Legislative Summary

To ensure marriage remains reserved to one man and one woman will require amending the

U.S. Constitution. Either through a Full Faith and Credit decision or through a substantive due

process decision, it is all but certain the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex "marriage." The

sole remaining recourse against such runaway judicial activism is through an amendment to the

Constitution of the United States. State and federal courts have taken the power to define

that it will require same-sex "marriage" as part of everyone's liberty to express oneself sexually,

without suffering discrimination--signals the final stage of this takeover. As Robert Bork says,

"One way or another, federalism is going to be overridden. The only question is whether the

general rule will permit or prohibit marriage of same-sex couples."

Background

"marriage" might spread across the country. The first is piecemeal: one state at a time--

similar to how no-fault divorce laws spread during the late 1960’s and the 1970’s. Secondly,

same-sex "marriage" might also spread by the migration of couples demanding recognition of

their Massachusetts vows in other states; or finally, by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion declaring

Court will have the last word on whether there is a constitutional right for two persons of the

only way to ensure that the Court as well as state judges and legislatures do not provide legal

recognition of same-sex "marriage" is to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Legislative History

Efforts to prevent same-sex "marriage" include the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act

(DOMA) as well as legislative efforts in the states to prevent the legalization of such unions.

Currently 17 states have passed state amendments to their Constitutions, all passed with

overwhelming public support. Both the Federal DOMA and the state amendments are/will be

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced amendments that would prohibit the U.S.

Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its

legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of one man and one woman. The

Senate bill had 19 cosponsors and on July 14, 2004 failed on a cloture motion 48-50. The House

version had 131 cosponsors and on September 30, 2004 the legislation failed to get the needed

2/3 majority (227-186.) With the 2004 elections there was a pick-up in the Senate of four proamendment

votes. On January 24, 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 1, the Marriage Protection

Amendment was introduced by Senator Allard. The House companion bill is expected to follow

shortly.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

This bill would 1) require those who perform abortions on unborn children 20 weeks after

fertilization or later to inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the

unborn child feels pain, which would be done through a) a verbal statement given by the

abortion provider, and also b) by providing a brochure – developed by the Department of Health

and Human Services – that goes into more detail than the verbal statement on the medical

evidence of the pain experienced by the unborn child; 2) ensure that the woman, if she chooses

to continue with the abortion procedure after being given the medical information, has the

option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child’s pain is less severe.

Background

An unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock. In a

slaughterhouse, a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if “all animals are

rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical, or other

means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut.” By

contrast, D&E (dilation and extraction) abortions, performed as late as 24 weeks, involve the

dismemberment of the unborn child with a pair of sharp metal forceps. Instillation methods of

abortion (performed even in the third trimester) involve the replacement of up to a cup of

amniotic fluid with a concentrated salt solution, which the unborn child inhales as the salt burns

her skin. The child lives in this condition for up to an hour. In neither of these techniques is the

unborn child provided with any form of anesthesia.

An April 15-17, 2004, Zogby poll of more than 1,200 people found 77% saying that they favored

laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies be given

information about fetal pain before having an abortion.

Legislative History

The idea for such a bill came from the legal challenge to a ban on partial-birth abortion when

evidence was introduced that the unborn child experiences significant pain from the procedure.

Findings were also included in the PBA ban signed into law, and the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York heard testimony explaining the pain of the unborn child. First

introduced by Senator Sam Brownback and Rep. Chris Smith in May of 2004 (S. 2466/H.R.

4420), it gained 26 cosponsors in the Senate and 115 in the House. Congressional hearings in

the debate surrounding a ban on partial-birth abortion. Senator Brownback and Representative

House bill number is H.R. 356.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

The Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) would make it a federal offense to transport a minor

across state lines for an abortion if this action circumvents the application of a state law

requiring parental involvement in a minor’s abortion (or judicial waiver of such a requirement).

Background

Over thirty states have laws in effect that require the consent or notification of at least one

parent, or court authorization, before a minor can obtain an abortion. The CCPA would curb

much of the current interstate circumvention of these laws, thereby protecting the rights of

parents and the well being of vulnerable minors. The CCPA is not a federal parental

involvement law; it merely ensures that these state laws are not evaded through interstate

activity. It does not encroach on state powers, but rather protects them.

Sadly, the interstate transportation of minors to procure an abortion often serves to conceal

criminal activity such as statutory rape. Abortion clinics on state borders often advertise in the

yellow pages of phone books in states with parental consent laws in order to attract minors

across state lines. These clinics intentionally market to minors to circumvent state laws.

Schools require parental involvement for fieldtrips, medications, early school release, and

academic decisions such as sex education, yet with reckless disregard for state laws, a stranger

can legally transport a minor across state lines and have her undergo a potentially lifethreatening

and certainly life-altering procedure. If parental consent is required for ear piercing

then certainly it is appropriate to protect parental involvement in a minor’s decision concerning

an abortion.

Legislative History

current House sponsor is Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and in the Senate, John Ensign (R-NV).

Senate it is possible to successfully move the bill through Congress. Senator Brownback and

is S. 8.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

The Cloning Prohibition Act is meant to protect human dignity by preventing the creation – through

cloning – of living human beings. Human beings should not be reduced to commodities that can be

bought and sold, or used for research. In order to prohibit and criminalize the cloning of human

beings, bills were introduced in both the House and Senate by Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL)

and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). The House has passed the Human Cloning Prohibition Act

twice by wide margins, and the President supports a full ban on human cloning. This bill would

make it illegal for any person or entity to “knowingly – 1) perform or attempt to perform human

cloning; 2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; 3) to ship or receive for any

purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.”

Background

The rapidly accelerating pace of scientific development has necessitated Congress’s consideration of

measures unforeseen just a few years ago. Animal cloning has become the focus of many new studies

and experiments, and lawmakers feel a need to act in some way to restrain unbridled scientific

procedures that would ultimately lead to human cloning. (Tied intrinsically to the issue of human

cloning is that of embryonic stem cell research. The distinction between adult stem cells and

embryonic stem cells is essential in this debate.)

Throughout its dealings with the issues of human cloning (“somatic cell nuclear transfer” or SCNT)

and embryonic stem cell research, Congress has considered a variety of measures falling into two

main categories: one involves the prohibition of one or all uses of human cloning, while the other

deals with a prohibition of federal funding for human cloning research. Within the first category a

Therapeutic cloning allows for the creation of a cloned human life but mandates its destruction

before it lives a certain number of days, or even weeks. Reproductive cloning addresses survival of

the clone to a live birth. Both categories involve the same procedures to create a cloned life, the only

difference being what is done (or intended to be done) with the embryo.

Legislative History

A strong majority in the House supports a total ban on human cloning whereas the Senate is divided

between roughly forty Senators who support a total ban and forty who support “therapeutic cloning”

but are calling for a ban on “reproductive cloning” and twenty who are uncommitted. Senator

combining animal and human organisms. Congress first considered making the practice of human

cloning a criminal act in 1997. The bill was introduced by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) but saw no

action in the committee to which it was assigned. This bill was followed by a flurry of Senate bills in

early 1998, with total bans introduced by Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Trent Lott (R-MS), and

partial bans by Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Senator Lott’s bill, S.

1601, was the only one to receive consideration on the floor, but it was filibustered and cloture was

not invoked by a vote of 42-54. The House has passed complete bans sponsored by Dave Weldon (RFL)

sponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS) and a false ban (allows for “therapeutic cloning”) pushed by

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and

Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

Known as the “Vitter Amendment” this rider to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill

would disqualify private agencies such as Planned Parenthood that provide abortions from

receiving grants or contracts under the Title X planning program.

Text of the Vitter Amendment: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to make

any award of a grant or contract under Title X or the Public Health Service Act for fiscal year

2004 or any subsequent fiscal year to any private grantee, delegate, or clinic that provides

chemical or surgical abortion.”

Background

Title X, a mainstay of the U.S. family planning program, specifies that public funding “may not

be used in programs in which abortion is a method of family planning.” In other words, federal

funds cannot be used for abortion directly, but those funds can indirectly fund abortion by

funding everything needed to keep the abortion business going. A conservative estimate is that

about $60 million goes annually to private agencies that provide abortion. Many of these

providers obtain the funds to:

• establish a financial base for their business

• gain access to additional customers

• improve their image by serving as legitimate, government-funded family planning

providers.

In effect, your tax dollars are keeping some abortion providers in business. These subsidies to

the abortion industry are contrary both to the intent of the law and to public opinion, which is

strongly opposed to federal subsidies to the abortion industry.

Legislative History

The Amendment has had a strong advocate in David Vitter (R-LA) who is now in the Senate, so

new House sponsor for the language will need to be found. The best way to adopt this language

would be for the House to pass it either in committee or on the floor and appoint conferees that

would protect it. It is unlikely to pass the Senate as the Senate is much less favorable to

restricting Title X funding and it would need 60 votes.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Judicial Philosophy

Most Americans assume that a judge simply applies the law as written (sometimes referred to as

“strict constructionism” or “originalism” or “judicial restraint”). However, modern judicial

activism has threatened the constitutional form of representative democracy as conceived by the

Founding Fathers. Under this conception, elected representatives have the power to make the

laws and the people have the power to confirm or reverse those laws every time they go to the

ballot box. This kind of judicial philosophy, of course, would uphold pro-life laws and would

Political Landscape

The appointment of activist judges is the most powerful tool liberals have. Without activist

judges on the bench most of the liberal agenda would not find its way into American law or

culture. Throughout the first term of President Bush, Senate Democrats obstructed known

conservatives, especially those considered potential Supreme Court nominees. Liberals can

filibuster by refusing to vote for cloture, which only takes forty Senators to block. It is likely that

the battle over Supreme Court nominations will be the political line drawn by the Democrats.

They will likely risk the obstructionist label in order to block any non-activist Justice. The

Judiciary Committee is now under the chairmanship of Arlen Specter (R-PA) who has hinted at

a pro-abortion litmus test. Because of his statements immediately following the election he has

been forced to make concessions that might strengthen the ability of the President to nominate a

judge who advocates “originalism” for the bench.

Procedural Options

If the Democrats do not allow the Senate to invoke cloture and, consequently, block a nominee’s

vote before the full Senate, Republicans have limited options. One would be for a rule change

that would incrementally decrease the number needed for cloture from 60 to 51. The other

option, sometimes referred to the “constitutional option” or the “nuclear option,” would call for

a ruling from the chair, at which point the Senate president or president pro tempore (Dick

Cheney and Ted Stevens, respectively) would rule the filibuster unconstitutional and move

directly to a vote decided by simple majority. If Republicans pursue this option some

Democrats would cry foul and threaten to shut down any other Senate business.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Since the Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s, the federal courts have taken an increasingly

prominent role in American political life. Americans may disagree about the particulars of each

decision, but there can be little dispute that the courts have been expanding their role and

increasing their influence over the democratic process. The question is what the people can do

when they believe the courts have plainly overreached – when unelected judges reinterpret the

Constitution in ways that are fundamentally at odds with the American people’s common

constitutional understanding and expectations. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

provides Congress with the authority to eliminate federal court jurisdiction over specific issues.

The practical effect of such jurisdiction-limiting legislation would be to allow disputes to be

handled by state courts, where judges do not serve for life and tend to be closer to the people.

are three that are of particular interest:

The Pledge Protection Act

This bill would declare that no court established by Congress can declare the phrase “under

Congress but failed to receive Senate consideration.

The Religious Liberties Restoration Act

This bill would remove from federal court review the issue of displaying the Ten

Commandments, the National Motto (“In God We Trust”) and the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill

is the most inclusive of the various court jurisdiction bills.

The Marriage Protection Act

This is Representative John Hostettler’s bill, which would remove DOMA’s full faith and credit

clause provision from any federal court’s purview, leaving the question to state courts and

legislatures. DOMA affirms that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex “marriage”

failed to receive Senate consideration.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, introduced in the House of

Representatives by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), would permit houses of worship to engage in the

full range of political speech to the same extent that is currently permitted them for issue

advocacy and lobbying without compromising the organization's tax exempt status.

Background

When Congress was debating the Revenue Act of 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson

sponsored a floor amendment that banned Section 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in

political activities. This became law and is the reason 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely

banned from engaging in political campaigning or endorsing candidates, including speaking out

on the moral qualifications of a particular candidate for office. Johnson apparently proposed

this amendment to counteract a nonprofit organization that opposed his candidacy for senator.

The law swept up houses of worship with other nonprofits. Neither Johnson, the IRS, nor the

Supreme Court has ever asserted that the prohibition is required by the Establishment Clause of

the First Amendment, nor is there any legal precedent that does so. It is FRC's position that this

law is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act would end government entanglement in

reviewing churches' political speech and reduce the burden on the free exercise and free speech

rights of houses of worship. It will give back to churches what was unjustly taken from them 50

years ago: the freedom to speak however they feel led to speak, whether the issue is construed as

political or not. Today, religious leaders do not have the freedom to educate their congregations

on the issues, and empower them to make informed decisions. If The Houses of Worship Free

Speech Restoration Act is passed, religious leaders' First Amendment rights will be restored.

They would then be able to engage in lobbying, including issue advocacy, influence legislation,

speak out on moral and political issues, take part in political campaigns and endorse candidates,

so long as these activities do not constitute a "substantial part" of the organization's activities.

This is already happening in many “liberal” churches without threat of reprisal from the IRS,

and this bill would simply level the playing field for all churches.

Legislative History

Walter Jones first introduced this bill in 2001. He has been a tireless advocate of the legislation,

his making it his number one priority. It received a suspension vote in October of 2002 when it

failed to get the required 2/3 majority (178-239). He has since worked to have the essentials of

the bill adopted as an amendment to a “must pass” appropriations bill. Finance Committee

Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) has promised to protect the language in the Senate should the

House pass a spending bill with the amendment included. On January 4, 2005 Representative

Jones reintroduced H.R. 235, Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

The tax relief provisions passed in 2001, 2003 and 2004 must be made permanent. Top among

these provisions are the $1,000 per child tax credit, death tax repeal and marriage tax penalty

relief. The U.S. tax code places married couples in the tax bracket of the household's highest

earner, something that costs couples more money than they would pay if each spouse filed

separately. Without permanency these provisions will expire on December 31, 2010, resulting in

a large tax increase for families. The pro-growth elements of President Bush's tax cut plan

should be viewed only as the first step in effective tax reform.

Background

Marriage is the heart of family and the foundation of civilization. Rather than discouraging

marriage, the tax code should provide incentives for marriage. A permanent elimination of the

marriage tax penalty and expediting the expansion of the per-child tax credit are direct means

for the government to strengthen the family. This marriage penalty forces 25 million families to

pay an average of $1,400 a year more in taxes. Over the span of a decade, that money could pay

for a family car, a college education or the down payment on a new home. In 2011, the Death

Tax Elimination Act of 2001 also dies. Since 2001, the estate tax has been declining through a

gradual reduction in the top rate in 2000 of 55 percent kicking in at $675,000 of income. This

year, the top rate is 48 percent at $1.5 million. Further cuts will drop the tax to zero in 2010.

But then the next year, unless the tax cut is extended or made permanent, the original tax in

place in 2000 would be re-imposed (for estates of $1 million or more), which would be a

significantly adverse jolt to the economy. Most tax experts think President Bush first will ask

Congress to permanently extend the tax breaks past their current expiration dates. These

include lower tax brackets created in 2001 and 2003, marriage tax penalty relief, lower taxes on

dividends and capital gains, and death tax repeal. Assuming this push is successful, tax

simplification and reforms should be next. Every year over 1000 targeted tax cuts, for both

itemizers and non-itemizers, are introduced, and many of them pass. Beneficiaries range from

buyers of fishing poles and Christmas trees to whaling captains. Simplification, with certain

exemptions for parents, will ensure all taxpayers are treated fairly and allow average Americans

the ability to do their own tax returns without the help of professionals.

Legislative History

a vote of 339-65 in the House and 92-3 in the Senate. The bill extended and sped up the family

tax provisions (excluding the death tax) passed in previous Congresses. Representative Jennifer

Dunn (R-WA) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) usually introduce legislation to permanently repeal

version had 17.

Family Research Council Legislative Priorities

Legislative Summary

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act will raise the maximum fine for indecent broadcasts to

$500,000 per violation and will require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to

respond to indecency complaints within nine months.

Background

Congress must uphold its responsibility to American families to ensure commonsense decency

standards on the public airwaves. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act must be adopted.

Twenty CBS-affiliated stations that carried the 2004 Super Bowl show in which singer Janet

Jackson bared her breast during her performance were fined the maximum of $27,500 for a

total fine of $550,000. The FCC has given every indication that it is now taking its role seriously

in enforcing indecency standards on the public airwaves and levying maximum fines. Previous

lack of FCC enforcement of indecency laws has encouraged networks to add more and more

sexual incidents, fouler language, and even indecent exposure. Although the maximum fines

were imposed on CBS, the fine was inadequate and likely will not deter future incidents of

indecency. The passage of the Broadcast Decency language would transform the 'slap on the

wrist' into something more substantial. Had this bill been the law at the time of the CBS-Janet

Jackson performance, fines would have totaled $5,500,000. CBS and the networks will quickly

realize that higher fines make indecency on TV cost prohibitive.

Legislative History

introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. In the spring of 2004 the House

passed its bill by a vote of 391-22 and sent the legislation to the Senate where it stalled and

drowned among a number of germane and non-germane amendments. The language was

inserted by unanimous consent as an amendment to the 2005 Defense authorization, but was

stripped in Conference. Senator Brownback once again tried to insert the language into the

2005 Omnibus bill, H.R. 4818. This effort was halted by Democrats on the Senate Commerce

Committee who protested against the provision that performers would be fined alongside media

owners. Senator Brownback and Representative Upton have both reintroduced Broadcast