMDA statements on what marriage is and on same-sex "marriage." The two new, board-approved public policy statements on marriage state support for public policy measures that:
   • Recognize marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.
   • Accord protections, incentives and privileges that reflect a recognition of the economic, social and child-related benefits to the state of conjugal marriage.
   • Do not conflate conjugal marriage with same-sex relationships.
   • Comport with the original intent of Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution.
   • Maintain equal protection of applicable laws for those who engage in homosexual activity without according special status or privileges based on that activity.
2. A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage, by Sean McDowell & John Stonestreet.
3. What is Marriage? By Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George.

Faith-based health insurance alternatives growing

Excerpted from "Following evangelicals, traditional Catholics create a health insurance alternative," Religion News Service, Oct. 3, 2014 - Taking a cue from evangelicals, a group of traditionalist Catholics on Thursday unveiled a cost-sharing network that they say honors their values and ensures that they are not even indirectly supporting health care services such as abortion that contradict their beliefs. Christ Medicus Foundation CURO, as the group is called, will be financially integrated with Samaritan Ministries International, which was launched in 1991 by an evangelical home-schooling dad. The SMI network now serves 125,000 people and is exempt from the Affordable Care Act.

Proponents of "health care sharing" say they are not insurance plans, but ministries that cut Christians’ health care costs and tend to their souls. The groups, according to the Illinois-based Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, together include more than 300,000 Americans.

Critics point out that health care sharing programs are unregulated and that there is no guarantee that any particular medical need will be covered. As Jonathan Gruber, a health care economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told CNBC: “The whole goal of health care reform is to ensure that people are protected against risk and illness, and this violates that fundamental goal.”

As with similar programs, those who join CMF CURO expect other members to pay for most of their medical costs — except preventive health care and pre-existing conditions — for expenses of up to $250,000 for each medical need in the basic program.

For a two-parent household, CMF CURO costs $489 a month; an individual plan costs $264 a month. Members vote on whether to raise the costs of membership, and the program will pay health care providers 125 percent of what they get from Medicare.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “I attended a religious freedom meeting recently that included a presentation by the founders of this new health sharing initiative. I asked them to candidly summarize what they have found that doctors like and don't like about health sharing ministries. (You can add your own perspective by clicking the "Comment" link below; here's what the program advocates answered.)

• What doctors like – Faith-motivated doctors can participate in a program consistent with their faith values. Doctors can have a closer patient-physician relationship, because getting paid more (the target is 125 percent of what Medicare pays) can translate into more time with patients. Health sharing programs eliminate the third parties typically involved in order to get paid, involve little to no paperwork and provide cash payment within 90 days.
• What doctors don't like – the cap on [Samaritan Ministries and CURO] benefits currently only goes to $250,000 (though a new Save to Share program will offer an unlimited amount, and a charity program will also be included). Ministry advocates gave an example of how a representative of one major healthcare institution insisted that a patient under the program would not be accepted, saying, “No, you have to have insurance.” (CURO can intervene in such cases and get involved with the non-cooperating institution.)

“Time and experience will tell whether health sharing ministries prove advantageous for both patients and doctors; more research and analysis is warranted. In the meantime, I appreciate the motivation to (a) protect religious and conscience freedom by offering an alternative that does not subsidize abortion and other items contrary to faith values; (b) provide a way for Christians to band together to support one another financially and spiritually; and, (c) eliminate the bureaucracy that frustrates so many doctors and diverts resources away from real healthcare.

Action
Whether or not you endorse health sharing ministries, if you support the ability of patients enrolled in these faith-based programs to gain equal access to health savings accounts, use our Freedom2Care easy form to voice your values on HR 207.

Resources
World Magazine - "Networks of care: Formal and informal groups of healthcare providers are keeping the poor from missing the safety net."

Comparison of Samaritan Ministries and Christian Care Ministry (does not imply endorsement)

Data links religious freedom to peace and stability

Excerpted from "If Policy Makers Cared about Data, They’d Care about Freedom of Religion or Belief," the Weekly Number blog, September 15, 2014 - The past decade has seen the largest social science effort to collect and analyze data on international religious demography. This body of research points to one thing – religion is growing and will continue to grow globally, with about 9-in-10 people projected to be affiliated with religion in 2030 compared with 8-in-10 in 1970. This growth is projected to occur despite trends toward disaffiliation in the global north, where population growth is stagnating.

Studies show that there has been a dramatic rise in the level of religious restrictions and hostilities. The data point to a global religious freedom crisis that will become even more acute as the world becomes more religious and as global mobility mixes people and their beliefs at an unprecedented rate.

The data on religious freedom provide more than just information – they provide knowledge. Specifically, analysis of the data reveal two very important empirical relationships:

• The combined effects of government and social restrictions on religious freedom lead to violent religious persecution and conflict.
• The respect of freedom of religion or belief leads to peace and prosperity.

As the world navigates away from years of poor economic performance, freedom of religion or belief may be an unrecognized asset to economic recovery and growth, according to this new study.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Our Judeo-Christian heritage has provided for religious freedom, since we know that God has bestowed on all people freedom of choice and that true belief cannot be coerced. The rise of radical Muslim terrorist groups such as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS) shows what happens in the absence of those fundamental understandings. A prayer request I recently received illustrates the tragedies that ensue:

A friend just got a text message from her brother asking her to shower him and his parish in prayer. He is part of a mission and ISIS has taken over the town they are in today. He said ISIS is systematically going house to house to all the Christians and asking the children to denounce Jesus. He said so far not one child has. And so far all have consequently been killed. But not the parents.

The UN has withdrawn and the missionaries are on their own. They are determined to stick it out for the sake of the families - even if it means their own deaths. He is very afraid, has no idea how to even begin ministering to these families who have seen their children martyred.

Yet he says he knows God has called him for some reason to be his voice and hands at this place at this time. Even so, he is begging prayers for his courage to live out his vocation in such dire circumstances. And like the children, accept martyrdom if he is called to do so.

She asked me to ask everyone we know to please pray for them. These brave parents instilled such a fervent faith in their children that they chose martyrdom. Please surround them in their loss with your prayers for hope and perseverance.”

Resources
Freedom2Care - CMDA's religious freedom headquarters

Action
Pray for our brethren—and especially the children—under siege by the terrorists, that they may both remain faithful to Christ and also escape their persecutors. Pray for the political and military defeat of the persecutors and for religious freedom in these countries. Pray against the spiritual forces of darkness and the propaganda that is winning converts to the cause of terror and for the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Use our easy, pre-written forms at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to contact your legislators on any of the following domestic religious freedom bills:

1. Protect conscience freedom in healthcare: HR 940
   Preserve patient choice and protect pro-life professionals from discrimination for moral and ethical views.
2. Uphold religious freedom, 1st Amendment - S.1808
   Marriage and Religious Freedom Act - S.1808 - prohibits discrimination because of moral beliefs regarding marriage and sex.
3. Protect faith-based adoption agencies from discrimination - S 2706
   Keep states from cutting off faith-based adoption agencies that assist couples with adoptions according to faith standards.

Congress eyes charitable giving

Excerpted from "Protect giving: A chance for real bipartisanship," commentary by Vikki Spruill in The Hill, September 15, 2014 - Foundations and charities face a pivotal moment. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the America Gives More Act (H.R. 4719) with a bipartisan vote of 277 to 130. Now it needs to pass the Senate. It will give individuals and private foundations the certainty that allows for more charitable giving.

The America Gives More Act makes permanent three important provisions that have been part of the “extenders package” for a number of years. Though they are proven to increase giving and have broad bipartisan support, it’s become the norm for Congress to allow these provisions to expire, then retroactively reinstate them. This inconsistency from Congress leaves donors uncertain of how much they can contribute.

The bill addresses this uncertainty in three key areas:

• Gifts from IRA distributions (referred to as the “IRA charitable rollover”) where generous donors are directing their mandatory distributions directly to charity.
• Gifts of property, specifically conservation easements, which are complicated transactions that can take more than a year to plan and execute.
• Gifts of food inventory, which are often perishable and so demand quick action.

The strong bipartisan alignment around this bill is rare these days in Washington. The vote in the House showed that both Democrats and Republicans understand the importance of supporting charitable giving. Still, this uncommon consensus is at risk of being undermined by Washington gridlock.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “In dozens of visits focused on this topic with Congressional leaders and their staff, I have been impressed with a bipartisan, general commitment to charitable giving. Still, the temptation for our deficit-spending Government to tap into new revenue sources is great, and the potential remains for Congress to unwittingly trim giving by fiddling with charity incentives and protections in the tax code.

“Why would Congress take steps that would make fewer Americans able to deduct charitable gifts, or subject givers to stingier limits on how much they give? Don't lawmakers realize that charities provide billions in social services—such as through faith-based medical and dental clinics that care for needy patients—that Government would otherwise have to fund?

“Government always seeks more money, due to the sheer pull of the power derived from money. Many politicians also redistribute our tax dollars to their constituents and pet projects as a means of retaining political power. Years of undisciplined spending now threaten Government's power and politicians' futures, so they are turning to previously sacred sources such as charity for more tax revenue.

“When I visit Members of Congress to persuade them to preserve our charitable gift deductions, I make the following simple points:

1. Government should not tax individuals for giving their money away to help others.
2. Charities can provide services much more efficiently and effectively than Government bureaucracies and save billions that the Government would otherwise have to fund.
3. Any cuts to charitable giving will ultimately penalize the needy individuals served by charities.”

Action
Use our Freedom2Care easy form to let your legislators know that Government should not tax us for money we give away to help others, and that you want your charitable gifts to remain tax-deductible.

Resources
Fact sheet on charitable giving
Itemized Deductions State-by-State - Pew Charitable Trusts

Human trafficking victim: Healthcare professionals can help

Excerpted from "Kidnap Victim Addresses Human Trafficking Forum," ABC News, August 14, 2014, - A woman who was held captive for nine months has underscored the importance of work performed by health care professionals, law enforcement and social workers to rescue and support kidnap victims. Elizabeth Smart-Gilmour told a South Dakota forum on Wednesday that such work "makes a difference" in the fight against human trafficking and sexual abuse.
"People like you brought me back," Smart-Gilmour told the audience.

Smart-Gilmour was taken from her Salt Lake City bedroom in June 2002 at age 14 and held for nine months. Now 26, she described her capture and the repeated sexual assaults she endured. She told how she was moved from Utah to California and constantly threated with death if she tried to escape.

She stressed that authorities must have protocols in place to deal with rescued victims. Smart-Gilmour recalled how she was handcuffed, taken to the police station and left in a "little room with no windows" right after police officers found her. The situation, she said, did not make her feel comfortable. Since her rescue, she has started the Elizabeth Smart Foundation to protect children and educate them about violent and sexual crimes.

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Last week I attended in Atlanta a roundtable discussion group, led by trafficking expert Dr. Laura Lederer, focused on strategies to help healthcare professionals recognize and respond to victims of human trafficking. I began working with Laura over a decade ago when she was helping to lead the U.S. State Department's fight against trafficking. She was one of the first to recognize the tremendous potential for healthcare professionals to recognize and respond to human trafficking victims, who often visit healthcare facilities during their captivity.

“Along with CMDA Health Consultant on Human Trafficking Dr. Jeff Barrows, we engaged the White House, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Homeland Security, the AIDS ambassador and many others in an effort to get the government to implement programs to encourage the healthcare community to respond to opportunities to help human trafficking victims. I remember a frustrating meeting in the White House with CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding and the President's advisors, trying to convince her of the need while she questioned the data supplied by the FBI.

“Since then, more research data has proved the point, and most recently a published research project led by Dr. Lederer highlights the tremendous opportunities for healthcare professionals to make a difference. A comprehensive study found that:

• Of victims who answered the questions about their contact with healthcare (N=98), 87.8 percent had contact with a healthcare provider while they were being trafficked.
• By far the most frequently reported treatment site was a hospital/emergency room, with 63.3 percent being treated at such a facility. Survivors also had significant contact with clinical treatment facilities, most commonly Planned Parenthood clinics, which more than a quarter of survivors (29.6 percent) visited. More than half (57.1 percent) of respondents had received treatment at some type of clinic (urgent care, women's health, neighborhood or Planned Parenthood).
• Pregnancy, miscarriage and abortion were all common experiences for survivors in the study. More than half (55.2 percent) of the 67 respondents who answered reported at least one abortion, with 20 respondents (29.9 percent) reporting multiple abortions; survivors in this study similarly reported that they often did not freely choose the abortions they had while being trafficked.

“You can make a difference. Your education on how to recognize and respond to victims of human trafficking can mean the difference between life and death, freedom and slavery for a victim you may encounter. Please consider taking the CME-credit online course below.”

Action
Use CMDA's online modules for human trafficking education to obtain CME credit while equipping yourself to recognize, respond and treat victims of human trafficking.

Resources
"Health consequences of sex trafficking and their implications for identifying victims in healthcare facilities" - published research by Dr. Laura Lederer

CMDA's online modules for human trafficking education

Additional resources on human trafficking from CMDA

To learn more about a new CMDA Commission on Human Trafficking to help prepare healthcare professionals to identify and assist victims of human trafficking contact Dr. Jeffrey Barrows at: jeff@abolitioninternational.org.

Court rules that states can define marriage

Excerpted from "Judge Upholds State’s Authority to Define Marriage as Union of Man and Woman," commentary by Ryan T. Anderson in The Daily Signal, August 12, 2014 - Last week a judge in Tennessee upheld that state’s Constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The case involved a same-sex couple married in Iowa that sought a divorce in Tennessee. Because Tennessee does not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, it was unable to divorce the couple. Last week, Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr., cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act case, U.S. v. Windsor, as support that Tennessee has the right to define marriage for itself.

When the Supreme Court struck down the federal law defining marriage last year, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that states have “the historical and essential authority to define the marital relation.” Simmons takes Kennedy at his word, recognizing the basic equality of state citizens. Just as the citizens of Iowa are free to adopt same-sex marriage (though it was a state court that redefined marriage there), so too the citizens of Tennessee are free to retain the traditional definition.

What about arguments that claim there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage? Simmons explains that while “marriage is a fundamental right,” there is no right to redefine marriage. Simmons continued: “neither the Tennessee Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever decided that this fundamental right under a state’s laws extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage as a union between (1) one man and (1) one woman.”

What’s really at stake in this debate? Simmons explains: “The battle is not between whether or not marriage is a fundamental right but what unions are included in the definition of marriage.” Yes, the fundamental policy question in this debate is “What Is Marriage?”

Our federal Constitution is silent on what marriage is. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution. The courts should uphold the freedom of the American people and their elected representatives to make marriage policy.

Commentary

“As the links to a research controversy below (see Resources) suggest, anyone wading into the marriage debate these days needs a double coat of armor. But that's hardly unexpected or new for Christians whose convictions counter the culture. If we can demonstrate love for those who practice homosexuality while courageously offering a reasonable rationale in defense of marriage as between a man and woman, as my colleague Ryan Anderson does, then perhaps reasonable people will consider our message.

“For millennia, societies have recognized marriage as a consensual, exclusive and lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, expressed in a physical union uniquely designed to produce and nurture children. The universal recognition of conjugal marriage by virtually every civilization throughout history, arrived at from both secular and theistic perspectives, testifies to the natural evidence for marriage, its objective structure and its significant contribution to human flourishing and societal stability.

“But now some would replace marriage with a subjective notion based on emotional relationship, divorced from the natural and objective marital elements of physical union and procreation. The abject subjectivity of this approach offers no rational parameters that would exclude further redefinitions of 'marriage as between multiple partners, related persons or even persons and pets.

“With people of good will on both sides of the marriage debate, we all do well to focus on respecting and listening to each other, presenting a reasonable rationale and letting the democratic process play out to express the will of the people. Courts have a tendency to short-circuit that process by imposing personal views from the bench, and conflicting rulings in lower courts appear bound to return this issue to the Supreme Court in the near future.

“In the meantime, consider reading some of the resources below on this issue. As we commit to remaining true to convictions founded on Scripture, may God give us the courage to live faithfully in the midst of a contrary culture--just as the biblical Daniel, Esther and a "great cloud of witnesses" have done throughout history.

Action
Use the easy, editable form at the CMA Freedom2Care legislative action website to voice your support for:

House bill: Marriage and Religious Freedom Act - HR 3133

Senate bill: Marriage and Religious Freedom Act - S 1808

Resources
What is Marriage? by Ryan T. Anderson, et. al.

Research and controversy:

• "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study" research publication by Mark Regnerus
• "Homosexual Parent Study: Summary of Findings," article by Peter Sprigg
• "Study of Gay Parenting Draws Criticism" - ABC News
• "Mark Regnerus: Defending my research on same-sex parenting" - Dallas Morning News
• Social Scientists Defend Mark Regnerus' Controversial Study on Same-Sex Parenting - Christianity Today

Will doctors be forced to kill?

Excerpted from "Will doctors be forced to kill?" commentary by Wesley J. Smith, First Things, July 25, 2014 - The wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters over the modest Hobby Lobby decision has me worried. Apparently, many on the political port side of the country believe that once a favored public policy has been enacted, it immediately becomes a "right" that can never be altered or denied. More, once such a "right" is established for the individual, others should have the duty to ensure access—even at the cost of violating their own religious consciences.

If such thinking prevails, medical professionals could be forced to participate in the taking of human life, for example in abortion, assisted suicide, and (given the research trends in regenerative medicine) providing treatments derived from the intentional destruction of human embryos or fetuses.

That certainly seems to be the direction in which the ACLU wishes to take the country. Recently, the ACLU of Washington State began trolling for potential clients to sue medical professionals or facilities that refused to participate in certain legal procedures or transactions based on religious objection:

"Have you or members of your family been denied reproductive health care or end-of-life services by a religiously based medical facility? The ACLU believes that everyone in Washington has the right to receive health care that is not restricted by the religious beliefs of others."

The solicitation listed specific procedures—some of which involve the taking of human life—that presumably a patient should have a right to receive. They include:

• Abortion
• Information about Washington’s Death with Dignity Act [the law permitting doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill];
• Referral to support organizations or cooperating providers to assist a patient in using Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
• Medical providers permitted to participate in Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
• Palliative care/nursing support for patients who choose to stop eating and drinking to allow natural death (e.g., participation in suicide by starvation, not a natural death)
• Pharmacy dispensary (e.g., forced dispensing of drugs used in assisted suicide, RU 486 abortions, etc.)

Moreover, the American medical establishment already opposes conscience exemptions for abortion and the dispensing of contraception. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published an ethics-committee opinion denying its members the right of conscience against abortion.

Such denial of medical conscience is not yet embedded in American law. But if the anti-religious liberties lobby gets its way, it will be. Indeed, in coming years, medical professionals who believe in the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition against killing could well be driven out of medicine.

Commentary

Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Govt. Relations: – The US Senate recently highlighted this battle over conscience and autonomy by voting on a bill (the Women’s Health Protection Act, S. 1696) that would, in the words of the National Right to Life Committee, "invalidate nearly all existing state limitations on abortion ... [including] laws allowing medical professionals to opt out of providing abortions, laws limiting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians, bans on elective abortion after 20 weeks, meaningful limits on abortion after viability, and bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection." Thankfully, the Senate bill failed, on a largely party-line cloture vote.

The bill reflects the escalating conflict between two camps in American society that hold irreconcilable worldviews: those who follow objective moral and ethical standards outside themselves (such as the Bible and the Hippocratic oath) and those whose only ethic is autonomy, which boils down to "whatever I want." The scary part is that many authorities in the medical community, which used to lead the way in promoting and following objective ethical standards, have all but abandoned the Hippocratic oath and increasingly promote autonomy as the ethic that trumps all else.

As appealing as autonomy may sound and even though it has its place in some cases, it is not the kind of standard that protects others well at all, like the Bible and the Hippocratic oath do. That's because one person's autonomy in one direction inevitably runs smack into another person's autonomy headed in the opposite direction. What happens then? Whoever is strongest wins.

If a patient gains the power in the name of autonomy to demand and receive whatever he or she wants, the healthcare professional becomes a mere "provider" and loses the essence of professionalism--professing to follow an objective standard. Similarly, if a mother insists on fulfilling her autonomy through an abortion, the baby loses her life.

Autonomy brooks no competition. So autonomy is less a reliable ethic and more a prescription for conflict, an enemy of tolerance and diversity.

In the First Amendment's establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), America's founders carefully balanced conscience freedoms with community interests, minority rights with majority rule, individual liberty with governmental function. We must shore up that understanding of freedom every chance we get--in the culture, in Congress and in the courts--or we will lose the ability to live out our faith in our professions and in the public square.

Action

1. Urge your U.S. senators to support (or thank your senator for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - S. 1204 , to protect religious liberty and preserve patient access by providing conscience protections for health care professionals. (Note: You will be provided with editable text based on your senator's sponsorship or non-sponsorship of this bill.)
2. Urge your U.S. Representative to support (or thank your Rep. for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - H.R. 940.

Resources
CMDA's Freedom2Care website: Freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA's Freedom2Care commentaries in national newspapers
CMDA Freedom of Faith and Conscience resources
"U.S. Senate Democrats launch push for “the most radical pro-abortion bill ever" - National Right to Life