politics

Questioning Barrett, Leahy repeats false claims, religious broadcasters say

Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF) defended conscience rights among Vermont health care workers in 2016 suit

By Guy Page

Tuesday, October 13, during the second day of hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) repeated false information in his criticism of the judge for having spoken to Christian law students participating in a program of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), according to a statement issued yesterday by the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB)

In the exchange in question, as seen in this YouTube video (at one minute, seven seconds), Leahy asks Barrett: “Were you aware of the ADF’s decades long effort to recriminalize homosexuality?” Barrett replied, “I am not aware of those efforts, no.”

One minute, seven seconds into this video, Sen. Patrick Leahy questions SCOTUS nominee Amy C. Barrett

In response to Leahy’s characterization of ADF’s work, the following statement was issued by Troy Miller, CEO of NRB, the nation’s preeminent association of Christian broadcasters and communicators, of which ADF is a member:

“Sen. Leahy re-iterated false reports that can be traced back to smear campaigns from groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, who label conservative groups and individuals as hateful for holding Biblically-based views on marriage and human sexuality. ADF, like NRB and countless other conservatives, believes that all people are made in the image of God and that everyone is worthy of dignity and respect. Moreover, ADF is a reputable organization that has been working for nearly three decades to preserve the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion for all Americans. It deserves respect, not vilification. Even if we do not agree on issues or understand the other’s point of view, we should be respectful.”

ADF refutes the charge laid by Leahy on its “setting the record straight” website page: “ADF has never supported the passage of laws criminalizing homosexuality.”

ADF does have a history of advocacy law in Vermont. In 2016, it helped the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare fight for the rights of healthcare providers opposed by conscience to not participate in Act 39, the physician-assisted suicide law. 

  1. This is a recent lecture given by William Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University on CO2 and climate change.…

Categories: politics

4 replies »

  1. Patrick Leahy has served Vermont with distinction for the past 47 years and because of his seniority has secured more than Vermont’s fair share of programs and subsidies. But he is fresh out of ideas and his ship has sailed. I’d like to see a constitutional amendment to prohibit anyone from running for elected office on election day if they are 70 years of age. I’d like to see US representatives limited to five, 2 year terms. I’d like to see Senators limited to three, 6 year terms. Anyone who has had to ask for their grandparents car keys knows how difficult but necessary that can be. We could prevent that sequel of “Grumpy Old Men” from premiering on the debate stage.

  2. Patrick Leahy is at the very least an embarrassment to the US Senate and to the citizens of Vermont. His extremist views, demagoguery and blatant disrespect and smear campaigns against non-Progressives warrants a Vermont Recall. The GOP in Vermont would be doing the Citizens a tremendous service by getting this recall effort underway. It’s not about being mean spirited but about addressing a significant mis-representation that Vermonter’s have in the US Senate. Leahy is clearly no longer up for the job. BTW, repealing the 17th Amendment would be another good start by putting back the Founders intent on allow States to elect their Senators vs. direct elections.

  3. “FALSE
    ADF believes that all people are made in the image of God and that everyone is worthy of dignity and respect. While ADF takes legal and policy positions that are informed by a biblically-based understanding of marriage, human sexuality, and the sanctity of life…”

    Except for the unstated fact that their understanding of the Bible’s positions on those issues is that they’re mandated as believers to consider their opponents abominable and to do what they can to stop their aberrant practices from continuing.

    Their understanding of the Bible’s statements on marriage, sexuality, and the sanctity of life is based on selective alterations of the text or false definition of selected terms in translation for the purpose of supporting their political positions or on wholesale fabrications of doctrines without supporting scriptures.

    They seek to codify those misinterpretations by appealing to the authority of the Bible in support of their legislative proposals.
    They further attempt to appoint judges and law enforcement authorities who will support their viewpoints in prosecuting and deciding cases.

Leave a Reply to Brett Rice Cancel reply