Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery delivered false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee today, as he attempted to peddle a false definition of the term “nuclear family” to the panel. (Isn’t that called, literally, giving false witness, as in, “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour”?)
But Senator Al Franken, as you can see in this video, had done his homework, embarrassing Minnery and stating when all was said and done, “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”
The government study in question, produced for the CDC by HHS, titled, “Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings From the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007,” defines nuclear families as “families consisting of two married adults who are the biological or adoptive parents of all children in the family.”
“I actually checked it out,” Senator Franken said about the study cited by Minnery. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery,” Franken asked, “that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?”
“I think that the study, when it cites ‘nuclear families,’ would mean a family headed by a husband and a wife,” Minnery responded.
“It doesn’t,” Franken said, adding, “The study defines a nuclear family as ‘one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family,’ and I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”
Here’s the definitive paragraph, from page 27, cited by Senator Franken. You can read the entire study here.
“The findings presented in this report indicate that children living in nuclear families—that is, in families consisting of two married adults who are the biological or adoptive parents of all children in the family—were generally healthier, more likely to have access to health care, and less likely to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties than children living in nonnuclear families. For example, children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families to be in good, fair, or poor health; to have a basic action disability; or to have learning disabilities or ADHD. They were also less likely than children in nonnuclear families to lack health insurance coverage, to have had two or more ER visits in the past 12 months, to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability, or to have gone without needed dental care in the past 12 months due to cost. Additionally, children living in nuclear families were less likely to be poorly behaved or to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months than children living in nonnuclear family types.”
Any questions?
This should put a wrench in Focus on the Family’s and NOM’s tactics.