The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

While our nation’s unborn have been threatened by nearly four decades of the Roe v. Wade decision, there are some encouraging signs among the pro-life movement in the U.S.

It is good news that the pro-life perspective is the new majority. Polls show at least half of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life, which is a drastic shift from just a few years ago.

And that’s inter-related with another factor, which is a growing youth movement in the pro-life cause.

It turns out that since 1973’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision, pro-life parents have been having their babies and raising them to be pro-life, and pro-choice parents have not been having their babies, or at least not as many of them, and so they have not been raising them to be anything, as it relates to the life issue.

So for two generations now, a disproportionate number of children who have been born have been born into a pro-life environment, where they have seen their little brothers and sisters’ sonograms stuck on the refrigerator door. These youngsters are in many cases even more adamantly pro-life than their parents. Gallup notes that generational differences in support of legal abortion have narrowed since 2000.

The polling group found that attitudes about abortion, e.g., “legal under any circumstance,” among young adult respondents (18-29) fell from 36 percent postive in the early 90s to 24 percent agreeing with the statement the most recent polling period (2009). Only senior adults have a lower percentage of agreement (16%).

I was at a rally protesting the largest abortion clinic outside of China that opened in Houston last year. The entire seventh floor of this building is reportedly dedicated to late-term abortions, in which viable babies are murdered. I was joined at that rally by large numbers of young people, from many different ethnicities and nationalities, holding signs which said, ‘We survived Roe. Roe won’t survive us.’

As reported recently in World magazine, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, watched the 2010 March for Life and told Newsweek, ‘My gosh, they are so young. There are so many of them, and they are so young.’

Indeed. We’re winning, and the other side knows it. That’s why they’re trying to lock in full-blown coverage for abortion in Obamacare and take it out of the hands of the people.

Another factor, of course, is U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who are the gifts that just keep on giving on this and many other issues. As someone who is a baby boomer, I would never have believed that the Supreme Court would be the most conservative branch of the federal government, but at the moment it is.

Obviously the battle is not yet won in the court of public opinion or in the judicial system, but the movement for life among younger Americans is heartening. At the end of the day, it remains a full-fledged battle for hearts and minds.

With the hourglass now running, millions of Americans are bracing for a crushing blow to their religious liberty beginning this summer. That’s when the sands of basic conscience protections under health care reform will run out. At that point, employers will be forced to “amend” their convictions on the issue of life, presumably just as easily as a top government agency determined its rule requiring as much of the American people.

At issue is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Jan. 20 announcement that most employers must cover sterilization and FDA-approved contraceptives—including abortion-causing drugs—under their health plans, free of charge. The mandate, issued as a final rule guiding implementation of the 2010 health care reform law, has since embroiled the pro-life community—including some lawmakers.

Faced with such an ominous prospect, one lawmaker has just rolled out a bold plan to effectively kill the administration’s mandate before it begins to take effect. On Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012, which essentially would render the coming infringement on conscience null and void. The commendable measure would help to take conscience decisions from the government’s control and put them back at the individual’s discretion where they belong.

“This is a common sense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the tenets of their faith because the government says so,” said Sen. Rubio.

The Rubio bill would restore religious liberty and conscience rights, specifying that employers cannot be forced to violate their consciences on contraceptives under health insurance plans. A major concern addressed by the legislation is the administration’s very narrow religious exemption. Under the HHS rule, mostly just houses of worship will be covered. That leaves out in the cold countless schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, and charities, for example, that are religiously affiliated. It also fails to cover non-religious business owners who happen to object to the contraceptives mandate.

The measure, one of several bills introduced in recent months to address conscience-violation concerns under health care reform, has garnered enthusiastic support from the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “We believe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 is a necessary means to redress the ill-advised and harmful mandate by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that will force millions of Americans to violate their deeply held religious convictions beginning as early as August 1,” said ERLC President Richard Land in a letter Tuesday to Sen. Rubio.

“By restoring the full rights of conscience on contraceptives under health care,” Land added, “the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 would address the concerns stated here and help to ensure that health care reform does not undercut religious liberty.”

While HHS has given qualified religious organizations and other non-profits an additional year before they must be in compliance with the new contraceptives mandate, those who hold strong religious convictions on life can easily see through this thinly veiled concession.

Adapting conscience to match government dictates, as HHS would have Americans to do, is never appropriate, nor is “more time” ever reasonable. By compelling individuals to violate their deeply held religious convictions, the government only thwarts God-given and constitutionally-protected religious freedom in exchange for religious compulsion.

Fortunately, some in Washington recognize this danger. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 is a much-needed response to right the administration’s contraceptives wrong before the sands of its timetable on the American people run out.

If you agree, please urge your senators to cosponsor the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012.

LifeWay Christian Resources’ decision to end sales of a special-edition Bible that partly benefited Susan G. Komen for the Cure reportedly came the same month the breast cancer charity revealed it would cut ties with Planned Parenthood, but Thom Rainer can’t say for sure if the two actions are related.

Komen, the world’s leading breast cancer organization, will no longer make grants to affiliates of Planned Parenthood, this country’s No. 1 abortion provider. The report of Komen’s decision came about six weeks after LifeWay pulled from Walmart and other stores copies of its Here’s Hope Breast Cancer Awareness Bible when the Southern Baptist entity learned Komen makes grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates. The Bible — which was from its publishing arm, B&H, but was not sold in LifeWay stores — provided a $1 donation to Komen for each sale.

Rainer, LifeWay’s president, announced the action Dec. 14. Komen informed Planned Parenthood of its decision in December, according to the Associated Press. It is not known, though, on what date during the month that Komen-Planned Parenthood conversation took place. Baptist Press requests to Komen by phone and email for comment did not receive a response.

Rainer told Baptist Press he does not know if LifeWay’s decision to stop sale of the Bibles had an impact on Komen’s decision. He knew “it was an issue that was at the forefront of their consideration,” he said.

He had a “very cordial” phone conversation with Komen President Elizabeth Thompson in December, Rainer said. One of his final comments, he said, was: “We certainly hope that you will reconsider your relationship with Planned Parenthood, because we would not be able to support anything even indirectly related.”

Thompson “did not make a commitment, but she heard me,” Rainer told BP. “So I cannot say definitively. I hope we had some positive influence.”

Now, a decision has to be made about the special-edition Bibles, which have been returned to LifeWay’s distribution center. LifeWay has received bids on removing the Komen information, Rainer said. He also told BP the option of giving the Bibles to a missions organization or another ministry is a possibility. Since the Komen information has not been deleted, the option of partnering with Komen again is a possibility, he said.

“I would say that reconsidering our relationship with Komen is certainly on the table,” Rainer said. “In the last 24 hours, we haven’t even gotten to the point where we’re making a decision on that. We certainly haven’t spoken to Komen about it.”

In the wake of a reported onslaught of criticism of Komen, Rainer told BP he would encourage “all pro-life people who celebrate the decision of Komen to discontinue their relationship with Planned Parenthood to let them know and to affirm them in that decision by whatever means possible.”

The issue is “near and dear” to him, said Rainer, whose wife is a breast cancer survivor.

“I really want to be an advocate for Komen and what they do and their mission,” he told BP. “[I]t was touch-and-go there for awhile with my wife. Now she’s been cancer free for over five years. So we’re celebrating it.”

—30—
Compiled by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world’s leading breast cancer organization, will no longer give money to affiliates of Planned Parenthood, America’s No. 1 abortion practitioner.

Pro-life advocates, who had urged Komen to take such action for years, applauded the news, which was reported Jan. 31 by the Associated Press. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) confirmed the report in a release the same day.

The report of Komen’s action came about six weeks after LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention pulled from Walmart and other stores copies of a special pink-covered Bible that partially benefited the cancer charity. After learning of Komen’s decision, Thom Rainer, LifeWay’s president, told Baptist Press Feb. 1 “that reconsidering our relationship with Komen is certainly on the table.” LifeWay, however, has not communicated with Komen since hearing the news the day before, he said.

Komen’s decision appears to be an important — though largely symbolic — one in what is an ongoing effort by pro-lifers inside and outside Congress to publicize Planned Parenthood’s abortion business and reduce public funding for the organization. It would not appear to inflict much financial damage on PPFA and its affiliates, which received $487.4 million in government grants, contracts and reimbursements alone in 2009-10, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Komen affiliates gave about $680,000 to Planned Parenthood affiliates last year, according to PPFA, AP reported. An analysis last year by American Life League found 18 of about 120 Komen affiliates had made grants totaling nearly $630,000 in grants to Planned Parenthood centers in the 2009-10 fiscal year.

Its grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates were not for abortions but for breast screenings and breast health education, according to Komen. Planned Parenthood, however, does not offer mammograms, though Komen said grants to the organization may pay for mammograms at other sites.

As the country’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood reported its clinics performed 329,445 abortions in 2010. That was more than one-fourth of the lethal procedures in the United States for the year.

Planned Parenthood’s abortion business makes it an unworthy recipient for funds to prevent breast cancer, pro-lifers have told Komen for years. Increasingly, pro-lifers withheld support from the foundation and refused to participate in its popular five-kilometer, fund-raising runs/walks that draw more than 1.6 million participants yearly.

When Komen’s reversal of a long-held position was revealed, pro-lifers hailed it.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said he is “delighted [Komen] decided to sever its financial relationship with Planned Parenthood. As my mother used to say, ‘Sometimes you’re known as much by your friends as you are by your enemies.’ And keeping company with Planned Parenthood is not good for one’s reputation.”

Charmaine Yoest, president of Chicago-based Americans United for Life and a breast cancer survivor, said, “The work of the Komen Foundation has life-saving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death. When I learned that the foundation was using donated funds to support abortion providers, I stopped running in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. In the future, I’ll be racing with them to support this courageous decision.”

Though Komen had not announced its decision publicly, PPFA President Cecile Richards told AP her organization has known about it since December. She learned of it in a phone call that month from the charity’s president, Elizabeth Thompson, AP reported.

Komen, which has informed its affiliates, took the action because of a new policy that bans grants to organization under government investigation, a Komen spokeswoman told AP. A House of Representatives subcommittee began an investigation of Planned Parenthood in September.

PPFA’s Richards suggested Komen had caved in to pro-lifers, saying her organization is “alarmed and saddened that [Komen] appears to have succumbed to political pressure.”

Baptist Press requests to Komen by phone and email for comment did not receive a response.

LifeWay’s decision to remove its Here’s Hope Breast Cancer Awareness Bible came after it learned of the Komen connection with Planned Parenthood about two months after it went on sale. The Bible — which was from its publishing arm, B&H, but was not stocked in LifeWay stores — provided for a $1 donation to Komen for each sale.

In a Dec. 14 statement, LifeWay President Thom S. Rainer said it was a mistake, adding, “When our leadership discovered the overwhelming concern that some of Komen’s affiliates were giving funds to Planned Parenthood, we began the arduous process of withdrawing this Bible from the market. Though we have assurances that Komen’s funds are used only for breast cancer screening and awareness, it is not in keeping with LifeWay’s core values to have even an indirect relationship with Planned Parenthood.”

After Komen’s defunding of Planned Parenthood was revealed, Rainer said LifeWay is “very grateful” for the charity’s action.

Rainer told BP he did not know for certain if LifeWay’s decision to stop sale of the Bibles had an impact on Komen’s decision. In a “very cordial” phone conversation with Thompson, Komen’s president, in December, Rainer said one of his final comments was: “We certainly hope that you will reconsider your relationship with Planned Parenthood, because we would not be able to support anything even indirectly related.”

Thompson “did not make a commitment, but she heard me,” Rainer told BP. “So I cannot say definitively. I hope we had some positive influence.”

Copies of the breast cancer awareness Bible have been returned to LifeWay’s distribution center, Rainer said. While a decision has not been made on what will be done with the Bibles, the pages containing information on Komen have not been removed, he told BP.

“So that leaves us with the option now,” Rainer said. “I would say that reconsidering our relationship with Komen is certainly on the table. In the last 24 hours, we haven’t even gotten to the point where we’re making a decision on that. We certainly haven’t spoken to Komen about it.”

Observers have speculated how much influence Karen Handel, Komen’s relatively new senior vice president for public policy, had on the decision to defund Planned Parenthood. A former Georgia secretary of State, Handel called for defunding Planned Parenthood while running to be the state’s governor in 2010. She joined Komen’s staff in April 2011.

Komen also has received criticism from some pro-life advocates for refusing to acknowledge studies that indicate a link between abortion and breast cancer. Some pro-lifers also have said Komen has contributed money to embryonic stem cell research, which results in the destruction of human embryos. In a Nov. 30 statement, Komen denied it had ever funded such experimentation, saying it supports research only on stem cells “derived without creating a human embryo or destroying a human embryo.”

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R.-Fla., is leading an investigation of Planned Parenthood by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In a Sept. 15 letter to Richards, Stearns asked PPFA’s president to provide audits, documentation, policies and procedures regarding such issues as improper billing, segregation of federal funds from abortion services and reporting of suspected sex abuse and human trafficking.

Planned Parenthood has been plagued by various scandals in recent years. Secret investigations by pro-life organizations have uncovered PPFA workers demonstrating a willingness to aid self-professed sex traffickers whose prostitutes supposedly are in their early teens, seeking to cover up alleged child sex abuse, and agreeing to receive donations designated for abortions of African-American babies.

Two major retailers – Target and Nordstrom – have been commended by pro-lifers , as well as advocates for – and parents of – special needs children, for featuring a model who was born with Down syndrome.

Target included Ryan Langston, 6, of New Jersey alongside other children in an early January ad. Ryan, who lives in New Jersey, was also featured beside other child models in a Nordstrom catalog last year.

Also in this edition: Illinois resumes inspections; two abortion clinics close, States report abortion decreases for 2010, and PPFA purchases own office space for $34.8 million.

Parents of children with Down syndrome expressed appreciation, especially for the retailers’ decision not to bring attention to Ryan’s condition.

“The greatest thing that Nordstrom and Target are doing is that they’re not making any reference to his disability. He’s just another cute kid,” said Jim Langston, Ryan’s father, according to Disability Scoop, a website that reports on developmental disability news.

Rick Smith of Dallas, Texas, has a 1-year-old son, Noah, with Down syndrome. His website and blog, titled Noah’s Dad, is a chronicle of his family’s experience in rearing a child with Down syndrome. In a Jan. 2 post on his blog, Smith cited some things Target, like Nordstrom before it, said by having Ryan in its ad, including:

• “They said that people born with Down syndrome deserve to be treated the same as every other person on this planet.

• “They said that it’s time for organizations to be intentional about seeking creative ways to help promote inclusion, not exclusion. (It’s no accident that Target used a model with Down syndrome in this ad; it was an intentional decision. If [we] want the world to be a place where everyone is treated equal we can’t just sit around and watch the days tick away. We have to be intentional. We have to do something.)

• “They said that companies don’t have to call attention to the fact that they choose to be inclusive in order for people to notice their support for people with disabilities. In fact, by not making a big deal out of it they are doing a better job of showing their support for the special needs community.

• “They said it’s important for the world to see people born with disabilities with a fresh set of eyes. That it’s time for us to lay down all the inaccurate stereotypes from the past and move forward embracing the future with true and accurate ones.”

The retailers’ embrace of a child model with Down syndrome comes at a time when an estimated 90 percent of unborn children in the United States diagnosed with the condition are aborted.

Down syndrome normally results when a person has three copies, rather than two, of chromosome 21.

Illinois resumes inspections; two abortion clinics close

Some Illinois abortion clinics have not received state inspections in as many as 16 years, but renewed scrutiny has resulted in the permanent shutdown of two centers in recent months.

The report came as a result of information received by the Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The Northern Illinois Women’s Center, which opened in 1973, announced its closure Jan. 13, as was reported earlier in Life Digest. It had been closed since Sept. 30, when the state suspended the clinic’s license for health and safety violations found during inspections in June and September.

The Women’s Aid Clinic in Lincolnwood, a Chicago suburb, closed in October when the owner chose to forfeit its license instead of paying a $36,000 fine or initiate a battle in court, AP reported Jan. 20. The state’s inspection of the clinic last year – which uncovered health and safety violations — was the first in 15 years.

The Illinois Department of Public Health said the lag in inspections is based on a shortage of funding and inspectors, according to AP. The department began an effort to inspect abortion clinics last year, visiting all nine that are considered pregnancy termination centers.

The state has not inspected other clinics that perform abortions but are categorized as ambulatory surgery centers. In addition, a third type of medical facility that performs abortions – and includes Planned Parenthood clinics – is not licensed by the state and is not the subject of inspections, AP reported.

Even Sharon Levin, vice president of the National Abortion Federation, told AP 15 years between state inspections is “too long.”

Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Chicago-based Pro-life Action League, said the state should regulate all abortion clinics and should strengthen its inspections.

Illinois has demonstrated “a systematic unwillingness to step away from the ideology and look at these facilities objectively,” he told AP.

States report abortion decreases for 2010

Illinois, Missouri and Pennsylvania all recently reported decreases in abortions in 2010.

Illinois’ total dropped from 2009 by 4, 218 abortions, a decline of 9 percent, LifeNews.com reported. It is the lowest total since 1973, according to the report.

Missouri reported a decline of 1,019 abortions, a 9.4 percent drop, according to LifeNews.

Pennsylvania’s abortion total fell by 506, a decrease of 1.4 percent, according to The Patriot-News, a central Pennsylvania newspaper.

PPFA purchases own office space for $34.8 million

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has purchased the office space it previously leased as its national headquarters for $34.8 million.

The organization, which is the country’s largest abortion provider, bought the 104,000-square-foot office that it had leased in New York City reportedly since 2002, The Real Deal reported Jan. 24. The office is in a 200,000-square-foot building. The Real Deal is a magazine that covers real estate news in New York City.

PPFA and its affiliates received government grants, contracts and reimbursements that totaled $487.4 million in 2009-10. PPFA’s affiliates reported their clinics did 329,445 abortions in 2010, their first drop in 15 years.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. Our free, downloadable Impact resource is also available online. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

The Obama administration’s continued inaction has stranded thousands of peaceful refugees wrongly labeled as terrorists in a bureaucratic limbo, says a coalition of religious and human rights organizations.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) was one of the groups represented on a recent Washington panel that again urged the White House to implement reforms called for in a 2007 law. That measure was designed to correct unintentional results for refugees and asylum seekers produced by anti-terrorism laws passed after the 2001 suicide attacks on the United States.

The failure by the executive branch to apply those procedures has meant more than 4,000 people who already have qualified as refugees — or are proceeding through the asylum process — are categorized as terrorists even though they are living peacefully in this country. It also has placed an unknown number of refugees in dangerous conditions overseas and/or separated them from their families, according to the coalition, which also made the appeal in 2010.

The federal law’s overly broad definitions of “terrorist organizations” and “material support” to such groups — and the wide-ranging interpretations by the administration — have ensnared many a non-terrorist seeking to live in this country. Refugees have been categorized as terrorists even if they supported pro-democracy efforts or groups that fought under the direction of the United States.

While coalition members believe changes are needed in federal law, they say the executive branch could solve many of the problems by applying the congressional reforms in place.

Barrett Duke, the ERLC’s vice president for public policy and research, told the audience at the Jan. 23 panel discussion the coalition is not urging the government “to drop the bar altogether” on examining people entering the United States.

“We are grateful that our country has done as well as it has on admitting people to this country on refugee or asylum basis,” he said. “And yet at the same time, it’s clear that when it comes to this particular subject that we can do better.”

Duke said the “terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds” (TRIG), as they are known, are “unevenly applied and insensitive to the realities of life for many of these people.”

TRIG is insensitive, he said, in the following ways:

• On spiritual grounds.

“It certainly has the potential to — and probably is currently — punishing people who take their discipleship seriously, their commitment to the Lord seriously,” Duke said. He cited verses in Matthew in which Jesus commanded His disciples to meet needs and to do more than what is required. The person who acts in obedience to Christ’s commands by providing such “material support” as food or water to someone who turns out to be a member of a terrorist group or to someone who is related to a terrorist — and tells the truth about it — could be labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.

“So the way this is currently being done, it certainly punishes people who are simply trying to faithfully live out their religious beliefs,” he said.

• On social grounds.

The system “is actually weakening families … actually directly affecting how children grow up and the relationships between husbands and wives,” Duke said. “That is certainly not good for anyone. Societies are stronger when families are strong.”

• On common-sense grounds.

The rules don’t appear to “take into consideration intent, level of support or the type of regime opposed,” he said. “Somehow some common sense needs to be injected into the system. … [T]his current bar is even being used to deny asylum to victims of terrorist extortion in Nepal and even against women who are raped and enslaved by militias in Liberia.”

• On practical grounds.

The refugee or asylum process “exposes someone to such a degree of scrutiny that this is the least likely way that somebody is going to use to try to enter this country to do harm,” Duke said.

One of the panelists, Julie Hysenaj, explained the devastating consequences of the system for her family. She has been separated from her husband, Arben, for more than four years after an immigration judge rejected his application for asylum. When he left the country on the advice of a lawyer, he was denied a visa to return on the basis of his service for two months in the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was supported by the U.S.

“Arben is not a terrorist,” his tearful wife said. “He is not a threat to anybody. He is hard-working, honest, caring, dependable. I miss him so much.”

Melanie Nezer, senior director of U.S. policy and advocacy for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, said at the briefing the policies in question are not helping the war against terrorism.

“In terms of this being a tool to protect the country from terrorists, I don’t think anyone could say it’s an effective tool,” she said. “It probably diverts a lot of resources that could be otherwise used in a better way.”

The coalition also made similar appeals to the Obama administration in late 2010. Coalition members sent a letter to Obama in October calling on him to order the full implementation of the 2007 law’s reforms within a 45-day compliance period. Among the 27 signers was ERLC President Richard Land. A briefing in which participants repeated their calls for change was held in December of the same year.

Also speaking at the Jan. 23 panel discussion were Anwen Hughes, senior counsel at Human Rights First, and Steven Schulman, who leads pro bono work globally for the Akin Gump law firm.

Duke has written a commentary that explains at more length his concerns on the issue that may be found at the ERLC’s website.

Our country is very generous toward those who seek the safety of our borders. We accept thousands of refugees and asylum seekers every year. This is impressive and all who have helped our nation achieve this deserve our appreciation, thanks, and congratulations.

While we have done well as a nation, we still have significant impediments in the system that are putting people at serious risk and creating unnecessary hardship for thousands of others. More must be done for those looking to us for protection and rescue.

Download the PDF of this article.

Refugees and asylum seekers are subjected to intense scrutiny by our government to determine such matters as the validity of their circumstances and their potential as threats to national security. They can be denied admission to the United States on a number of grounds, most of which are valid. However, one bar to admission is especially faulty. That bar deals with a person’s connection to terrorism.

Under this bar, people seeking refugee or asylum status to gain admission to the United States are investigated and questioned about any involvement they might have had with terrorists. The information is compared to a set of standards to determine whether or not the applicant is guilty of having consorted with terrorists. If so, the person is denied admission to the United States. These standards are known as “Terrorist-related Inadmissibility Grounds” (TRIG).

The problem with the standards that comprise TRIG is that they are too insensitive to the realities of life of many people who are legitimate candidates for admission to this country. In principle, a terrorism bar is necessary. We must have a way to screen for those who are engaged in terrorist activity. They should not be admitted to our country. In practice, however, the standards that are being used to prevent terrorists and their helpers from using this humanitarian program from entering the U.S. are causing unnecessary hardship for thousands of people who are clearly not terrorists.

The grounds for inadmissibility under the terrorism bar are broad. They can apply to people who were directly engaged in horrific acts of terrorism and to people who provided material support, e.g., housing, food, and the like, for others who engaged in these acts. Further, the grounds are so vague that thousands of people are currently held in what is the equivalent of indefinite limbo while someone tries to figure out what to do with them. Many others are wrongfully denied admission to our country as a result. These people are essentially being denied the protections our nation’s refugee and asylum laws were written to provide for them.

We need a screening process that helps us prevent terrorists and their helpers from entering our country, but clearly the current program needs some crucial fine tuning. Here are four reasons.

First, the current application of TRIG is insensitive on spiritual grounds. The Bible in both Testaments clearly requires truth-telling. Leviticus 19:11 and Ephesians 4:25 tell the faithful not to lie to one another. Other faiths have similar requirements. Some people have found themselves afoul of TRIG because they felt compelled for conscience sake to tell the truth about their activity with terrorist groups. Silence might have been the safer course of action, but obedience to their faith dictated truthfulness. For some of them, truthfulness about activity that is no longer even part of their lives has led to years of anguish or even denied admission to the U.S.

In other instances, simple expressions of Christian love can be cause for rejection. For example, in Matthew 10:42, Jesus told His disciples, “whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” Such a simple humanitarian act as providing water for a member of the wrong group, or even the children of such a member, can keep someone out of this country on the grounds that he or she provided material support voluntarily to a member of a terrorist group.

The teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount add to the difficulty of avoiding the trap of TRIG. In the sermon, Jesus declared, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (Matthew 5:41). Jesus was referring to the Roman practice of forcing non-citizens to serve as guides or porters. He instructed His disciples to do as they are told, even more than is required. TRIG in its current form punishes such obedience to Christ. Someone who, in obedience to Jesus, did more than was required would be in violation of the terrorism bar. In the very next verse, Jesus told His disciples, “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:42). Again, complying with a request from a member of the wrong group could result in the faithful disciple being accused of providing material support to a terrorist group, not because he or she supports what that group is doing, but simply out of a desire to obey Christ in all things.

Second, the current application of TRIG is insensitive on social grounds. Currently, TRIG is keeping some family members separated needlessly. In some instances spouses have been separated for years. In other instances, children have been separated from a parent for years. This is not good for that family or for society. God invented the family. He knew what it took for people to fully develop and for cultures to remain vibrant. As families go, so go cultures. The standards of TRIG must be made more sensitive to the hardship they place on families. I cannot imagine being forcefully separated from my wife for weeks, much less years. I cannot imagine not being able to participate directly in the development of my children. Yet, TRIG is creating these very problems for people.

Some will likely argue that TRIG is not affecting enough families to create significant hardship on society. Seen in isolation, I would agree. Yet, no one can deny that our society is already reeling from the impact of dysfunctional families. We certainly do not need to add to that burden so unnecessarily. In addition, we should recognize the value of every person within society. While the significant hardship created by TRIG on a relatively small number of families might not be statistically relevant, it is certainly relevant to those families. Those affected people are being denied access to the family structures that can help nurture them. Consequently, their lives are made more difficult. Should this added burden prevent them from reaching their full potential, society likely loses out as well, as these affected people fail to offer to society all that they are capable of offering.

Third, the current application of TRIG is insensitive on common sense grounds. In some instances, TRIG actually punishes those who fought against the dictators we ourselves once opposed. People who have opposed Saddam Hussein, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the genocidal regime in Sudan, and other terrible situations have found themselves unwelcome by our government due to the inflexible, overly broad application of TRIG. This is surely the height of heartlessness and hypocrisy. Incredibly, TRIG does not take into consideration intent, level of support, or type of regime opposed. It has even been used to deny asylum to victims of terrorist extortion in Nepal and women raped and enslaved by militias in Liberia.

Fourth, the current application of TRIG is insensitive on practical grounds. I understand the need to keep our citizenry safe from those who want to do us harm. I fully support that desire. I want to make sure our country remains secure. I am indebted to those who make sure that we are safe here at home. Yet, surely as we make certain our citizens are safe at home, we need not close our doors to others who live in fear every day for their lives or their loved ones’ wellbeing as they are being held in limbo in an insensitive, bureaucratic morass.

The application process for admittance to this country as a refugee or for asylum is arduous and penetrating. It is the least likely approach a terrorist would consider. There are much easier ways to gain entrance—crossing our southern border or merely jumping ship, for example. On practical grounds, probably the only people TRIG is catching are the people who are willing to tell the truth about their previous behavior because they do not consider it to be relevant to their current situation. A terrorist isn’t likely to willingly divulge any information that would potentially bar him or her from entrance.

To be clear, I am not calling for the elimination of TRIG’s standards. I believe we must remain vigilant in our efforts to screen those who want to enter our country. There really are people around the world who desire to do us as much harm as they possibly can. These people must be stopped. TRIG’s standards help, but they are clearly in need of revamping. In some instances, Congress has provided solutions, but they are not being implemented. In other instances, solutions have not yet even been introduced. These shortcomings must be corrected.

Today, thousands of good people around the world are being persecuted and worse. These men, women, and children are living in fear for their lives and livelihoods every day. We can rejoice that many thousands have found shelter and the chance for a better life here in our great nation. However, many are living in limbo, and have been for years, as they wait for their paperwork to clear another of what appears to be an endless lane of hurdles and confusing rules. Meanwhile, a well-meaning but insensitive system meant to bar their tormentors is actually doing the work of their tormentors for them. This can be changed. And for the sake of those who rightly see this nation as one of humanity’s brightest lights, it must be changed.

Download the PDF of this article.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed two bills that endorse inclusion of a religious message or symbols at the country’s war memorials.

The House voted 386-26 for legislation that calls for installation of a plaque or inscription containing President Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer at the World War II Memorial in Washington. Roosevelt offered a prayer as much of the country listened by radio Dec. 6, 1944, the date of the Allied invasion of Normandy.

Representatives also approved by voice vote a bill that permits religious symbols at war memorials.

Both measures gained passage Jan. 24.

Republican Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio — the sponsor of the World War II Memorial Prayer Act, H.R. 2070 — said in a written statement that adding Roosevelt’s prayer “is important because this prayer gave comfort and solace to our brave warriors who were about to make history. The President’s prayer gave them strength.”

The Obama administration has declined to support the proposal. The Bureau of Land Management said in November the bill conflicts with a current federal law and would infringe on the completed design of the World War II Memorial, which is located on the National Mall.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R.-Calif., introduced the legislation allowing religious symbols at war memorials in response to a decision last January by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that opinion, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, ruled that a 29-foot cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego is an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Symbols of faith adorn war memorials to Americans in this country and overseas, Hunter said in a written release. “In many cases, these memorials represent not just individuals, but the shared commitment and sacrifice of those who serve, and those who never made it home.”

There are 48 symbols of belief — including those for atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims — authorized at the 131 national cemeteries supervised by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Hunter said. His bill would protect symbols regardless of the religion they represent.

“The Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial is still under attack, for its cross, and it’s a sure bet these attacks won’t stop with Mt. Soledad,” Hunter said.

The Ninth Circuit refused in October to review its three-judge panel’s decision. Supporters of including the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial have said they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hunter’s bill is the War Memorial Protect Act, H.R. 290.

Here is the text of the prayer offered by President Roosevelt on D-Day:

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

“Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

“They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

“They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest — until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

“For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

“Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

“And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them — help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

“Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

“Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

“And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

“And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

“Thy will be done, Almighty God.

“Amen.”

The Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics entity has joined in an effort to strengthen a South Carolina law against cockfighting.

Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, appears in a new video produced by the Palmetto Family Council that is designed to help build support for an anti-cockfighting initiative.

In cockfighting, two roosters — sometimes wearing knives or gaffs strapped to their legs — fight while spectators bet on the result. The outcome often is death for one of the birds, which are referred to as gamecocks.

While all 50 states have outlawed the practice, it is only a misdemeanor in South Carolina and 10 other states. The Palmetto Family Council, a pro-family organization based in Columbia, and the Humane Society of the United States are promoting legislation to make cockfighting a felony in the remaining states.

“There is no question that [South Carolina] is now the ‘go-to’ location for animal fighting on the Eastern Seaboard,” Palmetto Family Council President Oran Smith said in a written release.

In the same news release, Land urged Christians to “speak out against this barbaric practice which horrendously abuses God’s creatures.”

In the video, Land and Smith give biblical reasons for opposing cockfighting.

“We do not have the right to treat living things as if they were inanimate objects,” Land says on the video. “We don’t have the right to cause them needless pain for frivolous reasons, such as our entertainment, and I can think of no more frivolous argument for causing pain than to watch two animals try to claw each other to death.”

Land says “being cruel to animals is inconsistent with Christian teaching … because the Bible tells us in Genesis 9 that God made a covenant between Himself and every living thing. We are to respect every living thing.”

Smith says, “It is very clear that God Himself, the Lord, the Creator, has a specific role in mind for animals, and this wanton cruelty toward animals is frankly unbiblical and un-Christian.”

Land describes cockfighting as “pornography of violence, and the people who watch it are going to be brutalized by it.”

Children sometimes are among those attending cockfights.

Land says he “would defy anyone who defends cockfighting to say that they would take Jesus to a cockfight.”

The video, which is about three minutes long, may be viewed online.