Federal Money, Faith Based Charities & Family Planning

[Fear Itself]

Does anyone else see the monumental hypocrisy in two of Dubya's first executive orders?

On the one hand, he decrees that no federal funds will be given to international family planning groups that also provide abortions, even though all abortions are paid for with private funds. Apparently, Dubya cannot comprehend that, and assumes that reducing financial support to family planning by such groups will reduce money available for abortions.

But then, the Mini Shrub says it is a good thing to give federal funds to churches to fund social support programs, even though every Supreme Court interpretation of the the Constitution says that is contrary to the First Amendment.

Apparently he has figured out a way for churches to keep their funds for social programs separate from money used to promote religious views; but the same methods won't work to keep federal funds for family planning separate from private funds for abortion.

Is he just incredibly dense, or does he just not care how it looks, so long as he can ram through the agenda bought and paid for by rich right wing Repugnicans?

[even sven]

Amazeing. I just read an article on this a minute ago, and rushed here to start a thread. But my thread was already started. Thank you SDMB!

Here is a link to an article: http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0101300146581152

Frankly, this is one of the scariest things I have ever read.

[evilbeth]

Originally posted by Fear Itself

Is he just incredibly dense, or does he just not care how it looks, so long as he can ram through the agenda bought and paid for by rich right wing Repugnicans?

Both. Next question.

[Jaakko]

Not to mention that Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press that Bush may try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade, in the interest of banning abortion altogether.

Here's the transcript:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/522998.asp

[David B]

From that same transcript, Cheney also was rattling his sabers at Iraq. Wonder if we're in for another "distraction" military move if Bush's policies don't get the kind of support he's looking for.

(Yeah, that's incredibly cynical. But call it a psychic prediction.)

[wring]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Not to mention that Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press that Bush may try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade, in the interest of banning abortion altogether.

Here's the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/522998.asp


Really?!?!?! Gee, where are all the Bush supporters who assured us that Roe V Wade was safe?

Yes, I too had noted the "interesting" philisophical position of : if we give any money at all to organizations who also provide any abortion information or services, that action indirectly funds abortions -But if we give money to churches for services other than their relgious programs, that's perfectly fine and not at all funding religion.

I will state FTR, that it is a time honored and acceptable accounting practice to have seperate streams of funding (remembering situations where my organization would pay for a work experience contract at, say the Salvation Army, but we had to make sure that the person was not performing work for the religious aspects of that organization - such as, they could mop the floor in the gymnasium, but not in the chapel). It is only when the organization provides any abortion information/services at all that apparently $$ gets tainted.

[Blondie]

This is the scariest thing I've seen in a long time. I can't believe people are falling for it! Everything I read says that they preach the gospel to all those poor folks who are recipients of the "social work." Teaching them how to manage a household "The Christian Way", if you will. I don't understand how this gets through the checks and balances! Surely the Supreme Court will have a say in this! JEEZ! I Hope so!

[Spiritus Mundi]

I was considering starting a similar thread. Bush's actions certainly seem to indicate a person who allows ideology to overwhelm consistency. Of course, that hardly makes him unique in the annals of politics. I wonder what Bush would say about giving federal funds to a faith-based group that provided social services and provided abortion counseling?

On thing that I find interesting is that administration spokesmen seem determined to ignore the decades-long history of federal support for social programs run by churches. Of course, present law requires said churches to create a separate organization to administer such programs, preserving a true separation between federally funded activities and religious activities. Perhaps they provide an embarrasing counterexample to the claim that Bush's initiative is not intended to erode that very separation.

One thing:

Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press that Bush may try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade

I read the transcript and I saw no such statement. Cheney refused to go on record saying that the administration would not try to overturn RvW. That does not imply that they will try to overturn it. Frankly, even if they have no plans to challenge the decision a public statement to that effect would be a foolish political move. The pro-choice lobby represents no significant source of political suport for Bush. The pro-life lobby does.

[Dinsdale]

Does anyone know why the current system, as described by SM,is considered inadequate such that this change is needed?
Under the proposed system, will funds be available to individual churches? I can easily imagine tremendous potential for abuse under such as system.

[Jaakko]

Spiritus Mundi,

How about this?

Even if you could not, at this stage, build majority support for the notion of changing Roe vs. Wade, there are other areas out there where I think we can get majority support for, such as banning partial-birth abortions.

Unless my English is failing me here, this bit seems to imply that overturning Roe vs. Wade is just a question of building support, ie. they'd do it if they could.

[matt_mcl]

*matt surreptitiously moves his chair another few inches north and makes sure his NDP membership is paid up*

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Not to mention that Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press that Bush may try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade, in the interest of banning abortion altogether.

Here's the transcript:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/522998.asp





Excuse me, Jaakko, but Cheney did not say the administration may try to overturn Roe V. Wade. He simply didn't commit the administration to a particular policy. Did you read the transcript? He was asked three questions relating to Roe v. Wade:

Q: "[Ashcroft] said in his testimony that Roe vs. Wade, the abortion case, is settled law, and as attorney general he will not seek to overturn it. Is that administration policy?"

A: "Well, I think it’s clearly the role of the attorney general to enforce the laws that are on the books and execute based on the decisions that the court’s made in various areas. And that’s clearly what John Ashcroft should do and what he committed to do as attorney general. That doesn’t mean that there might not be efforts on the part of the administration to do what we said during the campaign. Both President Bush and I talked about the desirability of trying to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion.

"Even if you could not, at this stage, build majority support for the notion of changing Roe vs. Wade, there are other areas out there where I think we can get majority support for, such as banning partial-birth abortions. Legislation passed the Congress, was vetoed by President Clinton. I would hope we could go back and redo that. There are other areas: advocating abstinence, making adoptions easier, working to encourage alternatives to abortion I think that are things we would to do as an administration."

Q: "But you won’t seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade?"

A: "I didn’t say that. I said that John Ashcroft, as you said, is specifically committed to, in his testimony, as he should, as the attorney general of the United States, to carrying out established law. And that’s established law. President Bush and I have talked—both of us strong supporters of the pro-life position—and the president’s made it very clear the policy of this administration will be to try to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion."

Q: "The first lady said Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. Do you agree with the first lady?"

A: "I’m especially not interested in getting in the middle of discussions between the president and the first lady on those or other issues."

- Rick

[Jaakko]

Bricker, look at my reply to SM above.

[Neurotik]

Just out curiosity, can anyone define a faith based charity for me? I work at a food bank that is run, organized, and mostly funded by the local parish. It takes place on the grounds of the church and a lot of the food is donated by parishioners. However, we also get FEMA donations in the form of flour, butter, corn meal, and canned fruits and vegetables when we are lucky. Does this constitute government funding of a faith-based charity?

[Kimstu]

Spiritus: On[e] thing that I find interesting is that administration spokesmen seem determined to ignore the decades-long history of federal support for social programs run by churches. Of course, present law requires said churches to create a separate organization to administer such programs, preserving a true separation between federally funded activities and religious activities.

This requirement has actually already been somewhat eroded over the past few years as "charitable choice" provisions (the brainchild, as it happens, of everybody's favorite Attorney General-designate, John Ashcroft) have been included in welfare reform. Wendy Kaminer has an interesting article, The Joy of Sects (http://www.americanprospect.com/print/V12/3/kaminer-w.html), on this subject in this week's American Prospect:

Before becoming enamored of charitable choice, the federal government more or less respected First Amendment prohibitions on direct public funding of "pervasively sectarian" organizations. Religious groups that provide social services have been eligible for government support, but they've generally been required to establish independently incorporated secular affiliates to receive and administer public funds, and they've been barred from using service programs for proselytizing and from delivering services in sectarian settings. [As Spiritus pointed out.] Charitable-choice bills challenge this principle by expressly providing for federal support of pervasively sectarian organizations. They allow services to be offered in sectarian environments--and they even permit government funds to be used for "sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization" if the funds are provided in the form of vouchers to individual recipients. And in most cases, religious groups that receive direct federal aid may use private dollars for "worship, instruction, or proselytization" in the context of federally supported programs. Since money is fungible, these provisions effectively allow all government funds--direct and indirect--to be used evangelically. [Which of course is exactly what Bush considers unacceptable when it comes to family-planning services that involve, or even mention, abortion.] That, of course, is the purpose of charitable-choice bills, which reflect the presumption that sectarian social service programs are innately superior to secular ones.


On the bright side, as Kaminer notes, this whole love affair between the right and "faith-based action" or "charitable choice" may self-destruct once what they perceive as "false" religions like the Wiccans or the Muslims or the Scientologists start lining up for their slices of the federal funding pie. In the meantime, however, look for a lot more government entanglement with religion in the near future.

(Anybody else cynically suspecting that a good deal of the current enthusiasm for "faith-based" services is motivated not just by sectarian zeal for saving souls but by avidity for cheap solutions? Secular antipoverty services run by the government have to employ professionals (though not very highly-paid professionals, to be sure) and involve lots of expensive bureaucracy for assessment and accountability. Local church charities, on the other hand, are largely volunteer-staffed, are traditionally much less concerned with assessment and accountability, and are popularly perceived as automatically virtuous and trustworthy (unless you're talking about a youth group run by Catholic priests, of course :rolleyes: ). And the more proselytizing you let them do, the more competition there is to provide such services, and the more money you save for your vitally important missile defense programs. Hey, it's win-win! [/cynicism])

Note added in preview: Yes Neurotik, your food bank is a faith-based charity. Yes, FEMA typically works with faith-based and other private charities to coordinate emergency relief.

[deb2world]

I do not understand why there needed to be an executive order for faith based charity. Churches can already get federal grants to fund charity programs. All they have to do is to apply for and receive 501(c)(3) status. This will allow the nonprofit organization to be able to solicit tax-deductible charitable contributions and apply for grant funding from foundations and corporations as well as the US gov't. I have not read the complete executive order so therefore do not understand the intricacies of this order but it seems that Pres. Bush has duplicated legislation that is already in place.

[Kimstu]

Almost, deb2. You're right that, as Spiritus and the Kaminer article I cited point out, churches already can receive federal funds for social programs in a number of different contexts. But when they do so as a 501(c)(3) organization, they have to comply with a whole host of federal requirements such as nondiscrimination, not involving the recipient of the federal funds directly in sectarian proselytizing, and so forth.

The existing "charitable choice" provisions, on the other hand, which Bush's executive order will greatly expand, remove these restrictions. Churches can provide their social services in sectarian settings and can apply whatever discriminatory hiring policies they want to staffers of their social-service programs whose salaries are paid with federal funds. And they are no longer restricted, thanks to Bush's order, to welfare, drug treatment, and community development programs; the executive order opens all federal grants to religious applicants. So no, this isn't really duplicating existing legislation; it is expanding some recent legislation in a direction radically different from the one government relationships with religious institutions have traditionally followed.

(Side note: if I understand this correctly, "all federal grants" really means all federal grants, not just those for social services. Which I suppose includes those for research in the social and physical sciences as well, meaning that federal grant-providing institutions like the NSF are going to see some interesting applications coming down the pike. All you Dopers who worry about tax dollars being used to teach "creation science" in public schools, how are you going to like it when tax dollars start getting spent to fund "research" on it? Or when the NSF has to fight lawsuits charging that their refusal to fund "creation science research" is due to religious discrimination? Think I'm being unrealistic and overreacting? Wait and see.)

[pldennison]

Kimstu, for once--mark it on your calendar!!--you and I are in absolute, 100% agreement.

I had a lengthy post in Scylla's "Vouchers and SOCAS" thread behind the Lemon standard for First Amendment challenges; I think the reasoning there is even more important when applied to the institutions under discussion in this thread. Already, the erosion of the church/state line under the Bush regime is beginning.

[Screwtape]

Originally posted by Kimstu
...All you Dopers who worry about tax dollars being used to teach "creation science" in public schools, how are you going to like it when tax dollars start getting spent to fund "research" on it? Or when the NSF has to fight lawsuits charging that their refusal to fund "creation science research" is due to religious discrimination? Think I'm being unrealistic and overreacting? Wait and see.) Sadly, I don't think you're being either one. I continue to watch the reign of George the Second, with open-mouthed, deer-in-the-headlights horror. I keep trying to make sense of it. Has he resolved to make no attempt at re-election? Is he getting messages from Planet Spengo? What sensible reason, that I am overlooking, would make him want to pander so to the Religious Reich?

I've tried to suggest that he just may not be very bright (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57199) , but few wish to believe. I think it will get easier.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Thanks for pointing out the "charitable choice" funging that is already taking place. As I said, there seems to be a calculated effort on the part of the administration to ignore the long history of federal support for church social programs once proper separation from religious practice is effected.

It appears Bush wants to portray this move as having no effect upon 1st Ammendment separation. Not only is this untrue, but (as the OP noted) it is also inconsistent with his attitude toward dispensing federal funds to international health organizations that also provide abortions or abortion counseling.

[The Ryan]

Spiritus Mundi, Bricker: I think it is safe to say that, while Cheney's statements are ambiguous as English statements, in political-speak Cheney pretty openly declared his intention to overturn RvW.

All you Dopers who worry about tax dollars being used to teach "creation science" in public schools, how are you going to like it when tax dollars start getting spent to fund "research" on it?
This anti-Creationist says bring it on! Creation "Scientists" are constantly complaining that they can't get funding for their research. I say let them have the money and let them embarrass themselves. It will just strengthen the case for evolution. The fact is, Creation "Science" isn't about research, it's about sifting through research that has already been done for post hoc "evidence". The foremost Creationist is a lawyer. What does that say about the strength of their dedication to research? I doubt that most of these people could write a grant proposal if their life depended on it. And if they were to get a grant, they would be required to report all of their results, not just the ones that agree with their position.

[Neurotik]

I would have to agree with The Ryan here on the subject of federal funds being used to fund creationism "research." Let them do it and see what they can come up with. My guess would be nothing. To paraphrase J.S. Mill, when you are in possession of the truth, allowing someone to speak falsely only reaffirms your knowledge of the truth. Same thing here.

Although, to be honest, I doubt it will get that far. Allowing federal money to faith based charity at least has a pretense of being an honest attempt at fixing some problems, allowing federal money for creationism research hardly has that semi-redeeming quality.

[MEBuckner]

"CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) -- A Delta 2 rocket lifted off this morning carrying NASA's new Ajalon Explorer probe. The controversial $500 million probe is designed to search for the 'missing day' which would have resulted from the Sun standing still as described in the Bible in Joshua 10:12-13...."

[JRDelirious]

Among the programs that could be incorporated under this new sectarian "charitable choice" there are, for instance, addiction-rehab programs in which "spiritual renewal" is the main tool for cleaning up -- i.e. the recovering addict is preached to and is to call explicitly upon the God of that congregation (as opposed to a vague "higher power") for "healing"; literacy programs based on religious readings; activities run by smaller congregations or denominations who feel they can't spin off an independent charitable entity. But the real difference is of having funds for the church/congregation/denomination itself to directly provide services as part of their ministry.

The rub may come when someone brings up accountability -- as in, "open the books and show me where the money went."

There may be quite a few denominations or congregations who say "no thanks" to being entangled with Uncle S. Let's hope so.

[Hazel]

I, too, am waiting with interest to see what will happen when non-Christian "faith based" (I hate that term!) organizations apply for federal bucks. The religious right will probably not really want to see funds go to Jewish organizations, let alone the Wiccans, the Muslims, the Budhists, etc. Is government now to define exactly which are "real" religions and which are not? That should be fun to watch.

[Stoid]

to see (unless I missed it in my quick scan) that no right-wing Shrub supporter Doper has popped in to try and justify what is NOTHING LESS THAN A FUCKING OUTRAGE...sorry...that's one reason i didn't start the thread, i knew I'd end up screaming hysterically.

The hypocrisy isn't surprising, after all, we had such blatant demonstrations of hypocrisy in from bush and co. oin the election mess, how could it be? - but still, it boggles the mind! Talk about both sides of the mouth. I am so angry, so horrified, so unbelievably pissed off and mortified.. and where is the outrage in Congress? Why is this going down so quietly, basically?

HELLO OUT THERE?

ARGGHH!!!!!

How is it possible that the Shrub could have ended up being so much worse than my worst fears??!?!! Let's see, I'm the president, so I guess that means I get to piss on the Constitution!

I'd cry, except if I start now I won't stop for 4 years.

[David B]

Oh, they'll allow some money to go to Jewish organizations so they can claim to represent "Judeo-Christian values."

With the others, I don't know that it will so much be specific exclusion or simply exclusion because the organizations aren't there. For example, many Christian groups already have charity set-ups and will be able to apply for money. Not too many similar Wiccan groups exist.

On a related note, here is a quote from Clarence Page's column in today's Chicago Tribune:

The government "cannot fund and will not fund religious activities," Bush said Tuesday. "But when people of religious faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them."

Oh? Judging by his record, discrimination "against" religious groups should be the least of their worries.

For example, while Bush was governor of Texas his state gave $8,000 to a church-run jobs program that required Bible study, according to a suit by the American Jewish Congress and the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The program, called the Jobs Partnership of Washington County, described itself as teaching participants to "find employment through a relationship with Jesus Christ." It bought Bibles for them and, in evaluation forms, a third of the students said they had been pressured to join a church or change their beliefs.

Quite the opposite of discriminating against religious groups, Bush hinted, as he established a White House office for faith-based and community groups, that they will receive preference. "When we see social needs in America," he said, "my administration will look first to faith-based programs and community groups, which have proven their power to save and change lives."

Look first? Does that mean faith-based groups will receive some sort of favorable consideration compared to secular groups?

Which should make religious leaders wonder which faiths will receive the favorable consideration and which will not.

[DoctorJ]

I've been trying my damndest to give Dubya the benefit of the doubt here, because I can't believe that someone who was nearly elected President :) would have the cojones to pull some of the contradictory stunts he's pulled lately. So here is my thinking:

We all know that Bush has the reputation for being, um, not the sharpest crayon in the box. We also know that he is not that interested in the details of policy (as he demonstrated resoundingly in the debates) and that his way of doing things is by delegation (which makes his Cabinet choices that much scarier, although that's another thread).

Given those facts, one can assume that these policies are not Bush's ideas. They are being sold to Bush in exactly the same way that Bush is selling them to the American people. He doesn't realize the broader implications of the policies (closing any federally-funded medical clinic that discusses abortion with its patients; allowing creationists to apply for gov't grants, etc.) because no one tells him about them and he doesn't think about the policies enough to come up with them on his own.

What's more, the people selling him the ideas know damn well what the broader implications are. The broader implications are the whole point; they're just coating them in enough Compassionate Conservativism that Bush is willing to swallow them whole without asking questions.

In other words, I don't think Bush is malicious; I think he is a clueless pushover who is beholden to the Religious Right. I wish he were just malicious.

Dr. J

[pepperlandgirl]

Every day since January 20, I wake up and read the newspapers with dread. It's like everyday is a bizarre Christmas day, where instead of looking forward to freshly wrapped presents of joy, I have to deal with a frightening new policy. And instead of a jolly ole elf, it's a mean-spirited Shrub spreading not joy, but rather fear, hostility, and hypocracy.
OY! It's going to be a long four years.

[pldennison]

Well, this article is certainly illuminating.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010201/pl/charities_abuses_1.html

[Cervaise]

There's another big element of hypocrisy in this whole mess, over and above the church/state issues. For the last twenty years, drug treatment and rehab funding has been steadily eroding. The tough-on-crime folks (which includes the "new Democrat" represented by Clinton's crowd) have thrown more and more money at the supermax facilities that are designed to house the junkies and mentally ill during their longer and longer sentences, while there's less and less money being spent on drug counseling and other similar kinds of medical treatment.

And now Bush comes along and says that exactly these sorts of programs now deserve federal funding, as long as they're organized and promoted by religious organizations. What the hell? The secular programs have been shoved past the back burner, fighting for every last nickel and dime, and now Bush wants to open the floodgate for their religious counterpart? Hypocrisy, thy name is Shrub.

I find it interesting that none of Bush's apologists has appeared here and tried to offer a defense for what is, by any definition, an indefensible policy.

pepperlandgirl: It's going to be a long two years. That's my only comfort -- that Bush is going to alienate the mainstream so badly that 2002 sees Congress handed back to the Democrats by a disgusted public, and Bush gets to sit on his thumbs and whine until he's ousted in 2004. Of course, it can be said that Clinton nearly fell into the same trap, with the gays-in-the-military order, not to mention the health-care-reform debacle, and everyone assumed he'd be dead in 1996. Lucky for him, he figured it out, and retreated to the center (or to somewhere right of center, more accurately). If I were a Republican, I'd be desperately hoping Bush realizes what an ass he's being, because of the long-term damage he's doing to the party. I'm not a Republican, so I'm just gritting my teeth and waiting for payback, hoping the country isn't dragged backward too far.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Screwtape
I continue to watch the reign of George the Second, with open-mouthed, deer-in-the-headlights horror.
OhMyGosh! The Dubya gaze is catching!

Otherwise, I agree completely -- it's not two weeks into the term, and already I can't believe the boneheaded stupidity this idiot fraud has been peddling. The only thing more depressing than seeing Dubya try to sell his programs is watching the Republicans all tow the party line and support its stupidity.

[Kimstu]

DoctorJ: In other words, I don't think Bush is malicious; I think he is a clueless pushover who is beholden to the Religious Right.

I have a different explanation, as per my "cynical" speculations above: that is, I think Bush is faced with the task of justifying another massive upward redistribution of wealth via his tax-cutting, pro-corporate, anti-government proposals. Given the extent to which the rich have already gotten much richer recently, and the fact that we're facing an economic downturn, this looks kind of hard to justify from the point of view of the middle-class taxpayer. Solution: the Reagan Runaround, where you harp on your devotion to socially conservative "values" to the point where conservatively minded people in the lower brackets accept you wholeheartedly as somebody fighting on their side against the evil forces of secular liberalism and fail to notice that your economic policies actually make things worse in their workplaces, communities, and schools. Dubya may be no Ronald Reagan, but it seems to be working for him.

[Stuffy]

I find it interesting that none of Bush's apologists has appeared here and tried to offer a defense for what is, by any definition, an indefensible policy.

Maybe you should have the mods put some variation of "Dubya's an idiot" in the title, that always seems to bring them running.

[Hazel]

Originally posted by rjung
... The only thing more depressing than seeing Dubya try to sell his programs is watching the Republicans all tow the party line and support its stupidity.


And even MORE depressing is watching the Democrats supporting Bush's inititives in the name of "bipartisanship". I hate that word!

[David B]

I read an article today in the Chicago Tribune (at least I think that's where it was -- I read a couple of newspapers each day) in which several ministers were quoted as being skeptical of the program. For one thing, one pointed out, his drug rehab programs are based on giving the addict something more powerful than his addition: Jesus. How will this guy take religion out of his program? Answer: He can't. Just like many others can't. Which is why this is such a horrible idea. Not that logic will have any effect on Bush...

[Blondie]

That's precisely my problem with AA and being forced to attend for DUI purposes. The Jesus huggers at AA say you can "make the doorknob your higher power". Right. But you have to have some sort of higher power. And the government can force you to attend this dangerous form of group therapy or withhold your driving privleges. You can't remove the cornerstone from the plan and still complete the 12 steps, so you are automatically punished if you aren't a god fearin', church goin' religious sort. This has been going on for years, and Bush's plan is only going to make it worse.

He said he doesn't care "which" God we pray to--as long as we're praying (sigh), he's a happy little zealot.

[David B]

In the deep dark recesses of my memory, I thought I'd heard of a case being overturned when a judge mandated AA, for exactly those reasons.

[kiffa]

I was shocked and dismayed when Dubya put the ban on support for family planning organizations that even mention the dreadful A word. I went reeling off my computer desk chair when he announced the availability of govt funds to faith based organizations for social services.... "ah, sir, ah there's a bit of policy inconsistency b/w these two decisions....sir, sir, hey SIR!!!!"

So I decided, like many other smart folks, to make a charitable [ie tax deductable] donation to Planned Parenthood of America. Hey, they have a special gift program where you contribute [online if you want] in honor
of whomever for President's Day. You can dedicate your contribution in memory of whomever [I dedicated mine to the 600,000 plus maternal deaths worldwide and in hope to lower this rate with the provision of safe and comprehensive family planning services including complete patient education on her options]. Planned Parenthood will send a gift to Dubya, in honor of all Presidents, consisting of a list of names and dedications contributed to Planned Parenthood.

I felt wonderfully wicked and thoroughly satisfied that I did my civic duty to let Dubya know how I feel about his decree to ban funds to any organization which even mentions that A word.

Now I am trying to figure out what to do about that faith based crap because I strongly agree with the current constitutional barrier between the state and religion ...... any ideas?

[David B]

Well, if you're in a donating mood anyway, do what I did -- give money to Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/). They're going to have a long four years ahead of them.