Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act Coming to a Vote

A woman thinking about ending her pregnancy should be told that her baby will feel intense pain during the procedure. An important piece of legislation now pending in Congress would require abortion providers to share this life-saving information. It’s called the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on it next week.

Urgent action requested! Click here to send an e-mail to your representatives in Congress and urge them to pass the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is a priority when Congress reconvenes next week. The measure needs support from two-thirds of the House to pass. Right now, 93 representatives have signed on as co-sponsors. More votes are needed, so please encourage your legislators to vote for it.

Every woman considering abortion deserves to be fully informed. If this bill becomes law, women will receive vital information that will help them make the right decision about the life growing inside their wombs.

The fact is, by the time a baby is 20 weeks old, its internal organs and systems for feeling pain are completely developed. Research conducted at the University of Arkansas Medical Center and University College London have confirmed that babies do have the ability to feel pain.

Even if the mother receives medication for pain she will endure, the medicine may not prevent pain in the child. She should be told this as well. When women realize that their babies will suffer before they die, most will choose to give life.

Urging Congress to give women the information they need and deserve is a life-saving endeavor. Please e-mail your representative today!

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

CBS Should Quit Whining and Pay Up

On Nov. 13, CBS filed a formal appeal against a Federal Communications Commission ruling that it had broken the indecency standards by broadcasting the vulgar Super Bowl half-time show in 2004. That was the prime-time “wardrobe malfunction,” which resulted in a bare shot of Janet Jackson airing briefly.

On behalf of 20 affiliate stations in its appeal, the network argued that it had done nothing wrong by broadcasting “an unscripted, unauthorized and unintended long-distance shot of Ms. Jackson’s breast for nine-sixteenths of one second.”
That was nine-sixteenths of a second too long. The FCC is correct to insist that there should be some limits on what can be shown on television when children are likely to be watching.

“The disgusting display in the star-studded lollapalooza in Super Bowl XXXVIII was little more than razzle-dazzle pornography,” said Pastor Rod Parsley, founder and president of the Center for Moral Clarity. “It was viciously defiling and completely inappropriate for television.”

The networks have an obligation to viewers. That commitment was not fulfilled, and the corporation’s weak apology that the nudity was unintentional was insufficient. The network must be the gatekeeper ensuring that offensive material stays off the air.

Consider that singers Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were performing a duet of Timberlake’s song “Rock Your Body.” As the title implies, the song featured many suggestive dance moves by both Timberlake and Jackson. The content alone was inappropriate and opened the door for regrettable circumstances.

As the song reached the final line, “I’m gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” Timberlake pulled off a part of Jackson’s costume, exposing flesh not suitable for the family room. CBS immediately cut to an aerial view of the stadium, but the “malfunction” had already been broadcast.

The FCC had ordered CBS pay a fine of $550,000, an amount that represented the maximum fine at the time of $27,500 against each of the stations. A 30-second advertising spot during the Super Bowl costs $1.5 million. So the fine amounts to barely a slap on the wrist. Congress recently increased the minimum penalty substantially to $325,000 per incident.

This should have sent the broadcasters a message that decent Americans are taking the matter seriously. The FCC is right in looking out for the interests of families – as well as common decency – by fining networks over obscenities. The Jackson incident prompted thousands of calls from outraged viewers, and certainly had no place on a family friendly, internationally-televised sports event.

In its 76-page brief, CBS focused on two main points: One, that the FCC had erratically abandoned its long-time standard that “any fleeting, isolated, or unintended” images are not automatically indecent. And two, that the network as a whole shouldn’t be punished for the actions of undisciplined celebrities in a publicity stunt.

The network also emphasized that the FCC “failed to turn up even a shred of evidence that anyone at CBS participated” in the incident. In a short statement accompanying the appeal, CBS said that it is “seeking a return to the FCC’s previous time-honored practice of more measured indecency enforcement . . .”

A concept of “measured indecency” does not set well with moms and dads trying to raise healthy families. Indecency falls in the “zero tolerance” category. CBS is ignoring the voices of millions of Americans, Congress and the Commission by insisting Janet Jackson’s half-time performance was not indecent. CBS believes there should be no limits on what can be shown on television even during family viewing events like the Super Bowl. The network is wrong.

If the FCC fails to endorse indecency standards, who will?

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Investigate Electronic Voting Scrutiny

This month’s mid-term election fueled growing anxiety about new electronic voting systems around the country. Although fears of a massive breakdown on Nov. 7 were not realized, serious problems did emerge. As a result, many analysts are warning that a replay of the 2000 election debacle in Florida could occur unless security is improved and all voters have a chance to verify how their votes were cast.

Since about a third of the nation used the new voting systems for the first time, the accuracy and integrity of the systems must be assured. Congress needs to take a hard look at e-voting and a host of other election issues and rules.

Regardless of the technology used, voting must be dependable and voters must have full confidence that their votes are in fact counted.

A bill in the U.S. House would require a paper trail verified by voters for all electronic systems in the nation. It has the support of 216 members, two short of a majority. Additionally, California and 26 other states now have a voter-verified paper trail.

The Center for Moral Clarity fully supports the push for better security and transparency. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in response to the 2000 crisis. The legislation provided federal money to upgrade systems; however, it did not require a paper trail.

The new touch-screen systems could be responsible for one of the most serious controversies of the election, which involves a congressional race in Florida.
In that election, almost 18,000 people in Sarasota County who voted in various races did not vote in the hotly contested congressional contest between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings. Sarasota’s 15 percent “no vote’ rate was four to five times higher than the rate in surrounding counties.

“The complaints need to be investigated with a sense of urgency, because democracy is jeopardized when the electoral process is disputed,” said Pastor Rod Parsley.

This time, the disputed Florida election did not determine a national outcome.
That may not always be the case. If the 18,000 disputed ballots had been cast in Virginia or Montana – where Senate races were determined by about half that number of votes – control of the Senate would have been at stake.

Florida was not alone in wrestling with technical issues. There were other serious problems. Denver voters waited in line three hours or more because a digital voter-verification system kept crashing. The mayor called the lack of preparation for a new system ‘outrageous,’ and the Denver County clerk resigned.

States and counties have to make it easier for voters to see and verify their votes. Election officials also have to do a better job testing and retesting their equipment before Election Day, as well as auditing it afterward. If voters lose confidence that their vote will be accurately tallied, they may choose not to vote at all.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Good Stewards Protect the Environment

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments this week in a case involving the regulation of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from vehicles. Connecticut and other states want to force the federal government into action. The ruling could be one of the most important ever on environmental issues, and is the first such dispute about global warming to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Bible has a great deal to say about the environment,” said Pastor Parsley. “God cares about the world he created and holds people accountable for its sustained management.”

Stewardship is mentioned in at least 19 books of the Holy Scripture. This is timeless instruction and relevant today.

The Bible serves as the guidebook for Christian conduct and, if followed, will have a positive impact on the resources necessary to sustain life: clean air and water are essential to every life form. God owns the earth and people are merely charged with caring for it.

Environmental improvements are a natural consequence when people give thoughtful consideration to the impact modern lifestyles place on natural resources. In the case at hand, Massachusetts is the lead plaintiff and wants to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has said Congress has not given it that authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to take the case after a divided lower court sided with the federal agency. In their appeal, the states maintained the case “goes to the heart of the EPA’s statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time” – the threat of global warming.

In addition to Connecticut and Massachusetts, other plaintiffs are California, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They are joined by a number of cities including Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C., the Pacific island of America Samoa, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

Reckless environmental damage is immoral. The stakes are high, and it’s no exaggeration that that failure to address global warming will have a direct impact on the survival of the earth as we know it.

A court ruling will not immediately eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions, but it would force the EPA to set rules that would be applied to newly built vehicles over time. The threat of global warming is very real. As stewards of the land, Christians are obligated to plan for the future. Holding the nation’s leading environmental agency accountable for establishing and enforcing regulations is the logical place to start.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Urgent Action Needed to Protect Civilians in Darfur

A United Nations report released this week revealed that more people have fled their homes in Sudan’s Darfur region in recent months than at any time since the conflict started almost four years ago. Nearly 2 million men, women and children have become refugees, and the humanitarian crisis grows worse everyday. That’s why the African Union’s Peace and Security Council should unanimously support international protection from a force with the capacity to protect civilians.

“When the Darfur crisis first came to the world’s attention years ago, the reaction was one of shock and dismay,” said Pastor Rod Parsley, whose ministries have contributed humanitarian aid to the victims of violence in Darfur. “Now more than ever, the situation calls for immediate action.”

The African Union’s slogan is “Africa Must Unite,” and that is exactly what A.U. members need to do when they meet to discuss Darfur this week. Darfur is a critical test for the A.U.’s Peace and Security Council, and its members must unite behind the people of Darfur and eastern Chad rather than abusive governments.

The conflict started in February 2003 when ethnic minority rebels demanded a greater share of the country’s resources and took up arms. Since then, at least 200,000 people have died from the combined effect of civil war and famine.

At a Nov. 16 meeting in Addis Ababa, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed a three-stage hybrid force. Next, the A.U. Peace and Security Council will meet to discuss the current situation in Darfur and the Sudanese government’s reaction to the proposed hybrid A.U.-U.N. force.

It’s time for the discussions to lead to action. A current proposal includes an additional 10,000 troops under U.N. command along with U.N. technical expertise to reinforce the struggling 7,000-member African Union force in Darfur.

The Sudanese government has consistently refused to allow a U.N. force to deploy in Darfur, even though the U.N. Security Council authorized such a force. It is a shame that the U.N. has allowed the Sudanese government’s refusal to accept these troops. The world needs to put more pressure on the United Nations.

If Africans are serious about protecting Darfur’s people, they must stop accepting denials and excuses. The A.U. absolutely must ensure that any international force in Darfur has the mandate and capacity to effectively protect civilians. The escalation of the conflict is fueling fears that the fighting in Darfur is beginning to spill over the border and promote instability in neighboring countries.

It is time for the world to rise up and demand an end to the madness in Sudan. The genocide cannot be looked at as a Sudanese problem any longer because it threatens to escalate into an African crisis if the blood bath continues.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net