From Planned Parenthood's International Family Planning, Global Resource Center: "On January 22, 2001, newly inaugurated President George W. Bush issued an executive memorandum reinstating the global gag rule on international family planning assistance. This was a highly divisive attack on reproductive rights, coming barely two days into the Bush administration and on the 28th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. " Click Here.

The New York Times editorial, January 12, 2003, "The War Against Women:" "In resurrecting the gag rule, the new president broadcast a disdain for freedom of speech to emerging democracies, while crippling the international family planning programs that work to prevent hundreds of thousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide each year. Most Americans would be shocked at the lengths American representatives are going to in their international war against women's right to control their bodies.

"This same crackerjack delegation also opposed special efforts to help young girls who are victims of war crimes - which most often means rape ... women's constitutional liberty has been threatened, essential reproductive health care has been denied or delayed, and some women will needlessly die." Click Here.

On Jan. 30, 2001, Robert Scheer wrote in The Los Angeles Times: "Fully one-third of the world's workforce is effectively unemployed, and the United Nations estimates that 500 million new jobs must be created just to accommodate new arrivals in the job market over the next decade. Developing economies do not stand a chance of meeting that demand without aggressive population control. Yet Bush has chosen to cut funding for the very organizations, most notably Planned Parenthood, that work hardest to make birth control information available throughout the world."

GOOD NEWS -- on September 5, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to block the Bush Administration's efforts to expand the Global Gag Rule.

On Partial Birth Abortion, from The Forward published in TomPain.com: (9/16/03) "Liberal Democrats are scurrying to organize a filibuster in a last-ditch effort to sink what would be the first federal law banning an abortion procedure. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have passed bills banning a procedure widely known as "partial-birth abortion," Click Here.

"President Bush may soon sign legislation that bans abortions -- with no exception for the mother's health -- and would jail doctors for providing what is in some cases life-and-death reproductive health care to women across America. Late Tuesday night, members from the House and Senate met in conference and resolved their differences in the two versions of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." This article, by Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, was printed in TomPaine on October 2, 2003. Click Here.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA)

This bill is a cynical attempt to undo Roe Vs. Wade under the guise of protecting pregnant women. It passed in the House, 252 to 172. It has been stalled in the Senate by Democrats and a few moderate Republicans.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice writes that the sponsors of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act "claim this bill is designed to protect pregnant women, even though women are not mentioned in the language of the bill. This bill is solely designed to recognize the existence of a separate legal "person," with rights distinct from those of the pregnant woman, in order to lay the foundation for eliminating abortion rights.

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would adopt one religious belief about the beginning of life -- that the fetus at all stages of development is a person -- and make it the law for all, regardless of individual beliefs. As an Interfaith coalition, we point out that government must not legislate, and thus impose, one religious view about the beginning of life on all people." Click Here.

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has proposed an acceptable alternative to UVVA. From the Feminist Majority Foundation: "Abortion rights advocates say the Motherhood Protection Act of 2003 (HR 2247), proposed by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is a more appropriate measure, because it proposes equally tough penalties for a person who harmed or killed a zygote, embryo or fetus while attacking a pregnant woman, but does not give the zygote, embryo or fetus personhood or rights." Click Here.

Anti-choice Legislation

From NARAL: "The cumulative effect of enacted anti-choice legislation is staggering: 335 anti-choice measures have been enacted since 1995. Until pro-choice Americans regain control of Congress and their state legislatures, the onslaught of legislation aimed at restricting women's choices and curtailing women's reproductive health options will continue unabated." This NARAL fact sheet covers a wide range of legislation that Congress, dominated by the Religious Right, has targeted against women and girls. Click Here.

Title IX

From the Women's Equity Resource Center: "Title IX has provided the impetus for great successes and significant change within the United States. Doors that were previously closed have been opened. Females who attended schools prior to 1972 experienced sex-segregated classes, denial of admissions to certain vocational education classes, lack of access to advanced mathematics and science courses, and overt discrimination in medical schools and other predominantly male institutions. The passage of Title IX and other educational equity laws removed many of these formal, systemic barriers." Click Here.

Discrimination

The Civil Rights Act, signed into law in 1964, bans discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion. The Religious Right disregards the Civil Rights Act through executive orders, legislation, and attempts to actually change the laws. In order to enact his program of Faith Based Initiative, President Bush has been circumventing the Civil Rights Act. See Faith Based Initiative.

As reported in Church and State, September, 2003, "By a one-vote margin, the U.S. House of Representatives in late July approved a Head Start reauthorization bill that gives publicly funded religious groups the right to discriminate when hiring staff for the program." Click Here.

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965 to end discrimination against minority voters. To strengthen the Republican majority, the Religious Right has acted in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis calls the actions of U.S. House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay "the largest disenfranchisement of minority voters since the Voting Rights Act was passed."

By a 217-216 vote on July 25, the House passed a bill (H.R.2210,) that permits religious groups operating Head Start centers to discriminate in hiring. Click Here.

State Senator Ellis explains, "The Republican advantage would be gained by removing many African American and Hispanic voters from their current Congressional districts and "packing" them into a few districts that already have Democratic majorities. The voting power of these minority voters would be dramatically diluted by the Republican plan, in contravention of the federal Voting Rights Act. If the Republicans succeed, over 1.4 million African American and Hispanic voters will be harmed. It would be the largest disenfranchisement of minority voters since the Voting Rights Act was passed." Click Here.

"The day was November 7, 2000," an ACLU ad says. That was the day that hundreds of votes by black citizens weren't counted. The ACLU ad calls that day, "a day in American history when black people counted less than white people." Click Here.

Labor

Early in 2001, Congress passed Senate Joint Resolution 6, under the auspices of the Congressional Review Act of 1996. S.J. Res. 6 disapproved the Ergonomic Protection Standard, effectively invalidating the standard and prohibiting the Department from promulgating a "substantially similar" regulation in the future.

"President Bush's plan to change the definition of who is eligible for overtime pay ran into a serious roadblock on Capitol Hill today, as the Senate, in a rare Democratic victory, voted to block the White House from issuing the new rules." (NY Times, 9/11/03) Click Here.

This article from MoveOn is part of their "daily mis-lead" series and gives the facts about the "overtime" bill. Click Here.

Campaign Finance Reform

Mitch McConnell, the number 2 ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, has been leading the court battles against campaign finance reform.

The "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (H.R. 2357) would spell the end of any campaign finance laws, for campaign donations would be permissible through the collection plate at church and would be both anonymous and tax exempt.

The bill was drafted by attorneys with TV preacher Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, and was pushed aggressively by the Christian Coalition. Some of the movement's largest groups and most prominent leaders endorsed the bill, including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and TV preachers Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination closely aligned with the Religious Right, also endorsed the measure.

The bill was defeated by a vote of 178-239. The chart on the right shows the voting by party. Republicans are red, Democrats blue. "Yeas " -- Republicans, 168. Democrats, 10. "Nays " -- Republicans, 46. Democrats, 192. 14 Representatives didn't vote. These numbers show that there are a small number of Representatives in both parties who vote with the other party, but the overwhelming majority vote with their own party.

The Religious Right increased their ranks in the House by eighteen Representatives in 2002. U.S. Rep. Jones (R-N.C.), who authored the bill promised, " the first day of the 108th Congress, my very first action will be to re-introduce the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act...We have 178 Members who believe in this and...we will win this battle."

The bill was re-introduced in January, 2003. To read a fact sheet on the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act from the Interfaith Alliance Click Here.

Gun Control

"No one ever believed that legislation this bad could pass," said Mike Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He was referring to a bill passed by the House that immunizes gun makers and sellers from liability. Click Here. President Bush has indicated that if the bill passes the Senate, he'll sign it. An update on legislation to immunize gunmakers from lawsuits in the New York Times, September 22, 2003: Click Here.

The ten-year ban on assault weapons expires in September, 2004. The House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, who decides what bills will and won't come up for a vote, has announced that a vote to continue the ban on assault weapons will not come up for a vote, so Tom DeLay will have decided that assault weapons will become available once again.

Social Justice

Who should care for the poor? This question differentiates members of the Religious Right from other Christians and evangelicals.

Taxes are necessary for the government to run programs for the poor, yet tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, are one of Bush's signature issues. Most taxes are unbiblical according to Beliles and McDowell authors of America's Providential History in their chapter on Christian Economics. Income tax is "idolatry," property tax is "theft" and inheritance taxes are simply not allowed in the Bible.

The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002 , actually spells out which taxes to cut. It calls for abolishing the IRS and eliminating "income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, payroll tax and property tax." Social Security tax will gradually be phased out for a system of private pensions.

Governor Riley of Alabama, a conservative Christian offers a different perspective. He believes he has a Biblical mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to help the poor. "Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us," the governor told the Birmingham News after announcing his plan. "We've got to take care of the poor."

"What Bob Riley is doing is acting like a Christian," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners, an Evangelical Christian magazine that focuses on social justice issues. Wallis believes his faith mandates support for progressive policies, like government services for the poor. "The Bible is full of poor people," he said. "Biblical politics has the poor at the center." New York Times, 9/6/03, "A Tax Increase? $1.2 billion? Alabamians, It Seems, say No." Click Here.

Tom DeLay sabotaged tax credits for 12 million children of the working poor. Those tax credits would cost only $3.5 billion. But Mr. DeLay, angry at Senate Democrats for cutting President Bush's original tax cut proposal in half, has embedded the credits in an $82 billion tax cut package that would favor people with higher incomes.

Separation of Church and State

The Ten Commandments Defense Act has 70 sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Two bills in the U.S. House of Representatives would enable teachers to lead prayers during classtime. One calls for a constitutional amendment that would overturn the 1962 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning teacher-led school prayer in the classroom. Click Here.

For a history of the Istook bill calling for an amendment to allow school prayer Click Here.

"The measure...is of questionable constitutionality and may turn out to be little more than political granstanding," reports Church and State. " But observers say the vote is evidence of the House's increasing hostility toward church-state separation and in disregard for constitutional principles."

TomPaine.com features this article by Jamin B. Raskin, a professor of Constitutional Law at American University and a Visiting Professor at the Institut D'Etudes Politiques de Paris from 2003 to 2004. "His recent book, Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Versus the American People, was a Washington Post Bestseller."

"America is about to experience a clash of agendas for constitutional change. Our well-fed Right-wing wants to add a bunch of repressive Constitutional amendments, a latter-day Bill of Wrongs. To begin with, they seek: To ban gay marriage by forcing states to define marriage as only between a man and a woman; To authorize criminal prosecution and incarceration for thought crime and patriotic incorrectness against those who participate in "physical desecration of the flag of the United States," and; To authorize public school authorities and teachers to lead students in religious prayer. Click Here.

While the Media Yawns

Bill Keller, a columnist who was recently promoted to the job of editor of the New York Times, wrote a column in May giving the impression that, as a political movement, the Religious Right is over the hill. He points out as an example that Falwell and Robertson have "aged into irrelevance."

But what about Ralph Reed, the political mastermind of the Christian Coalition? As Chair of the Georgia GOP, he scored a Republican sweep of that state in the 2002 elections. And he has been signed on to work for the Bush '04 presidential campaign.

Scorecards: Snapshots of Congress

The graphs and tables below tell a story. They portray a Congress that is highly polarized, and they dispel two important myths:

   Myth 1) There isn't much difference between the two political parties.

   Myth 2) The Religious Right has grown into obscurity.

According to the ratings of key organizations of the Religious Right, members of Congress who support their agenda overwhelmingly dominate the Republican Party. Since the Republican Party has majorities in both houses of Congress, Republican leaders set the agendas and chair the committees. They decide what bills will and won't come up for a vote. Comparisons to environmental scorecards show a strong correlation between high votes from the Religious Right and low votes from environmental groups.

AUTHOR'S NOTE -- If you are uncomfortable with graphs and tables, please skip over this section and go directly to the next section: "documentation." Reading the links from that section should give you a good idea of how the Religious Right took over the Republican party.jb

The following graph is based on how Christian Coalition rated the United States Senate in 2001. Republicans are red, Democrats blue.

29 Senators voted with Christian Coalition 100% of the time. They were all Republican. 30 Senators received a 0 rating from Christian Coalition meaning they never voted with their issues. They were all Democrat.

If you add the Senators who voted with Christian Coalition 80% of the time, that makes 42 out of 49 Republicans that year who supported the Christian Coalition agenda and one out of 50 Democrats. If you add those who scored 20, 41 out of 50 Democrats and one Republican received very low ratings. The number of Senators in the middle is twenty – 10 Republicans, 9 Democrats and 1 Independent.

The following link gives you the full Christian Coalition rating of U.S. Senators, 2001 along with the Family Research Council rating of U.S. Senators, 2003. It also tells you the votes upon which the scores were based. Click Here

In 2002, three Democrats in the U.S. Senate -- the late Paul Wellstone (Minn.), Jean Carnahan (MO), and Max Cleland (GA) -- were replaced by Republicans who have received 100% from Family Research Council (FRC), the most powerful lobbying organization of the Religious Right today. FRC scorecards for 2003 give 100% scores to 38 out of 52 Republicans.

Family Research Ccouncil rates members of Congress primarily on votes for bills relating to family issues, particularly reproductive rights. To see Family Research Council's scorecards, go to their web site (following link), click on "Federal legislation" at the top of the page, then "Congress Today" on the left, "Key Votes" on the left, and "Scorecard" at the bottom. Click Here.

In 2001, 29 out of 49 received 100% from the Christian Coalition. (2003 scorecards not available yet.) Christian Coalition rates members of Congress on a variety of issues reflecting their general agenda. In 2001, along with the usual issues of family and reproductive rights, they were strongly opposed to campaign finance reform, environmental legislation, and gun control. They favored massive tax cuts, school vouchers, and Bush's Faith Base Initiative. For a greater understanding of the political agenda of the Religious Right, read the Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002,

This graph represents the Christian Coalition scorecard for the House of Representatives in 2001. 163 Republicans and 1 Democrat received scores of 100%. 32 Republicans and 3 Democrats received scores of 80%. 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats received scores of 60%. 12 Republicans and 22 Democrats received 40%. 1 Republican and 36 Democrats received 20%. 129 Democrats and no Republicans received 0.

Environmental Scorecards:Inverse Images

Christian Coalition Scorecards compared to Environmental Scorecards

The following graphs compare how Christian Coalition and the League of Conservation Voters(LCV) rated Congress in 2001. The League of Conservation Voters is made up of environmental groups. Republicans are red, Democrats blue.

The first graph is the Christian Coalition's scorecard for the United States Senate in 2001. The second graph shows how the League of Conservation Voters rated the U.S. Senate that year. 15 Democrats voted in favor of environmental issues 100% of the time. 34 Republicans voted in favor of environmental issues 0% of the time. If you add the 25 Democrats who received 80% with the 15 who received 100% the number is 40. 40 out of 50 Democrats in 2001 had strong environmental voting records. If you add the 10 Republicans who received 20% with the 34 Republicans who received 0%, 44 out of 49 Republicans that year had very low environmental voting records.

The fourth graph shows how the League of Conservation Voters rated members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 100% -- 2 Republicans, 106 Democrats. 80% -- 10 Republicans, 60 Democrats. 60% -- 13 Republicans, 26 Democrats. 40% -- 13 Republicans, 11 Democrats. 20% -- 44 Republicans, 9 Democrats. 0% -- 137 Republicans, 0 Democrats.

The following link provides an update on voting records and tells you which Senators received what scores. They are listed by state. To see the Christian Coalition, 2001, and the Family Research Council, 2003, scorecards of the entire U.S. Senate, Click Here.

Leadership of U.S. Congress

Documentation: 1991-1993, Religious Right Takes Over Republican Party

"The Activists Handbook," by Frederick Clarkson and Skipp Porteous of the Institute for First Amendment Studies is unavailable on the web, but has many fine articles documenting the activities of Christian Coalition between 1991-1993 as they began to take "working control" of the Republican Party. The articles provide ample documentation of that critical time when the Religious Right staged a coup.

"Increasingly, they have the key say-so on who will be a delegate at the national conven­tion, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate. In a state like Oregon, with 600,000 registered Republicans, it is possible for 2000 or 3000 people to control the state party apparatus. If they are outvoted by one or two votes, parliamentary manipulations begin, and after two or three hours of discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the more reason­able people with other things to do leave, and in the wee hours of the morning, things are decided. That's how they achieve their objectives." Click Here.

Journalist Frederick Clarkson attended a Road to Victory gathering of Christian Coalition in 1991 and wrote an article for Church and State, January, 1992. Click Here.

Frederick Clarkson, "Inside the Covert Coalition", Church and State, November, 1992, Click Here.

Joan Lowy of Scripps-Howard News Service, "The GOP's Religious War", date unknown but is most likely early nineties, Click Here.

The Great Right Hope by Frederick Clarkson documents how Dr. Steven Hotze outshouted the GOP Chair to take over the leadership of the Haris County (home to Houston) political apparatus. The article begins: "The wildest dreams of the Far Right in America may actually be within their reach - control of the Republican Party." Click Here.

From the San Jose Mercury News, 1992, Click Here.

Here is an update on the Christian Coalition by Frederick Clarkson. Click Here.

1980: A Watershed Year