Capitol Notebook

Tuesday afternoon, an interesting victory was won by the Republican Party in the United States Senate.  All of the Republicans stuck together  --  including the 3 left-wing to moderate New England Republicans  --  providing a victory for the GOP and First Amendment rights for all Americans.  Christian Coalition of America (CCA) has been working for weeks trying to defeat this disaster of a bill, which actually passed the United States House of Representatives.   

By a margin of one vote in the Senate, the onerous legislation called the "Disclose Act" introduced by the Democrats to help their union boss cronies and to censor the free speech rights of their opponents, was defeated.  The major immediate problem was, the Supreme Court would not have been able to strike down this clearly unconstitutional bill in time for the November elections during which the Democrats hoped to hold down the great losses they will now undoubtedly suffer.  Most analysts believe the House of Representatives will revert back to the Republicans after 4 disastrous years of Democrat control under San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi.     read more »

Once again, Planned Parenthood has been caught on hidden camera misleading women about abortion.  In this case their staffers attempted to use euphemisms to convince a woman her unborn child was "not a baby" and convince her to have an abortion.

Then the Planned Parenthood employee went further, telling the "client", "It's not a baby,
it's a fetus," which, she claims, is "not like a person."  And, when asked if an abortion will hurt the chances of having children in the future, the employee replied, "Nope".  But recognized medical statistics show an increase in the chances of miscarriage after abortion to be anywhere from 20-50%.

 read more »

The Christian Coalition of America publishes its 2009-2010 Congressional Scorecard this week and it was revealed that several Democrats had earned 100% scores which has been very unusual in recent past years.  However, since the 2008 election, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a huge cushion of votes to enable her to cram down the throats of the American people much extreme left-wing legislation.  She has also had the luxury to allow some of her moderate Democrats to vote against her party in key votes.   

Pelosi's cushion of votes include many in the 60 congressional districts now in Democrat hands which President George W. Bush and/or Senator John McCain won in 2006 and 2008.  Many of these congressional districts are expected to switch back to the Republicans in this November's election.  As the House Republican Leader John Boehner said recently:  "Democrats won Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, and all we have to show for it is more debt, more government, and fewer jobs."    read more »

All during the debate over ObamaCare, virtually everyone in the pro-life community told pretty much everyone who would listen - as well as those who refused to listen - that the new health care reform law would result in federal tax dollars somehow being used to fund abortion.

Of course Obama and virtually all Democrats poo-poohed the notion.

Well, now we know...

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide. ...

As you'll remember, all through the debate over the bill the White House and Democrats in Congress opposed strict language that would forbid any tax dollars being used fund abortion.

And now we know why.

***  read more »

Good news from the battle to defend traditional marriage.  This time it comes from Hawaii, where Republican Governor Linda Lingle has finally decided to veto the same-sex civil unions bill that was passed by that state's legislature this past April.  Garrett Hashimito, our Hawaii State Chairman of the Christian Coalition, has been heading up hundreds of grassroots in this effort.  The Hawaii Christian Coalition was given the credit by the local papers and media.  Garrett and his staff have done an excellent job with this veto and stopping gay marriage in Hawaii.

It's another big win in another typically "blue" state, which is a big blow to liberals who have been reeling from defeats in California and Maine over the past few years (which also tend to be "blue" states).

The bill would have given all of the same rights and benefits of traditional marriage to homosexual couples, with the only difference being the term "civil union" instead of "marriage.  This has been the political route taken by those pushing for full gay marriage in cases where they didn't think they could go that far right away, which again, makes it a big defeat.

(Via CBS)  read more »

Although she has spent most of her time before the Senate Judiciary Committee avoiding giving direct answers to questions, there have been a few exchanges which shed some light on her thoughts on some pretty important issues, (or confirm suspicions, as the case may be).

The exchange below was between Kagan and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, which touches on Kagan's thoughts on the constitutional limits on the power of Congress.

Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?

Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law.

Coburn: Yeah, but I got one that’s real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I’m not going to mention which it is.

Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.  read more »

Dear Friend,

This Sunday is Independence Day, and in honor of our country’s birthday we encourage you to participate in our Citizenship Sunday registration drive.

Statistics show that only about half of all self-identified Christians are actually registered to vote, which means that they do not have a voice in our government.

You can help change that by holding a “Citizenship Sunday” registration drive at your church.

Visit the Citizenship Sunday section of our website where you will find:  read more »

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan may have accidentally shed some light on her views on abortion by confirming that she supports "health" exceptions to abortion legislation.

Of course abortion advocates usually try to include "health" exceptions in anti-abortion legislation as a way of making the legislation meaningless, as the exceptions almost invariably tend to be large enough as to include anything that deviates from normal, including emotions. 

For her part, Kagan essentially stated that she's just fine with that.  (via LifeNews)

During questioning today, pro-abortion Sen. Diane Feinstein of California asked Kagan, "Do you believe that the constitution requires that the health of the mother be upheld?"

"With respect to abortion generally, I think that the continuing holdings of the Court are that a woman's life and women's health must be protected in any abortion legislation," Kagan responded.

Of course this is the exact opposite conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court in 2007 when it upheld the current ban on partial-birth abortion, (which does not have a "health" exception).  read more »

The clip below is a recording from oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, which pitted the government's campaign finance laws vs. the free speech of unions and corporations in political campaigns.  The case was ultimately decided in favor of free speech by a 5 to 4 margin.  Which tells you all you need to know about how tenuous our free speech rights really are.

The audio of Kagan's argument in favor of restricting free speech rights, (including defending the government's right to ban pamphlets if it so chose), should tell you all you need to know about Kagan.

But if you do need more, feel free to view our Kagan Fact Sheet.  And pass it on!

***

TAKE ACTION: Join our campaign to say NO to Kagan today.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee gets set to start its confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, the question is no whether she'll eventually be cleared by the committee, (given that it has a majority of Democrats), but whether Republicans will use the hearings as an opportunity to point out her record.  Or even promote a REAL discussion about the proper role of judges in our government.

In the past, Kagan commented that such hearings are usually a farce and that the public doesn't learn much about where judges are really coming from.  Truer words...  So how does she feel about being forthcoming on the issues now??

Republicans should press the issue and ask direct questions and demand direct answers.  Here's a short preview of a longer list of issues they should force her to address:  read more »