NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label family planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family planning. Show all posts

08 April 2016

On Divorce, Contraception, Pope Calls For More Grace, Less Dogma & Applause, Dismay, Confusion Over Pope's Words 8APR16

Pope Francis at his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square on Wednesday. On Friday he released a post-synodal apostolic exhortation called "Amoris Laetitia," or "The Joy of Love."
THOSE with a problem with the Catholic Church and religion in general will criticize Pope Francis' pronouncement on these issues. They look for anything to justify their hatred of religion, especially Christianity in this country, how sad for them. I see this as an acknowledgement of the teachings and life examples of Jesus Christ as so eloquently expressed by Pope Francis And he notes that Jesus set forth a demanding ideal for his followers — but "never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals.".  This is not the Pope giving Christians license to ignore the doctrines of Christianity. It is the Pope's recognition that the 'thou shalls' and 'thou shall nots' are mandatory goals for all believers to strive for, and recognizing that we are all human, and if we are really trying to live the Christian life, but at times fail, the Catholic Church leadership and all Christians should try to respond as Christ would, " to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals.". The Pope is calling for more Christianity, less dogma. This from +NPR and +Sojourners .....

On Divorce, Contraception, Pope Calls For More Grace, Less Dogma

In a major document released Friday, Pope Francis addressed divisive elements of Catholic doctrine — including how to treat couples who remarry after a divorce that wasn't annulled by the church, and the church's stance on contraception.
Without issuing any new top-down doctrine, Francis said that priests should focus on providing pastoral care for Catholic couples, rather than sitting in judgment of them, and that individual conscience should be emphasized, rather than dogmatic rules.
The document — a post-synodal apostolic exhortation called "Amoris Laetitia," or "The Joy of Love" — is more than 250 pages long.
In it, the pope emphasizes that life is more complicated than religious law. In the opening pages, he invokes the values of "generosity, commitment, fidelity and patience," but also says he wishes to "encourage everyone to be a sign of mercy and closeness wherever family life remains imperfect or lacks peace and joy."
Copies of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (The Joy of Love) are on display at a press conference at the Vatican on Friday. In it, Pope Francis writes that individual conscience should be the guiding principle for Catholics negotiating the complexities of sex, marriage and family life.i
Copies of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (The Joy of Love) are on display at a press conference at the Vatican on Friday. In it, Pope Francis writes that individual conscience should be the guiding principle for Catholics negotiating the complexities of sex, marriage and family life.
Andrew Medichini/AP
He explains that in Amoris Laetitia, in addition to considering scripture, he will "examine the actual situation of families, in order to keep firmly grounded in reality." And he notes that Jesus set forth a demanding ideal for his followers — but "never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals."
Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter told NPR's Morning Edition that the exhortation has a very different tone than previous church pronouncements on these subjects.
The focus on "conscience" as a determining factor is key, McElwee says. He explains what that means in this context:
"That's something that the church talked about 50 years ago, but the last couple of popes did not expand upon. And what Pope Francis is saying is that conscience means that people can be hearing something from God, kind of in the depths of their heart, that may even be not quite in accord with what the church teaches generally, as a general norm, but can still be true and can still be discerned to be God's will in their life. So he's allowing for a little bit of discord between individual cases and the general church teaching."
On Divorce
When it comes to divorce and remarriage, McElwee says, the pope doesn't directly change church law — which holds that couples who divorce and remarry without getting a Catholic annulment are committing adultery and cannot receive communion.
"But he kind of pivots the church stance, asking clergy to be much more pastoral and not always apply one general norm to all cases — but instead help people discern what God is doing in their lives, even if they might be living in a situation the church in past years might have called irregular," McElwee says.
No longer can the church simply say everyone in such an "irregular situation" is living in mortal sin, McElwee explains. Instead, each individual situation will need to be looked at separately.
"So, it's a very different stance, and it's allowing clergy to let people discern God's will, even in situations where that might be what, what he says, 'morally confusing,' " McElwee says.
Some in the Catholic Church wanted the pope to say it's OK for remarried people to take communion; others wanted "a very strong no," McElwee says.
"And what the pope has done really is seemed to embrace the middle path, looking for ambiguity, for individual situations."
On Contraception
Francis didn't describe any methods of contraception as "unlawful," as previous Catholic encyclicals have, The Associated Press notes.
Instead of characterizing contraception as a sin, Francis says the church must emphasize to young couples the joy of having children — while respecting the need for each couple to decide their family size on their own.
He cites the Relatio Finalis, written by bishops last year:
"In accord with the personal and fully human character of conjugal love, family planning fittingly takes place as the result a consensual dialogue between the spouses, respect for times and consideration of the dignity of the partner. ... Decisions involving responsible parenthood presupposes the formation of conscience."
As well as the Second Vatican Council:
"Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. ... They should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God."
"Francis made a single reference to the church-sanctioned family planning method of abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile time," the AP writes. "He said only that such practices are to be 'promoted' — not that other methods are forbidden — and he insisted on the need for children to receive sex education, albeit without focusing on 'safe sex.' "
On Sex, Homosexuality And Gender
Francis rejected the idea that sexual desire is a thing to be "eliminated" or looked down upon.
"God himself created sexuality, which is a marvelous gift to his creatures," he wrote.
He writes that sex and eroticism can be distorted — including when people instruct women to submit to their husbands, or sex becomes either selfish or purely self-sacrificing. But reciprocal and respectful sex, within the context of marriage, is a passion that reveals "the marvels of which the human heart is capable," Francis writes.
The pope also said that a "great variety" of family situations can offer stability, while emphasizing that same-sex marriage or unmarried committed relationships are not equal to marriage in the eyes of the Church.
The document references transgender people, saying that while there are "at times understandable aspirations" to ideologies that allow for a separation of gender and biological sex, they are attempting to "sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality."
The pope calls for women's rights to be advanced around the world and rejected the idea that feminism has hurt family structures. "The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear," he wrote.
On Marriage, The Church And The World
On marriage in general, the Pope writes that the Catholic Church needs "a healthy dose of self-criticism" for the way it has described and presented marriage to the public.
"[W]e often present marriage in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation ... At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. ...
"[W]e have often been on the defensive, wasting pastoral energy on denouncing a decadent world without being proactive in proposing ways of finding true happiness."
The pope also addressed a wide range of challenges that affect families, including poverty; migration; children with special needs; elderly relatives who need care; drug use and alcoholism; domestic violence; and a lack of affordable housing, as well as social pressures and the difficulty of addressing marital problems.
"The Synod's reflections show us that there is no stereotype of the ideal family," he writes, "but rather a challenging mosaic made up of many different realities, with all their joys, hopes and problems. "

Amoris-Laetitia


Applause, Dismay, Confusion Over Pope's Words

Image via REUTERS/Tony Gentile/RNS
Pope Francis’ “Joy of Love,” a massive document released April 8 that wraps unchanged doctrine on marriage, divorce, and LGBT life in gentle terms, is getting a mixed reaction from U.S. Catholics.
It brought joy to conservative Christians who feared Francis would tamper with dogma, but less love from liberals who had hoped for a change in practices, not simply in tone. Statements flooded out from both directions. A sampling:
  • Archbishop of Kentucky Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, extolled it as “love letter to married couples and families” to realize more and more her mission to live and love as a family. “The pope traces through the Bible all the beauty of marriage and that “no obstacle is to big for Christ to overcome.”
  • The Human Rights Campaign was “disappointed” that the document, issued in the pope’s Year of Mercy, did not translate into fuller inclusion for LGBT Catholics, said Mary Beth Maxwell, an HRC senior vice president. She found consolation in knowing that “in a growing number of Catholic families and parishes all across this country we are welcomed for who we are, not judged or excluded because of doctrine.”
  • Conservative Catholic writer George Weigel, in the National Review, saw a thread throughout that church teachings can offer a structure for both holiness and happiness. He wrote that it says “many important things about love, marriage, the family, and the current cultural crisis of a world in which the imperial autonomous Self is running roughshod over just about everything, leaving a lot of human unhappiness in its wake.”
  • Catholics for Choice, a pro-contraception and abortion-rights group, pointed out that most U.S. Catholics were not waiting for approval from their church. President Jon O’Brien called Francis’ pastoral approach “a breath of fresh air… But talking about the law in a pastoral manner does not change doctrine, and it will not change the real practice of Catholics.”
Analysis by Catholic publications also divided on which themes to highlight.
National Catholic Reporter columnist Michael Sean Winters pulled a more optimistic message from the document. He says it “challenges the Church to do more than simply repeat the Catechism and harangue the fallen… The Holy Father does not believe the pastor, still less the magisterium, should tell people what to do, but that a pastor should accompany people so that they can discern God’s activity and calling in their own lives.”
The National Catholic Register highlighted a different thread through the document, one that might disturb conservatives by muddying up traditionalist ideas of clear rules with unspecified pastoral discretion: “Francis speaks in the chapter of a ‘need to avoid judgments’ that don’t take account of the ‘complexity of various situations’ and stresses the need of ‘reaching out to everyone.’ The divorced, he writes, should not be pigeonholed in ‘overly rigid classifications,’ leaving no room for personal and pastoral discernment.”
Reaction did not only come from Catholics struggling with the complex material and conflicting ways to read it. The Rev. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptists Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted:
Man. is a mess.
Cathy Lynn Grossman is a senior national correspondent for Religion News Service, specializing in stories drawn from research and statistics on religion, spirituality, and ethics.

31 August 2013

Ross Perot just donated $1 million to Planned Parenthood 30AUG13

THIS is great news for Planned Parenthood and the women of Texas. Thank you Ross & Margot Perot!!!! From Salon....

Ross Perot just donated $1 million to Planned Parenthood Ross Perot
Thousands of women have lost access to vital healthcare since Texas dismantled its Medicaid-funded Women’s Health Program in 2011 because Planned Parenthood acted as a service provider under the program. As a result of these cuts, and the persistent targeting of reproductive health clinics by anti-choice lawmakers, many clinics have been forced to close in recent years, leaving Texas women without low- and no-cost options for reproductive healthcare.
Enter: Ross Perot.
The Perot Foundation of Dallas, which was founded by the billionaire and former presidential candidate, announced this week that it would be donating $1 million to the beleaguered women’s health provider to help serve the women of Texas.
“For nearly 100 years Planned Parenthood has helped to educate men and women regarding family planning and general family health,” said Margot Perot in a written statement. “Our family has supported this nonprofit for many years because we are impressed with the work they do — providing birth control; scientifically based education; breast health exams; and basic, life-saving healthcare for women who cannot afford services otherwise.”

“We also recognize the need to further inform the public of the mission of this great organization and the need to support it at this critical time,” she added.
Planned Parenthood of North Texas CEO Kenneth Lambrecht thanked the Foundation in a statement, saying, “We are thrilled that this generous gift will enable us to continue providing basic, preventive health care. Thanks to the generosity of The Perot Foundation and other community members, Planned Parenthood is proud to be here for the Texans who count on us, no matter what.”

10 October 2012

Romney's Remarks On Abortion Cause A Stir 10OKT12

ONE might say the flip-flopper is back, but this is actually more like mitt robme romney playing the electorate, this time women, for votes while keeping his real political agenda hidden. Just consider how he ran for governor of Massachusetts, presenting the moderate romney to voters and then governing as the extreme right wing social engineer he is. Voter beware! This from NPR, and you can check out romney's deceptive campaigning history at Mitt Romney's Role as Mormon Bishop Shows His Extremist Religious Beliefs 15SEP12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/mitt-romneys-role-as-mormon-bishop.html

Mitt Romney's comments on abortion have surprised those on both sides of the issue.
  Evan Vucci/AP Mitt Romney's comments on abortion have surprised those on both sides of the issue.
Just how many abortion positions does Mitt Romney have? Once again, that answer is unclear.
This time the confusion began Tuesday, during a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register.
"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," Romney said.
He went on to add that he would use an executive order to reinstate the "Mexico City Policy," which bars U.S. aid to international groups that lobby or pay for abortions.
But the comment about not pushing abortion-restricting legislation surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate.
  "That's quite a shock, coming from Mitt Romney, who has consistently called for the overturn of Roe v Wade; who said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would do just that; who has an extensive pro-life agenda on his website that anybody can access," says Beth Shipp, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
That agenda includes things like defunding Planned Parenthood, which would require legislation. Romney has also endorsed legislation to ban abortions at the point fetuses can theoretically feel pain.
In addition to a terse statement from the campaign vowing that, if elected, Romney would "be a pro-life president," the candidate himself tried to walk back some of his comments when asked by reporters at a campaign stop Wednesday.
"I think I've said time and again, I'm a pro-life candidate. I'll be a pro-life president," he said during a rope line in Ohio.
Even before Romney's walk back, however, he was being defended, if somewhat weakly, by abortion opponents.
"No one likes to be caught flat-footed or see your hero flat-footed. But those moments do come," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Dannenfelser said she thinks Romney's comment to the editorial board was nothing more than a slip — that he just has too much else on his mind to keep issues like abortion front and center.
"I think the simple truth of the matter is his head is in jobs and the economy almost all day long, almost every single day," she said. "And of course we want at least a third of his focus to be on it all the time, but you don't always get everything that you want."
NARAL's Shipp, however, thinks it's anything but an accident — just as it was no accident when Romney said in a CBS evening news interview in August that he supported abortions when the pregnant woman's health — not just her life — was threatened. That position was also reversed later, quietly, by staff.
"I know Mitt Romney really wants women to vote for him," Shipp says. But the way that he's going about this, by lying to people about where he stands on the issues, is not going to serve him well come Nov. 6."
Still, political scientist John Green of the University of Akron says what Romney is doing isn't all that unusual.
"There's a long tradition of candidates adopting one kind of position for a broad audience, maybe on television, then having a different position in direct mail or in smaller venues," he says.
Green says Romney is running into trouble because in today's world of Twitter and nonstop cable news, there's no such thing as being able to deliver different messages to anyone anymore.
"We've discovered over the last couple of election cycles, and we've seen it in many examples this year, is that it's hard to keep those different venues separate because of our communication technology today," Green says.
With an issue as touchy as abortion, that can become even more hazardous, says Green.
"The people who really care about something like abortion, whether they're in the Republican base or the Democratic base, have very firm convictions on where a candidate should stand," he says. "And variation on those convictions can create very real problems."
Those problems include both alienating one's own voters, and mobilizing those on the other side.
At least for now, however, Romney seems to be making it work. There's still nearly a month until Election Day, however, and two more debates to go.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/10/162667478/romney-causes-yet-another-abortion-stir?ft=1&f=1014

28 September 2012

GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOD PAC's newspaper and other ads / e mails filled with falsehoods 27SEP12

THESE are pathetic, not only because they are such  obvious lies targeting the voluntarily ignorant and right wing racist, but also because they are run by right wing christian extremist who make a mockery of Christianity by deliberately lying and promoting hatred, fear and racism through manipulation, deception, and misinformation. In reality these people are as warped and twisted as those islamic extremist who have perverted Islam to justify their violations of that faith, the only difference is government is not god pac wants to impose christian sharia on America. From the govt is not god website "Government Is Not God is a political action committee for social conservatives founded in 1992 by William J. Murray who is currently the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. The mission of Government Is Not God - PAC is the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues." IF their beiefs are so moral, and they are moral christians why do they have to lie about their beliefs? From PolitiFact, a compilation of the lies, deceptions, and misinformation being spread by the government is not god pac......

PAC's newspaper ad filled with falsehoods

By Becky Bowers, Jon Greenberg, Angie Drobnic Holan, Louis Jacobson, Molly Moorhead, Katie Sanders
Published on Wednesday, September 26th, 2012 at 7:56 p.m.
Updated Sept. 27, 2012
A full-page newspaper ad running in swing states purports to reveal "the true agenda of Barack Hussein Obama." It says he will:

"Force Christian organizations to pay for abortions."

"Force employers to give illegal immigrants the jobs of U.S. citizens."

"Force police agencies to allow Muslim brotherhood to select staff."

" Force creation of a permanent government funded ‘underclass.’ "

It’s from a political action committee that operates under the name "Government is Not God," or GING-PAC for short. The group claims the ad has run in 19 newspapers in Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

Compared with other outside spending groups, GING-PAC is a relatively small player. It started in 1994 and has spent less than $100,000 in most elections, supporting Republicans such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Missouri U.S. Rep. Todd Akin. (Akin is the Senate candidate who said women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape.")

The group’s latest ad found its largest audience when it ran in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Sunday. The Herald-Tribune, citing policy, would not disclose the ad’s cost. The ad has also reportedly run in Florida newspapers that serve Bonifay, Cross City, Gilchrist, Madison and Winter Haven.

The ad’s claims riled some voters in Sarasota, including Kindra Muntz, an activist who previously worked to get Florida’s electronic voting replaced with paper ballots. She’s organizing a protest in front of the newspaper’s offices Sept. 27, 2012.

"It’s an insult to people’s intelligence, really. ... It steps on just about everyone, and drags them into somebody’s hate agenda," Muntz said.

On Wednesday, the Herald-Tribune apologized in a note to readers, stating that the ad did not meet the newspaper’s "standards for fairness and accuracy."

Here at PolitiFact, we wondered if the ad’s claims had any merit. We looked into them, except one that was too vague to analyze, that Obama would "force creation of a permanent government funded 'underclass.'" All the ratings are here; some we've also expanded into separate fact-checks.

We contacted GING-PAC and asked for evidence for the group’s claims. William J. Murray said the group didn’t need evidence because it was making predictions.

"If a politician is willing to walk you halfway to hell, it is likely that he will walk you the rest of the way there," Murray said via email.

The ad's claims are not couched as predictions, however, but as representations of Obama's actual policies and proposals. We've fact-checked their points by comparing them with Obama's previous positions, his proposals for a second term, and his public comments.

"Force police agencies to allow Muslim brotherhood to select staff"

We found nothing in Obama’s stated policies or positions to support this claim. Still, we ran it by Phil Lynn, director of the National Law Enforcement Policy Center, a division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He said he’d never heard of the claim, and that most states and local agencies have boards that control hiring and firing decisions.

"Trying to force this on local jurisdictions would be irregular and out of place," Lynn said. "I would think many states would balk at it."

Such an idea is not only unconstitutional, it’s also ridiculous, said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

"It just doesn’t make any sense," said Howard Simon. "It’s incoherent that a police agency would give an outside group the power to pick its own staff."

We found no evidence that Obama’s ever mentioned anything like this. We rate this statement Pants on Fire.
"Force doctors to assist homosexuals in buying surrogate babies"

Experts who follow issues involving same-sex couples and parenthood were perplexed by this one. "We have no idea what this claim is based on," said Eleanor Nicoll, public affairs manager for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Plus, buying babies is illegal. We rate this one Pants on Fire.
"Force employers to give illegal immigrants the jobs of U.S. citizens"
This is a preposterous claim that, in one interpretation, suggests that Obama wants to deny jobs to U.S. citizens and give them to illegal immigrants. We’re not sure how that would even work. Would employers be forced to seek out illegal immigrants, verify their legal status, hire them and then confirm that they took the jobs of legal citizens?

If anything, the Obama administration’s record shows an increasingly tougher stance on the hiring of unauthorized workers. The number of employers hit with penalties rose more than 20-fold, from 18 in 2008 to 385 in 2011. In the same period, total fines increased from $675,000 to $9.2 million. Use of the electronic employee verification system, E-Verify, quadrupled, from 88,000 employers in 2008 to 354,000 in 2012.

GING-PAC points to the president’s executive order to defer deportation of illegal immigrants under 30 who have no criminal record, have graduated or are in school and have lived in the country for more than five years. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 700,000 18 to 30-year-olds might be immediately eligible and could apply for the two-year work permits. Over time, the number would rise to 1.7 million. Bob Dane with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that favors stronger immigration controls, said this could put these people in competition for jobs.

"The people will still be illegal," Dane said. "And they would be taking a job from a U.S. citizen."

Things could go that way. But there’s still nothing forcing employers to hire anyone except who they want. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
"Force states to pay the college tuition of illegal immigrants' children"

This claim conflates several issues related to immigration. To begin with, children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are citizens. A federal court recently overturned a Florida law that denied in-state tuition to the citizen children of illegal immigrants who were Florida residents. Immigration experts said the federal government couldn’t force states to pay college tuition for immigrants -- or for any other students, for that matter. We rate this claim False.

"Force all states to permit same-sex 'marriages' "

The ad’s basis for this is the president’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

Is opposing the law the same thing as wanting to force all states to permit same-sex marriages? Not according to Obama. "I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue," he said in a May interview, adding, "I think it is a mistake to try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue."

Even if Obama changed his mind, he would have to introduce legislation in Congress to require states to recognize gay marriages. And even if that passed, it would likely be unconstitutional, according to Dale Carpenter, a civil rights professor at the University of Minnesota. "The court has explicitly said that family law is a matter for states to decide," he said. We rate the ad’s claim False.

"Force Christian organizations to pay for abortions"

Under the 2010 health care law, Christian organizations won’t be "forced" to hand over money for abortion procedures performed at clinics by doctors. But the law does expand coverage requirements for preventive care. And preventive care, as defined by the Obama administration, includes birth control, emergency contraceptives and sterilization -- and some people equate those services with abortion.

The administration created an exemption for religious organizations by requiring insurance companies to pay for those services. But anti-abortion groups say the exemption is just a shell game.
 
That controversy is real, but the ad’s claim creates a misleading impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.

"Force Christian schools to hire non-Christian teachers"

The only basis for this claim is a 2012 Supreme Court decision involving a teacher who said she  lost her job in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She sued to get her job at a private Christian school back. The federal government supported her case, but the court unanimously ruled against her on First Amendment grounds.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did address the proper balance between the government and religious institutions in personnel decisions at schools. But even participants in the case say it had nothing to do with ordering schools to hire people. We rate this claim False.

"Force courts to accept Islamic Sharia Law in domestic disputes"

There have been isolated instances when U.S. courts have used sharia law. But we couldn’t find any instances of the Obama administration supporting that.

On top of that, the notion would violate the separation of powers, said Glenn Hendrix, an Atlanta-based attorney and past chair of the American Bar Association’s section on International Law. Hendrix said there’s no substance to the ad’s claim.

"Even if the administration were somehow pushing sharia law -- and of course it’s not -- the executive branch cannot force courts to accept any particular law," Hendrix said.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire.

"Force local authorities to allow Occupy protesters to live in parks"

Occupy Wall Street is a loosely organized movement that draws attention to income inequality. In 2011, it set up camp in New York City’s Zuccotti Park and then spread to other cities.

Protesters have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, but local governments are generally allowed to enforce time and place restrictions on those gatherings. A 1984 Supreme Court opinion said governments may outlaw sleeping in parks, even during protests.

We couldn’t find any evidence that Obama or his administration opposed existing law on this point. Also, a president can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision anyway. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

Obama is "the only President in history who has deliberately removed the words 'endowed by their Creator' when referring to our Declaration of Independence, not once, but several times"

The ad ends with a tagline accusing Obama of taking some godless liberties with the language in the Declaration of Independence. And indeed, we did find video of him paraphrasing that famous line, leaving out the "creator." Several conservative websites appear to be tracking his omissions.

But there’s also video evidence of him saying those words -- the blog of the liberal group People for the American Way even put together a compilation video of Obama reciting the "endowed by their creator" language. And the site UrbandLegends.com dug up examples of other presidents paraphrasing the Declaration and omitting the "creator." Which presidents, you ask? Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
We rate the statement False.
"Force military chaplains to perform same-sex 'marriages' "

To back up this one, Murray sent us links to articles from conservative news sites the Blaze and Breitbart.com.

The evidence? The White House’s Office of Management and Budget had opposed part of a defense bill that would, according to the Blaze, "protect military chaplains who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Seemed like pretty good evidence that the alternative might be true: in the White House’s preferred world, military chaplains wouldn’t be able to refuse!

The reality? The Defense Department already protects chaplains from performing ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs. The defense bill provision (which didn’t pass) was much broader — which is why the White House opposed it. Meanwhile, a group that advocates for gay and lesbian service members hasn’t heard any inkling that the president would want to force chaplains to perform same-sex marriages.

"If that were true, it'd be absurd," said David McKean, legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/26/pacs-newspaper-ad-filled-falsehoods/

THIS WEEK IN CIVIL LIBERTIES 21SEP12

THIS week in civil liberties, from all us good people at the ACLU (YES, I am a member!), articles on the US Constitution, family planning, the government and your smartphone, debt collectors and privacy.......

This Week in Civil Liberties (9/21/2012)

By Rekha Arulanantham, ACLU at 5:05pm
What excuse did an Indiana public school use in order to fire a teacher for becoming pregnant through IVF treatment?
What device packed with private information like emails, photos and call history can be seized and searched without a court order? (Hint: It might be in your pocket or purse right now.)
Why do Americans know so little about the Constitution they claim to revere?
How do debt collectors and prosecutors use the criminal justice system to financially exploit vulnerable Americans?
Why do politicians push harder for better privacy protections when they find themselves victims of bad privacy policy?
Fired for My Family
Emily Herx, a teacher at a Catholic school in Indiana, was fired after the school discovered she used in-vitro fertilization to try to become pregnant. The teacher filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later a lawsuit in federal court alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability. The ACLU has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. It would be illegal for almost any employer to fire an employee who is (or is trying to become) pregnant.  But in this case, the school is arguing it is entitled to discriminate because it is a religiously affiliated school.
Keeping the Government Out of Your Smartphone
Smart phones can be a cop's best friend. They are packed with private information like emails, text messages, photos, and calling history. Unsurprisingly, law enforcement agencies now routinely seize and search phones. This occurs at traffic stops, during raids of a target's home or office, and during interrogations and stops at the U.S. border. These searches are frequently conducted without any court order.
However, just because the courts have permitted law enforcement agencies to search seized smart phones, that doesn't mean that youhave any obligation to make it easy for them.
Happy Constitution Day!
It turns out that although most Americans (over three-quarters) say they are very proud of our Constitution, only five percent could accurately answer 10 basic questionsabout its contents. Sixty-twopercent couldn’t name the three branches of the federal government (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) and one-third couldn’t name even one branch; over half did not know the number of senators (100); only six percent could name “the four rights” guaranteed by the First Amendment (free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition for redress of grievances – or is that really five or even six rights?) and one-quarter couldn’t name any; one-sixth incorrectly believe the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation.
Sept. 17 was the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. If you want to give the Constitution a birthday present, join or rededicate yourself to supporting its defenders.
Debt Collectors Aren't Prosecutors and Shouldn't Pretend to Be
According to a recent New York Times article, prosecutors and debt collectors are working together to threaten bad check writers with jail, even when no crime has been committed.
Here’s how it works.  Someone writes a check to a merchant such as Wal-Mart (whether the person intends to defraud the merchant is irrelevant). The check bounces.  The person then receives a letter signed by the local district attorney, on official letterhead, stating that the person can be sent to jail unless he or she agrees to pay the amount of the check, plus fees, plus the cost of a “financial accountability” class. The person is not informed that the letter is actually sent by a debt collection company or that no one at the district attorney’s office has reviewed the case.  If the person agrees to take the class, the class participation fee is split between the debt collection company and the district attorney’s office.
When Privacy Gets Personal for Policymakers
To those of us who think about privacy a lot, it’s not just funny but also amazing how, when public officials discover they can be at the receiving end of bad privacy policies, it tends to produce an immediate, electric effect on policy. We’ve already written about the Video Privacy Protection Act, which was passed after a journalist obtained Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental records. At a time when video stores were a primary means of accessing pornography, Congress sat bolt upright and quickly passed an unusually strong law—albeit one that covered only video rental records and failed to address any of the other privacy problems the nation was facing.
This is your week in civil liberties. Let us know if this is useful or if you'd like to see changes. Share your thoughts: ideas@aclu.org
Learn more about your rights: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.