Last week, the state of Alaska became the thirty-seventh state to require parental involvement before abortion. By a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent, voters approved Ballot Measure 2, an initiative sponsored by Alaskans for Parental Rights and requiring that abortionists notify a parents or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor. Planned Parenthood is expected to challenge the new law in the courts.
Illinois currently has a parental notification law on the books. However, for 15 years now the radical ACLU, in conjunction with Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion legislators, have successfully delayed the implementation of the law by filing suit in state and federal courts. Both state and federal courts have upheld the Illinois Parental Notice Act as being constitutional.
Since the Parental Notice Act was signed into law in 1995, more than 50,000 abortions have been performed on pregnant minors in Illinois, including almost 5,000 abortions on girls 14 years of age and younger. Illinois is the only state in the Midwest that does not have a law requiring parental notification or consent prior to an abortion, and more than 55,000 abortions have been performed on non-residents in Illinois since 1995, including an unknown number of out-of-state pregnant minors.
Man Arrested After Threatening to Gun Down Pro-life Activists at Late-Term Abortion Clinic
A man was arrested Saturday, August 28, outside Southwestern Women's Options, a late-term abortion clinic operated by Curtis Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after he threatened to shoot two pro-life women who were offering help to abortion-bound women.
The unidentified man and his wife were escorting their daughter into the abortion clinic when the wife and daughter walked over to the pro-life women to discuss alternatives to abortion. The man became angry and ushered his family members toward the clinic.
"When we come out, I'm going to put a bullet in your head if you talk to her," the man told the pro-life women, whose identities are being withheld for their security.
Witnesses said that the man then lifted his shirt to show the women a dark object that was partially tucked into his trousers. The women recognized the object as a gun and called the police.
"The police responded appropriately and took him away in handcuffs," said former Operation Rescue intern Bud Shaver, who arrived on the scene in time to witness the arrest and the clearing of the clinic by police.
"They cleared Boyd's clinic to search for the gun SWAT style. Everyone, including staff, had to come out with their hands up."
The area was cordoned off and the clinic was closed to patients for nearly two hours while police conducted their investigation.
It is currently unknown if a gun was recovered by police or what charges were brought against the man.
Death threats against pro-lifers have been viewed with greater concern in the wake of the shooting death of activist Jim Pouillon of Owosso, Michigan, who was gunned down last year as he held a pro-life sign outside a local high school. The killer admitted that he murdered Pouillon because he did not agree with his public abortion protests.
Shaver told Operation Rescue that he has been threatened a number of times since he has been in Albuquerque, but the police never responded in the way they did on Saturday.
"We are thankful that no one was injured and that the police took appropriate action," said Newman. "Violence against pro-lifers has become something that we have to guard against every day. Those who reach out to women in front of abortion clinics should not be afraid to continue to do so, but should always have security and an awareness of their surroundings in mind."
Reagan confronts liberals -- relevant yesterday and today
One of my Facebook friends posted this video. It's a fantastic reminder of how relevant Ronald Reagan remains. It's as if he's calling out today's Far Left. The video is a mash-up of Reagan's 1964 "The Speech" with some of the most notorious quotes from within the last year by Washington's liberal leaders -- Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Frank, Durbin; they're all here, with a supporting cast every bit as fanatical about control.
That's a thirst for control over your health care, your earnings, over how you spend your earnings, over the economy, over how your children learn, over the legal process . . . you name it, they want control over it. U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Dingell (D-MI), respectively, say it most pointedly:
give us more authority and more ability...
And:
. . . put the legislation together to control the people.
NOM appeals ruling on Maine's campaign finance laws
Last week, a federal judge delivered a ruling Thursday that protected the core of Maine's campaign finance laws, but also found that part of the laws were "unconstitutionally vague." The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) challenged the constitutionality of the laws as they gear up to challenge Maine legislators who voted for same-sex "marriage" in the New England state.
U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby struck down the 24-hour rule that required disclosure not just before an election, but whenever it is made of independent expenditures over $250. He said the rule "has not been justified in impermissibly burdensome and cannot be enforced." He also said "Maine's use of the words 'influence' and 'influence in any way' are unconstitutionally vague."
But he did uphold the rest of the laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional. Brian Brown, president of NOM, said Thursday that his group is disappointed with the ruling, but feels its arguments will hold sway with an appeals court.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration approved a controversial "emergency" contraceptive to be marketed under the name "Ella." Supporters hailed this as a step toward preventing unwanted pregnancies. Opponents point out that this could be an abortifacient drug and that its approval reveals the shifting political ideology of the FDA. Ella will be available to women over 17 without a prescription.
The news of this FDA approval gets particularly interesting when it is understood that Ella's approval as a "contraceptive" (even though conception has likely occurred after five days) will make it eligible for federal tax subsidies, which are not available to the abortion pill RU-486, for example. Critics are understandably concerned that Ella will be included in the services under the new national health-care law.
South Carolina's Governor Mark Sanford recently held a ceremonial signing of a piece of legislation that increases the reflection period before an abortion would be allowed in that state from one hour to twenty four hours. He signed the bill at a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Before the bill passed, the waiting period in the Palmetto State was the shortest in the country.
But, you will be shocked to learn of the response of America's top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, to this new law:
"We're disappointed, though not surprised, that Governor Sanford would commemorate the signing of such egregious legislation at a crisis pregnancy center-many of which are notorious for misleading and misinforming women faced with unplanned pregnancies. It's time that South Carolina's elected officials stop the constant attacks on comprehensive reproductive healthcare and instead promote policies that prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion."
So, there you have it. Governor Sanford not only signed legislation giving women the ability to sleep on a life and death decision ("egregious"), he did it at a place dedicated to saving the smallest of lives ("notorious"). And then somehow by doing those two things, he was attacking "comprehensive" sex education.
A moral lecture from Planned Parenthood. Now we've heard it all.
Ninth Circuit halts California homosexual "marriages"
Earlier this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit put the brakes on an August 18 implementation of Judge Vaughn Walker's order overthrowing the will of 7 million California voters with regard to marriage. The court granted a motion filed by the ProtectMarriage.com legal team, including attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, asking the court to stay the judge's Aug. 4 decision until the appellate court has time to hear the case.
"It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the 9th Circuit's decision is clearly the right call," said Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Staff Counsel Jim Campbell. "Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun. ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld."
As part of its order, the 9th Circuit also issued an expedited appeal schedule in the case, with the opening brief due Sept. 17 and oral argument to be heard the week of Dec. 6.
A parent, who does not have a student in the Cranston High School West in Rhode Island, has succeeded in getting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) involved in a debate over a mural that hangs in the school's auditorium. The banner, which begins with the statement "Our Heavenly Father," and ends with "Amen," has hung in the auditorium since the building opened in 1958 and encourages students to do their best in school.
Once notified by the parent, the ACLU drafted a letter to the Cranston school district demanding that it be taken down. The school committee met this week and chose to form a subcommittee to decide how best handle the situation and avoid a costly lawsuit. Though the mural has been in the auditorium since the 50s, students are not asked to recite it or memorize it, and it has never been used in any school functions or lessons.
The Alliance Defense Fund and similar groups have offered to represent the school district free-of-charge if the ACLU moves forward with a lawsuit.
Watch a report from the NBC affiliate on this story HERE.
Regarding openly homosexual Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's recent decision to strike down the California amendment to protect natural marriage from redefinition -- which trampled on the U.S. Constitution, blatantly disregarded state sovereignty, and usurped the will of more than 7 million voters -- shouldn't the dominant media be asking gay rights activists "why are you forcing your morality on the people of California and the United States?"
Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, recently interviewed Ted Olson, one of the attorneys who led the charge against natural marriage amendment in California. During the interview Olson claimed that "we do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote." Ah, Mr. Olson, yes we did -- it was called ratification. The U.S. Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states (either the legislatures thereof, or in amendment conventions) vote to ratify amendments or not.
The first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) were all ratified at once. The amendments were proposed on September 25, 1789. They were ratified in the following order:
State ------------------------ Date
New Jersey ---------- Nov 20, 1789 Maryland ---------- Dec 19, 1789 North Carolina ---------- Dec 22, 1789 South Carolina ---------- Jan 19, 1790 New Hampshire ---------- Jan 25, 1790 Delaware ---------- Jan 28, 1790 New York ---------- Feb 24, 1790 Pennsylvania ---------- Mar 10, 1790 Rhode Island ---------- Jun 7, 1790 Vermont ---------- Nov 3, 1791 Virginia ---------- Dec 15, 1791 * (Achieved the 3/4 mark.) Massachusetts ---------- Mar 2, 1939 Georgia ---------- Mar 18, 1939 Connecticut ---------- Apr 19, 1939
Ignoring the will of 70 percent of Americans, President Barack Obama celebrated the first day of Muslim Ramadan by declaring his support for the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero, insulting the memory of more than 3,000 innocent people killed in the name of Islam.
What has caused the most controversy are the comments of President Obama three days ago at a White House Ramadan dinner, where he said:
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."
Not surprisingly, liberal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg agrees with President Obama, harshly attacking opponents, saying they "ought to be ashamed of themselves."
Yes Mr. President and Mayor Bloomberg, America still enjoys freedom of religion -- and it should be upheld. But we are not talking about what is legal. Americans are concerned about what is seen as disrespectful and dishonoring at a particular location that was the scene of a horrific terrorist act.
Moreover, what religion would be so careless as to build a worship center at a specifically sensitive location knowing it will offend the great majority of the people -- unless it is intended to be malevolent and inflammatory? Maybe it is because I am a bible-believing Christian, but I don't get it.
Why can't the Islamic community in New York City be compassionate and even tolerant of the situation, realizing how volatile, symbolic and emotional this area of America is and what it means to her people? Our lives changed forever on that terrible day, just nine years ago.
Could a compromise be struck? I suspect that most Americans, like myself, would not object to the mosque being built a mile or even a half a mile away from ground zero in Manhattan rather than just two blocks from it. Wouldn't it be an act of understanding and tolerance by the Islamic community to voluntarily choose to back away from this situation with some perspective and be willing to move it a further distance away?
Shortly after the ruling striking down California's marriage amendment, our friends at the Liberty Institute (in Texas) sent their own Jonathan Saenz to the local Austin Fox News station to debate the ruling. At the end of the video, the opponent argued that love is what makes a marriage. If that were true, then there could be no prohibitions against polygamy or even incest.
Watch the video of the short debate (after an ad):
U.S. Senator Scott Brown was an important vote in the Senate to stop the DISCLOSE Act from garnering the 60 votes necessary to end debate and proceed, serving as the 41st vote against it. The DISCLOSE Act would have curtailed our freedom of speech, and the ability of pro-family groups to educate the public about the actions of their elected officials.
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who has become an unmatched champion of free speech in the U.S. Senate, put it best when he pointed out, "A yes vote on this bill will send a clear message to the American people that their jobs aren't as important as the jobs of embattled Democrat politicians... If the Founding Fathers were here, they'd remind us. They'd hold up the Constitution and remind us of the oath we took to support and defend it."
You can thank Senator Brown for his vote on the DISCLOSE Act by calling his office at 202.224.4543 or 617.565.3170. Though U.S. Senator Harry Reid was unable to garner enough votes to end debate, liberal lawmakers will likely continue to push for passage before Election Day.
Missouri voters sent a loud and clear message to President Obama -- just in time for his birthday. In the primary election yesterday, Proposition C, a ballot measure seeking to exempt Missouri residents from the insurance mandate in Obamacare, passed by 71.5 percent.
This referendum result was a 3-to-1 margin over supporters of the national health care program. That key part of nationalized health care is being challenged by more than a dozen state Attorneys General, excluding Illinois. That multi-state lawsuit cleared its first legal challenge on Monday when a US District Court in Virginia allowed it to proceed.
In Phoenix, Federal District Judge Susan Bolton struck down provisions of Arizona's law that would have required police to question an individuals' immigration status. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has indicated her administration will appeal the judge's ruling.
At the behest of Brewer the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, otherwise known as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a request for accelerated proceedings will hear arguments over the law in mid-September.
In a statement Governor Brewer said, "America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue -- We are a nation of laws and we believe they need to be enforced." Brewer went on to warn the federal government, "[the] fight is far from over."
The lawsuit initiated by the Obama Administration and the American Civil Liberties Union aimed to bar the state from enforcing the law, which, according to the ACLU, would allow unconstitutional racial profiling by police. Although portions of the law were upheld advocates assert the law is watered down. For example Bolton upheld parts, which made it illegal for a person to stop a vehicle to pick up day laborers if it obstructs traffic; however, repealed provisions forcing police officers that come in contact with someone for a law-related infraction to check the immigration status of suspected individuals.
"There are no winners here," U.S. Representative Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, a Democrat, said in a statement. "No matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure."
Even though court cases slowly move through the system, Arizona's appeal has been given a hearing rather quickly. Initiated in one out of ninety-four U.S. District Courts, the lawsuit will head to one out of thirteen Courts of Appeals which include D.C. and Federal Circuit. Depending on the outcome, the state of Arizona or the federal government could, after the Appellate Court's decision take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Judge Rules Against Counseling Student in EMU Religious Freedom Case
Federal district judge George Steeh has ruled that Eastern Michigan University did not violate Julea Ward's 1st Amendment rights when the school ordered her to counsel a client on his homosexual relationship. Ms. Ward has made it clear that she is not opposed to counseling homosexuals on a wide range of issues. However, assisting a same-sex couple's relationship would violate her deeply-held religious convictions.
EMU dismissed Julea from its counseling program for her failure to comply with the order and Ms. Ward sued the university for violating her religious liberties. Judge Steeh agreed with EMU that Julea acted unprofessionally by discriminating against homosexuals which is a violation of EMU's and the counseling profession's non-discrimination standards. Julea told EMU officials that her position on sexual activity was not limited to homosexuals, but that she would similarly refuse to counsel an unmarried heterosexual couple on their relationship if they were cohabiting.
Counseling professionals are taught to make referrals to another counselor when they have a personal or values conflict regarding a client. That is exactly what Ms. Ward did, but it appears that because the conflict centers on Christian values and sexuality, she was punished.
Thankfully, Ms. Ward and the ADF plan to appeal the case. Please keep this situation in your prayers.
To read the Judge's ruling, click HERE. To read the press release from the Alliance Defense Fund, click HERE. To read Fox News' coverage of the story, click HERE.
A man was arrested Saturday, August 28, outside Southwestern Women's Options, a late-term abortion clinic operated by Curtis Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after he threatened to shoot two pro-life women who were offering help to abortion-bound women. 
Earlier this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit put the brakes on an August 18 implementation of Judge Vaughn Walker's order overthrowing the will of 7 million California voters with regard to marriage. The court granted a motion filed by the 
