The Patriot Post® · AmeriCorps or AmeriCorpse? Abortion Scandal Stuns Hill

Volunteers or political operatives? That’s what most people are asking after an investigation blew the lid off of a shocking new scandal involving AmeriCorps program. The “public service” arm of the federal government, created by Bill Clinton in 1993, did a tremendous disservice to taxpayers, an inspector general has found, by teaming up with the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) to encourage — and in some cases facilitate — abortions. On Capitol Hill, the news of these “abortion doulas” stunned conservative members, who have long seen the Community Health Centers an ethical alternative to funding Planned Parenthood.

Over the past 48 hours, those opinions have radically changed, as congressmen and women demand answers for two years of illegal abortion advocacy. According to the inspector general, the NACHC authorized at least six AmeriCorps volunteers to transport women to abortion centers and offer “emotional support” — breaking a series of federal laws in the process. As if that weren’t outrageous enough, the report also found that senior staffers were covering up several instances of “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

This isn’t the first time AmeriCorps has been caught offering support to the abortion industry. In 2011, the group’s workers were discovered at Planned Parenthood centers, serving out nine-month terms as “volunteers.” Elsewhere, the group has been called onto the carpet for “mimicking the work of lobbyists and political organizers for agenda-driven community organizations.” That should have led the Republican controlled Congress to zero out their budget, but that was not the case. In fact, in December under the massive omnibus spending bill, Republicans gave AmeriCorps a big bump in funding — $50.6 million. If the inspector general’s findings are confirmed, Congress should take action immediately, especially since more than one federal law “expressly prohibits the use of AmeriCorps resources to ‘provid[e] abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services.”

Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who controls the purse for Congress’s health care spending bills, said he was “outraged” by what he called “the terrible misuse of taxpayer dollars.” “Abortion-related procedures should never be funded by taxpayers,” he argued. “Given these disturbing developments, I believe this grantee should be immediately terminated from the HealthCorps program.” Energy and Commerce Chairs Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) were just as incensed over such a brazen act of defiance. “Federal law demands that taxpayer dollars are never to be spent on abortion activities. Not one penny. Period… The law was violated and this shameful failure of trust will not be tolerated.”

The betrayal hits particularly close to home for leaders like Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), who have long championed the good word of these local centers and assumed they would be a natural replacement for the funding Cecile Richards’s group enjoyed. “I have long highlighted the work of our nation’s community health centers as an alternative to the big-abortion business of Planned Parenthood and its related groups,” Black said. “NACHC didn’t just break the rules, they broke trust with the American people. My constituents expect that federal funding given to our community health centers will be used to protect and enhance people’s lives, not to be a willing partner in their destruction… [T]he Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) should reevaluate NACHC’s eligibility for HealthCorps grant funding. Our laws protecting the unborn today are tragically minimal, but they must mean something and when they are not followed, consequences must be enforced.”

For the more than 9,000 centers around the U.S., the consequences could be dire. In 2014 alone, they were given more than $3.7 billion taxpayer dollars. In an age of unprecedented top-to-bottom lawlessness, it’s no wonder that the Obama administration continues to advance its radical abortion agenda on the backs of taxpayers. For years, the White House has denied that the government finances the taking of innocent human life. From his signature health care law to his assurances over these community centers (just last year!), it’s obvious that this president will stop at nothing to force Americans into partnership with the culture of death.

Originally published here.

Semper Fi-red?

Can a scrap of paper end your military career? It can if it has a Bible verse on it. Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling found that out when her supervisor ordered her to take down a piece of paper with Isaiah 54:17 written on it. When she refused, the Marines court-martialed her for it. In the tribunal, Monifa was found guilty and demoted two ranks. Now, a year later, she’s unemployed — and fighting for her military life. This morning, after appealing her punishment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces finally heard her case. Paul Clement, one of the most respected constitutional attorneys in the country, argued for Monifa on behalf of our friends at First Liberty Institute.

FRC veterans Travis Weber and Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) were in the courtroom for the trial, which, Travis pointed out, should be a straight-forward case. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Obviously, posting Bible verses is an exercise of religion. And just because Monifa is a member of the military doesn’t mean she has to surrender those First Amendment rights. Under questioning from the judges, even the government admitted that RFRA applies to the military. While the government tried to shift attention away from RFRA (since, as Travis pointed out, a straightforward RFRA analysis is harmful to its case), it’s clear the military knew religious exercise was at play here and substantially burdened this exercise by court martialing the service member engaged in it.

In his closing argument, Clement explained that there isn’t a “magic words” test in applying RFRA. In addition, the trial court clearly recognized the religious nature of the postings, he said. As far as he is concerned, the lower court falsely applied a far too restrictive understanding of RFRA and must be reversed. “A win for the appellant in this case is a win for both religious exercise and the readiness of our military as a whole,” Travis wrote, “for our armed forces can only be strengthened as their individual members draw upon faith to face hardship and danger in battle. What should happen here? As Clement noted, there should be an obvious application of the text of RFRA. When this analysis is conducted, the lance corporal wins. Let us hope the court sees this as clearly.” The First Amendment — and the Pentagon’s own policy — protects troops’ rights to express their faith. Service members give up a lot of individual rights to be in the military — but religious freedom isn’t one of them.

Originally published here.

DOJ Tries to Impose Fed-ucation on Colleges

College campuses have been the Left’s favorite incubators for decades. Now, with their takeover of higher education almost complete, federal agencies like the Department of Education and Justice are swooping in to destroy the only hope conservative students have for pushing back: the First Amendment. Using the uptick in sexual assaults as an opening, Justice officials are descending on campuses under the auspices of fixing the crisis — when in fact, the Obama administration is really there to impose its radical agenda.

The University of New Mexico is learning that lesson the hard way after the DOJ sent a 37-page letter to campus President Robert Frank, accusing the school of not doing enough to investigate students’ complaints of sexual harassment and abuse. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, UNM’s definition of sexual harassment is too narrow and should include “all speech of a sexual nature” — even if it’s protected by the First Amendment. Students would be guilty before proven innocent. In fact, Justice officials conceded that what the university should be prosecuting includes “verbal conduct” whether or not it creates a hostile environment. Obviously, the DOJ has no interest in starting a dialogue about sexual harassment — its goal is to force colleges to adopt its own ridiculous interpretations, or lose federal funds.

To campus leaders like Frank, this puts the university in an impossible position. Under the Justice Department’s broad definition, any student could be a sexual harasser! Just consider where this could lead, the Daily Caller writes. “Any speech deemed offensive of a sexual nature — whether it be a joke overheard… by another student who finds it offensive or a lecture by a professor on how one could contract AIDS — could all be defined as sexual harassment.” But that’s only the camel’s nose under the tent.

Clearly, this latest overreach will have major implications for the administration’s bigger agenda of genderless bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and sports teams. Using their Title IX authority as an excuse, their meddling over sexual assault cases will only expand to “discrimination” claims by transgenders or other LGBT activists. As one professor warned, implementing these radical new protocols “will chill campus speech — especially for students and untenured faculty who challenge the status quo on all questions relating to gender.” It’s very similar to what the administration has done in the military. It created a sexually-charged environment with its radical policies, then used the sexual assault programs as leverage to advance more of their totalitarian-type objectives.

In this case, the president’s sexual liberalism has wreaked havoc on education, starting in elementary school and continuing through college. The government created this crisis by sexualizing kids at an early age — then feigns surprised when that sexual tension leads to greater abuse. Now instead of finding real solutions, liberals want to strip away the First Amendment. It makes you wonder: did the government create this problem so that it could expand its power and reach? Listen to my opinion on [Tuesday’s] “Washington Watch” radio show.

Originally published here.