Banner 2 no message
Missouri Family E-NewsJune 21, 2011


Nixon Pressured
to Veto Ban of Late-Term Abortions

Pro-abortion groups are mounting a vigorous campaign to convince Governor Jay Nixon to veto legislation banning most late-term abortions in Missouri.


Planned Parenthood is spearheading a push to persuade Nixon to veto two identical bills passed by the General Assembly this session which prohibit abortions of viable preborn children.


The bills, sponsored by Senator Rob Mayer and Representative Tim Jones, were adopted by the Missouri House and Senate with strong bi-partisan veto-proof majorities.


The proposals would limit late-term abortions to instances when the mother's life is in danger or when continuation of the pregnancy would result in significant health risks to the mother.  The legislation would essentially put an end to post-viability abortions performed for reasons of "mental health" or" emotional distress."


The proposed statute would impose major criminal penalties on doctors who perform illegal late-term abortions.  Doctors who violate the law would face jail time, hefty fines, and the loss of their license to practice medicine.


Enactment of the law would prevent the establishment of abortion clinics in Missouri which market late-term abortion procedures.  Kansas and Nebraska have been home to notorious assembly-line late-term abortionists.  Numerous states are passing late-term abortion bans, and without such a law on the books, Missouri becomes a more attractive place to set up a late-term abortion business.


Should Nixon veto the bills, it is a near certainty that his veto would be overridden.  Last year, the Governor chose to avoid a potential veto override of the ultrasound informed consent bill by allowing the bill to become law without his signature.  Nixon has until July 15th to make a decision about this year's bills.


We encourage you to contact Governor Nixon to urge him to sign Senate Bill 65 and House Bill 213.  You can do so by using this link:

Governor Jay Nixon


NBC Nixes "Under
 God" From Pledge of Allegiance

The NBC television network is facing a deluge of criticism for a video montage of the "Pledge of Allegiance" aired during Sunday's U.S. Open golf tournament.


The video, which included numerous patriotic images, noticeably deleted the phrase "under God" from the recitation of the pledge and the video images.  Within seconds of airing the video, the network received a barrage of calls from outraged viewers.


NBC quickly apologized on air, saying, "Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in the feature was edited out.  It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."


Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, isn't buying the apology.  "It is clear that this was not an accident, and the pathetic apology NBC is offering is not enough in addressing this controversy."


 "Sadly, we are seeing an erosion of expressions of faith from the public square.  Whoever dreamed that a major American television network would censor and remove the mention of God in a public broadcast?  Sadly, this shows how the very mention of God is under attack in our nation."


Jordan Sekulow, Director of Policy for the American Center for Law and Justice, says that NBC's apology for its "selective patriotism" is "too little, too late."


"NBC crossed a troubling line and offended millions of Americans by cutting the phrase 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.  The Pledge stands as a tribute to our heritage, our ideals, and the sacrifice of those who fought to protect our freedoms.  We must not allow the desecration of our heritage.  The words of our Pledge are sacrosanct--all of them.

NBC may be taking its cue from President Barack Obama who more than once in recent months has delivered speeches in which he deleted the words "under God" from his recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.


You can watch a Fox News report on the controversy by following this link:

NBC Censors Pledge 





Survey Shows Strong National Support for Traditional Marriage

Americans support the preservation of traditional marriage by overwhelming margins, according to a new national opinion survey.  The scientific poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies reveals that 62% of those questioned believe that "marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman."  Only 35% disagreed with that statement.


What is most notable about the results is that 53% of those surveyed felt strongly about preserving the traditional definition of marriage, an extremely high number for public sentiment on any subject.  The survey included a large nationwide sample of 1500 adults.


"Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society," says Brian Rau, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which commissioned the survey.  "The union between husband and wife benefits society--especially children--in unique ways that cannot be duplicated by any other relationship.  Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have recognized this universally defined ideal as the best way to promote healthy, natural families for the good of future generations."


"These numbers are not surprising," says Gene Ulm, director of the survey and partner of Public Opinions Strategies.  "More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments.  63% of those total voters have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman."  


Missouri citizens amended our State Constitution in 2004 to preserve the traditional definition of marriage with a 71% majority vote.  Even liberal states like California, Oregon,  and Maine have voted in favor of traditional marriage.


"This survey...shows the opposition has created an illusion of momentum but not a real base of support...Americans still strongly affirm the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civilization," Raum adds.


Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family, says that the drive to re-define marriage is the "last great frontier" in the campaign to re-engineer the institution of marriage.  "Those committed to this radical agenda have systematically broken down the cultural barriers to same-sex 'marriage' by desensitizing people on this issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them."


Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says the Public Opinion Strategies Survey brings new perspective to the debate over so-called "same-sex marriage."  "Advocates of same-sex 'marriage' would have you believe that a majority of Americans are now ready to throw man-woman marriage and mother-father households on the ash heap of history.  Don't believe it."


The Family Research Council has just released a new documentary entitled "The Problem with Same-Sex 'Marriage:' How it Will Affect You and Your Children."  The documentary includes comments by Missouri Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler.  You can watch a trailer of the documentary by using this link:

FRC Documentary


The Obama Administration has continued the President's aggressive campaign to alter American values on the subject of homosexuality by launching a new website on the White House's webpage ( promoting the virtues of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered lifestyles.  The website has been established in concert with the President's latest proclamation declaring June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."


The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that it is introducing "cultural competency training" to indoctrinate federal workers through "gay rights" and "gender identity" training.  HHS also announced that it is partnering with the Department of Education to host an "LGBT Film Festival" in "celebration" of "LGBT Pride Month."  The Washington Times reports that the Department of Agriculture is implementing 'cultural transformation training," including  discussion that compares "heterosexism" (the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman) to racism. 


By the time you read this article, the Legislature in New York will have likely decided whether it is going to redefine marriage in that state.  Currently, the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa have redefined marriage to include same-sex unions through court mandates or legislative action.  Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and most recently Illinois have legalized "civil unions," a legal arrangement tantamount to marriage. 


You can read an excellent article entitled "Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage?'" on the website of the North Carolina Family Policy Council, a state which is working to pass a pro-marriage constitutional amendment.  The article provides responses to ten common arguments advanced in favor of the redefinition of marriage.  It is written by Daniel Heimbach, a professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  He is the author of the book True Sexual Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crisis.  You can access Heimbach's article by clicking this link:

Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage?' 

Joe's Signature