Government funded: "The presenter and supervisor (must) possess an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ."

Putting Stop into 'Stop and Think' | By cyncooper | Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:38:27 PM EST

Let me ask a simple question. Does the following condition from a contract have religious overtones to you? "The presenter and supervisor (must) possess an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ."

Did you even have to stop and think about it?

It's only one of several clauses from the contract of Stop and Think, an abstinence-education-only program, but that didn't stop the federal government from awarding it taxpayer dollars. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in.

On May 2, 2007, the ACLU wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services to demand an immediate investigation into the awarding of funds to "Stop and Think" and entities associated with it.


Evidence strongly suggests that this funding violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Anticipating that your investigation will confirm our own, we request that you take the steps necessary to remedy this misuse of public funds. If HHS does not satisfactily respond to these requests by the end of this month, the ACLU will consider all necessary and appropriate measures to remedy the situation, including legal action. ...
...
First, the government is doing virtually nothing to seek accountability and to assure that our dollars are not going to evangelical efforts; this is an outrage in itself, letting wolves roam through the henhouse freely until someone blasts a whistle on the top of a tower. ..

Second, the groups getting these funds are overtly Christian evangelical organizations, in this case, crisis pregnancy centers founded as Christian ministries. Since the funds are going to groups that are in a position to violate the separation of church and state, that alone demands a higher level of scrutiny. Grants to these organizations trip buzzers automatically and the government should have systems in place to demand not merely separation, but firewalls, high ones, with strong rules. ...

The third frustration is that, under the current state of the law, challenges generally can be brought only on a case-by-case basis when Establishment questions arise, limiting the ability of outside groups to take action. ...