Atheists Complain of Prayer After Murder-Suicide

The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota complained that the state attorney general opened a press conference with prayer on Wednesday.

"Joining a community that has tragically lost an entire family in a moment of prayer is both appropriate and legal. The United States Supreme Court has clearly upheld and recognized the Guaranteed Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion. As Attorney General, I have joined with other State Attorneys General in successfully allowing gatherings which include local government and other legislative functions to open a meeting with an appropriate prayer. I invite the ACLU to join with me and other State Attorneys General in both recognizing and protecting Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights."
-- Marty Jackley, Attorney General, South Dakota

For background, read U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Allows Christian Prayer in Civic Meetings and also read 13 States vs. ACLU in Appeals Court over Civic Prayer

In addition, read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Said Government Should Favor God of the Bible



-- From "South Dakota AG Responds to ACLU Attack on Religious Freedom" by Newswire posted at American Clarion 3/17/16

On March 16, 2016, the South Dakota Attorney General held a community meeting inviting the press and the community in order to provide an update on the death and financial investigation into the Gear Up program.  Prior to beginning the meeting, a pastor opened with a general prayer.   The ACLU has characterized the prayer as a constitutional violation.  Despite positions taken by the ACLU, it is both appropriate and legally permissible.

In August of 2013, South Dakota Attorney Jackley joined 23 other states in a multi-state brief filed in the United States Supreme Court urging that the U.S. Constitution allows for prayer during governmental meetings and legislative session.

The Attorneys General advocated that “The American people deserve an Establishment Clause jurisprudence that is clear, workable, and faithful to the text and history of the First Amendment.” The Court further recognized that legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause. This includes opening of governmental meetings where prayer is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values long part of the Nation’s heritage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

California Mayor Calls City Prayer Vigil to Seek Solutions

Mississippi Police Chief Thanks God at City Prayer Meetings

Arizona Town Council Prays to Jesus, Rabbi Fumes

Texas School Supt. Tells Anti-prayer Atheists to Go Fly a Kite

Abortions Outlawed at 20 Weeks in South Dakota

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill this week criminalizing abortions at 20 weeks gestation.  The law includes an exception for the life of the mother in certain cases of emergency, but requires every effort be made to deliver the baby alive.  No exception is provided for cases of rape or incest.

"I think it'll save lives because it lets women know that their children really are humans just like us.  I think it's a great step forward for our state, and I would like to see us do more to protect the innocent."
-- Rep. Isaac Latterell (R) Tea, South Dakota

For background, read about court battles over late-term abortion restriction laws.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Late-term Abortion Ban Passes in West Virginia

Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!

Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

-- From "South Dakota Governor Signs 20-Week Abortion Ban Into Law" by James Nord, Associated Press 3/10/16

The measure allows abortions later than 19 weeks if there is a medical emergency, but a claim or diagnosis that a woman intends to kill or harm herself aren't part of the exemption. The law says that when such an abortion is necessary because of an emergency, the doctor must "deliver the child in the manner which ... provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive," but only if that is consistent with preserving the woman's life and preventing an "irreversible" impairment of a major bodily function.

Performing an abortion that violates the new threshold is a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. A woman who gets such an abortion would not be subject to that consequence.

Similar laws are in effect in 12 other states. Courts have blocked laws in Arizona, Idaho and Georgia.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New 20-week limit on abortions sent to governor" by Bob Mercer, Rapid City Journal correspondent 3/10/16

State senators gave final approval Wednesday 26-7 to the legislation, Senate Bill 72 . . .

Sen. Jeff Monroe, R-Pierre, was prime sponsor. His lead sponsor in the House was Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea.

The House of Representatives passed the bill Monday 59-7. The House made changes that Monroe described as necessary to correct minor mistakes in the Senate version. Monroe was the only senator to speak on the matter Wednesday.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Daugaard approves 20-week abortion ban" by Dana Ferguson, Sioux Falls Argus Leader 3/10/16

Supporters say the measure aims to prevent excruciating pain fetuses experience during abortion procedures. While some doctors contend that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says evidence suggests that's not possible until the third trimester begins at 27 weeks.

Opponents including representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and reproductive rights groups have said the measure is unconstitutional as it bans abortions before the point of viability. They also said the measure could create health problems for some pregnant women.

Thirteen states have approved similar bans, according to the reproductive health think-tank Guttmacher Institute, which depart from the 22-24 week standard of a fetus' viability outside the womb established by the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. At least two of those bans in Arizona and Idaho were enjoined due to court orders, voiding the policies.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Dakota Criminalizes Late Abortions" by Lacey Louwagie, Courthouse News Service 3/11/16

Some called the bill unnecessary. The only clinic that performs abortion in South Dakota is Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, which will not perform abortions after the 14th week of gestation.

The bill's author, state Sen. Jeff Monroe, R-Pierre, called that "baloney."

"I don't believe they are cutting it off at 14 weeks," he told Courthouse News.

The bill requires medical professionals to fill out a form answering 23 questions about any abortion performed in the state. Information sought includes the reason for the abortion, the mother's age and race, the gestational age of the fetus, and how the procedure was paid for.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Dakota Governor Signs Pro-Life Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions After 20 Weeks" by Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews.com 3/11/16

[Gov.] Daugaard spokeswoman Kelsey Pritchard told the Associated Press that the state’s attorney general “will be prepared to defend the constitutionality of the bill” if pro-abortion groups challenge it.

The bill is modeled after the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which has become law in 12 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Though abortion advocates deny the science of fetal pain, researchers have established that unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier. Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for unborn pain.

He has testified before U.S. Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Kill Baby to Save Mother? No! Says Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

Transgender Restrooms for S. Dakota Schools Passes

Yesterday, the South Dakota legislature passed a bill to comply with President Obama's edict that sexually confused students be accommodated in public schools; those students will use assigned private restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc.  However, sexual revolutionaries are not satisfied because this means that the privacy of ALL students will be respected, such that use of facilities labeled boys/men and girls/women will be (traditionally) restricted based on "physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person's chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth," rather than by whim (a.k.a. "gender identity").

"This is such the right thing to do to protect all of our students.  It's a privacy bill, it's a modesty bill, it's sensible South Dakota common sense."
-- Dale Bartscher, Family Heritage Alliance Action

UPDATE 3/1/16: South Dakota Governor Vetoes Bill, Won't Buck Obama Edict (see excerpts below)

For background, read President Obama Forces Wildest Transgender Agenda on School Children Using Full Force of Federal Government and now Hillary Clinton Promises Even MORE 'Transgender/Gay Rights'

Also read President Obama's Enforcer Follows Man into Ladies' Room

And read Virginia Bathroom Privacy Bill Defeated

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Kindergartners Taught Transgenderism in St. Paul

Missouri Residents Protest Transgender/Gay Boy in Girls Locker Room

Parents' Lawyer Halts Wisconsin School Transgender Sneak Attack

Gender Redefined by NY City Law; Biology Be Damned

Also read how the Gay/Transgender Agenda is attacking America one town and one state at a time, but an attack was stopped cold by Houston voters.

-- From "S. Dakota is first state to pass bill restricting transgender students’ bathroom use" by Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post 2/16/16

The bill has provoked outrage from gay and transgender rights activists, who say it discriminates against transgender children. They say that it could put schools at risk of lawsuits; in 2014, the Education Department issued guidance finding that Title IX, the federal law that requires equal treatment of the sexes in schools, requires that students be permitted to use facilities that match their gender identity.

But the bill’s proponents have argued that the legislation actually matches up better with the original language of Title IX, which requires separate facilities for the sexes. They say it respects privacy while also meeting the needs of transgender students by requiring that schools allow them to use private facilities, such as a teacher’s or nurse’s bathroom.

The bill, which passed the state Senate 20 to 15, is just one example of how the debate over gay and transgender rights has shifted since same-sex couples won the right to marry, state by state at first and then nationally when the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right for gay couples.

Dozens of school districts have grappled with this issue, but South Dakota would be the first to make it a matter of state law. About a dozen states are considering similar legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "S.D. passes transgender student bathroom ban bill" by CBS News & The Associated Press 2/17/16

Under the plan, schools would have to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the "controlled use" of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.

Republican Sen. David Omdahl urged other legislators Tuesday to support the bill to "preserve the innocence of our young people."

Supporters say South Dakota's plan is a response to changes in the Obama administration's interpretation of the federal Title IX anti-discrimination law related to education. Federal officials have said that barring students from restrooms that match their gender identity is prohibited under [their new, progressive interpretation of] Title IX.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgender bathroom bill awaits Daugaard's signature" by Dana Ferguson, Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) USA Today Network 2/16/16

The South Dakota Senate approved the bill Tuesday on a 20-15 vote, moving it to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard's desk for his approval. Daugaard has said the measure seems like a good idea and plans to research the issue and listen to recorded testimony before making up his mind on whether to make the bill law.

The vote sparked outrage from Democrats and LGBT families and advocates Tuesday afternoon who said the measure is discriminatory, while conservatives marked its passage as a success in maintaining the privacy of South Dakota students.

Rep. Fred Deutsch, R-Florence, the bill's author, has said the measure is designed to ensure the privacy of transgender and non-transgender students in the most private areas in schools. He said the federal government has overstepped its authority in drafting Title IX regulations that require school districts to accommodate transgender students and they should receive "reasonable accommodations."

The state's House of Representatives approved the measure on a 58-10 vote last month.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Dakota Is The First State To Pass A Transphobic Student Bathroom Bill" by Lydia O'Connor, General Assignment Reporter, The Huffington Post 2/16/16

The bill provides that with written parental permission, affected students may request a "reasonable accommodation ... that does not impose an undue hardship on a school district," such as use of a single-occupancy restroom.

The Transgender Law Center lambasted the bill's passage as "distressing and disturbing" and said it believes the legislation violates federal law.

"Every single child, including transgender youth, should have the opportunity to succeed and be treated fairly by our schools and elected officials," the center's executive director Kris Hayashi told The Huffington Post in a statement. If the governor signs the measure, Hayashi said, it will "endanger students and open up South Dakota schools to legal chaos, liability, and the loss of millions in federal funds."

Democrats, arguing against the bill in the Senate on Tuesday, also raised concerns that the measure may trigger the federal government to pull money from public schools, BuzzFeed News noted. Controversy also may prompt a tourism boycott, the Democrats warned.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Senate: Transgender students must use facilities determined by their sex at birth" by Bob Mercer, Correspondent, Rapid City Journal 2/16/16

Sen. David Omdahl, R-Sioux Falls, said the bill protects transgender individuals by providing separate facilities. He said it would preserve “the innocence of young people.”

[Sen. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton] said he doesn’t know why South Dakota was chosen to be a test state, and he resents it.

[Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark] said the state attorney general will defend the state law but won’t defend individual school districts. He said two [religious liberty rights] groups have volunteered to defend school districts.

Sen. Scott Parsley, D-Madison, asked Greenfield if the groups would pay for any legal settlement.

“I don’t want to get off on some rabbit trails,” Greenfield replied. He added that the groups would be responsible for legal costs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/1/16: From "South Dakota Governor Vetoes Restriction on Transgender Bathroom Access" by Mitch Smith, New York Times

Gov. Dennis Daugaard put out a statement late in the day saying that the bill did “not address any pressing issue” facing the state, and that it would have put schools in the “difficult position of following state law while knowing it openly invites federal litigation.”

The measure was pushed by conservative legislators who said it was an effort to protect the privacy of all students. But it appeared to conflict with the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights law and seemed likely to be headed for a court challenge.

“If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them,” Mr. Daugaard wrote in a letter to lawmakers announcing his decision. “Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.” State Representative Fred Deutsch, the Republican who introduced the South Dakota bill, said he would not seek an override. Mr. Deutsch has said he believed that the federal Education Department had overstepped in its interpretation of Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, and that students’ biological sex should determine which restroom they use. Mr. Deutsch said he had spoken with Mr. Daugaard shortly before the veto statement was released.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victims and Professionals

And read 52-year-old Man is Adopted as 6-year-old Girl

Teen Athletes' Gender Based on Genitals, NOT Whim

The South Dakota legislature finds itself having to pass a law to make clear that a person's sex is determined at birth.  Lawmakers are deciding how to rein in the state athletics board that jumped on board the Gay Agenda bandwagon last year by allowing students to declare their gender in order to choose boys or girls sports teams.  Genital exams may soon be required to verify the actual gender of state residents, including student athletes.

“This is South Dakota. We haven’t adopted the East Coast culture. We haven’t adopted the West Coast culture. We maintain our own culture”
-- Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Minnesota & California OK Boys on Girls' School Teams, in Showers

Girl Sues Virginia School to Use Boys Restroom

Supreme Court Opens Girl's Room to Grown Men in Maine

High School Boy Sexually Mutilated, Media Cheer

Teenage 'Boy' Harvests Own Eggs to be Mother & Transgender 'Father'

President Obama Forces Gay Agenda on Schools via Taxpayer$$

Most importantly, read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victims and Professionals


-- From "'Visual inspection' could be part of state law to determine gender identity" by Bart Pfankuch, Rapid City Journal 8/23/15

The proposal from Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, would rely on official birth certificates and visual inspections for determining gender rather than allowing people to decide and declare their gender on their own.

He said gender is determined at conception and the transgender debate is riding the gay marriage wave.

The committee vote was 6-5. The panel spent several hours considering again the policy set last year by the South Dakota High School Activities Association board of directors.

Sen. Bill Van Gerpen, R-Tyndall, said the Legislature set policies on substance abuse and concussions for the association in previous years and should determine the gender policy too.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Group keeps policy on transgender high school athletes" by James Nord, Associated Press 8/27/15

South Dakota's high school activities association on Thursday largely maintained its policy allowing transgender student athletes to request to play on the team of their choice, increasing the likelihood Republicans in the statehouse will push legislation to change it.

The association's policy aims to provide a way for transgender students to participate on the sports teams that reflect their gender identities rather than the sex listed on their birth certificates. So far, a transgender student hasn't made a request under the policy.

Association board Chairman Jason Uttermark said he doesn't view the differing approaches to the policy as a conflict with the Legislature. He said policymakers are attempting to figure out the right thing to do and said he would "wholeheartedly" accept a legislative directive.

"We're really not coming up with a philosophical position," he said. "Our policy is strictly a legal position, and right now it's what we believe is putting our member schools in the best situation from a possible lawsuit."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgender athlete bill to be drafted at committee’s request" by Dana Ferguson, Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) 8/20/15

Rep. Jim Bolin, R-Canton . . . said minors don’t have the authority to deny the sex designated on their birth certificate as it is part of an official state document. He said he would be happy to see the measure pass the full Legislature next session.

The bill that will be drafted by the state’s Legislative Research Council will come before the committee for approval later this year. If approved, it will go before the full Legislature next session.

The South Dakota High School Activities Association drafted the transgender policy last year after consulting other state’s approaches. No specific case prompted the policy.

Fourteen other states and Washington, D.C. have policies similar to South Dakota’s on the books.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Connecticut Taxpayers Teach Men How to Talk Like Women

And read There are So Few Transgenders in Military, Costs are Negligible

In addition, read Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts

Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access

Success of the pro-life movement is evident in the latest abortion tally from the Planned Parenthood affiliated Guttmacher Institute showing that the abortion rate in the U.S. is the lowest since Roe v. Wade. Not surprisingly, the abortion advocates' counterattack is headed by Democrats who believe such an offensive will rally their base voters in 2014 and 2016.

“Women’s legal right to access a safe abortion is being eliminated. We are sick and tired of losing ground.”
-- Dan Frankel (D), Pennsylvania state Representative

Although the rates of both known abortions and total pregnancies have declined -- the latter attributed to the success of unnatural birth control -- the actual loss of life is completely unknown because many birth control methods employed involve abortifacients that destroy fertilized ovum (the point at which a new human being comes to life).

For background, read Abortion Clinic Closings Set Record; Admit Defeat as well as Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits

Lower pregnancy rate?  Read about the diminishing birth rate in the U.S. and worldwide

Also read how abortion kills most black children in New York - Genocide

-- From "Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973" by Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post 2/2/14

There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women in 2011, the latest year for which figures were available, according a paper published Monday from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights think tank. That is down 13 percent from 2008 and a little higher than the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The study . . . shows that, after a plateau from 2005 to 2008, the long-term decline in the abortion rate has resumed. The rate has dropped significantly from its all-time high in 1981, when there were roughly 30 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. The overall number of abortions also fell 13 percent from 2008 to nearly 1.1 million in 2011, the study said.

The study did not examine the reasons for the drop. But the authors suggested that one factor was greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms.

. . . Rachel K. Jones, a senior researcher at Guttmacher and lead researcher on the paper [said,] “If the abortion rate continues to drop, we can’t assume it’s all due to positive factors” such as better adherence to contraceptives, she said, calling the laws passed in 22 states “onerous.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion-Rights Backers on Offense After 3-Year Drubbing" by Esmé E. Deprez, Bloomberg 2/24/14

Lawmakers are pushing back after a record number of laws since 2010 forced dozens of clinics to close and made it harder for women to terminate pregnancies or prevent them in the first place. Backers see the movement as a winning election strategy for the Democratic Party as it presents itself as supportive of women.

Amanda Allen, state legislative counsel at the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which fights anti-abortion laws in court, calls this year a “tipping point.”

Abortion-rights supporters said they’re pressing forward, even if their efforts fail, to demonstrate they know how to fight back.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortions Declining in U.S., Study Finds" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 2/2/14

. . . “Some of the new regulations undoubtedly made it more difficult, and costly, for facilities to continue to provide services and for women to access them.” The [Guttmacher] researchers said that future studies would need to monitor the effects of laws that restrict abortions.

Responding to an advance copy of the report, Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group, called it “long on strained conclusions” and said it understated the impact of anti-abortion education and laws.

Carole Joffe, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a historian of abortion, said that while the effects were difficult to quantify, the anti-abortion movement had “been very successful at stigmatizing abortion” and that this had most likely influenced the long-term downward trend.

One striking development revealed in the survey is the rising use of medication abortions, normally within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. In 2011, medication abortions accounted for 23 percent of abortions reported by clinics and private doctors. Several states have recently acted to limit access to such abortions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Next Battle in the Abortion Wars" by Robin Marty, Politico 2/17/14

. . . Abortion opponents continue to use legislative bills to pass full bans on ways to administer an abortion in one state, only to watch them spread. The use of FDA protocol abortion drug restrictions, which cause practitioners to use a decade-old solution rather than current best practice, has all but eliminated the ability for pregnant patients to obtain medication abortions in Ohio; it has been proposed or passed in Mississippi, Oklahoma and North Dakota, as well. Now, South Dakota’s potential ban on “dismemberment of a live fetus” could follow a similar path.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Employees View Abortion as 'Rite of Passage,' Former Nurse Says; Shares Disturbing Behavior of Doctors" by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post Reporter 2/21/14

A former Planned Parenthood nurse said that employees at the abortion facility in Indianapolis view abortion as a "rite of passage," and described the institution as an "evil and sad place to work," revealing some of the disturbing behavior of its doctors.

Marianne Anderson, who worked at Planned Parenthood from 2010 to 2012, shared in an interview last week . . . some of the experiences around her job that stuck with her, including treating a Korean girl she was sure was a sex slave. She also described the disturbing behavior of some of the doctors:

"One doctor, when he was in the POC (products of conception) room, would talk to the aborted baby while looking for all the parts. 'Come on, little arm, I know you're here! Now you stop hiding from me!' It just made me sick to my stomach."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

MSNBC Contributor: Pregnancy Involves a Life – ‘For Some People’ (video):

Most States Tell Supremes: We Pray in Jesus' Name

The U.S. Supreme Court, in May, agreed to consider the case of Town of Greece, N.Y., vs. Galloway wherein the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against prayer.  A growing list of states have expressed to the Court their interpretation of the constitutional freedom of religion and speech, and thus the freedom to pray in public/civic/legislative meetings.

For background, read 2nd Circuit Court Rules Prayer Unconstitutional in Greece, New York and also read 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati to Rule on Hamilton County Prayer as well as 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco Ruled Prayer OK Lancaster, Calif.

For further background, read the previous Supreme Court Action: Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public

UPDATE 5/13/14: U.S. Supreme Court rules prayers to Jesus Christ OK at government meetings

UPDATE 11/13/13: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Town of Greece vs. Galloway

-- From "S.D. is backing legal defense of prayer by public boards" by John Hult, Sioux Falls Argus Leader 8/3/13

[South Dakota] Attorney General Marty Jackley said Friday he is one of the 28 state attorneys general who have signed onto an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case, which involves prayers that took place in Greece, N.Y.

Were the high court to affirm the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, Jackley said, it could force the state and many local governments in South Dakota to re-examine opening prayers or cease to allow them altogether.

The 1983 Supreme Court case of Marsh v. Chambers says that asking for divine guidance before legislative sessions has become “part of the fabric of our society.” The guidelines in that ruling essentially say governments can “pray, not preach,” Jackley said. “You have to keep it reasonable, and I think we do in South Dakota.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller weighs in on prayer case" by Tim Evans, Indianapolis Star 8/3/13

The brief seeks “an unambiguous ruling that prayer is permitted before legislative bodies without requiring legislative leaders to screen prayers for sectarian references.”

The brief comes in the wake of a hodgepodge of conflicting federal court decisions on the limits and contents of prayer at government events.

The brief was drafted by Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, who headed the state’s defense of legislative prayer in a 2005 challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

. . . the suit was eventually dismissed by an appellate court that determined the taxpayers bringing the action had no legal standing because they were not directly affected by the House prayers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Texas AG Defends Prayer" by Chelle Fox, KTRH 740AM (Houston) 8/3/13

[Texas Attorney General Greg] Abbott said, “Despite hundreds of years of established tradition and a Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of legislatures to convene each day with a prayer, the town of Greece, New York, has been improperly prohibited from beginning their monthly town board meetings with a prayer.”  He went on to say that the legal action is a bipartisan, multistate effort to “defend the longstanding and constitutionally protected right of legislative bodies to begin their meetings with prayer.”

The case involves [a First Amendment] Establishment Clause challenge to the New York town’s practice of allowing citizens to offer a prayer during monthly town board meetings. Atheists sued the city, and a federal appeals court ruled against the practice.

The states collectively argue that public acknowledgments of God at official functions have been customary since the nation’s founding.   The amicus brief goes on to point out that many governmental bodies from the local to federal levels, including the United States Congress and all 50 state governmental bodies, have a long history of beginning meetings with prayer. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The politics of prayer: Invocations common at Alabama public meetings, but challenges lie ahead" by Kelsey Stein, Birmingham News 8/2/13

An invocation - be it a prayer or a more general devotional - opens meetings of the Birmingham City Council, the Jefferson County Commission, the Jefferson County School Board and council meetings in most central Alabama cities and towns, including Gardendale, Homewood and Trussville.

The practice has been in place as long as most can remember.

. . . A 2011 ruling says that prayers before legislative meetings in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia should be nondenominational and non-sectarian, using generic words that don't refer to a specific religion.

A 2008 court of appeals decision that applies to Florida, Georgia and Alabama upheld prayers at the Cobb County, Ga., commission, which invited representatives of various faiths to participate. The prayers were predominantly Christian and often referenced Jesus.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "23 States File Joint Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Support of Town Hall Prayers in Jesus’ Name" by Heather Clark, Christian News Network 8/3/13

The brief requests that the Supreme Court rule that prayers do not have be pre-screened for “sectarian references.”

“The Court should reject the assumption that the content of private citizens’ prayers before legislative assemblies is attributable exclusively to the government. Such prayers, rather are expressions of private belief made in service to an elected body of citizens,” it reads. “Those present may participate or not, but each citizen’s mode of rendering this particular service to a governmental body may rightfully be accommodated.”

Oral argument [at the Supreme Court] is expected in the Greece matter in October.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

In addition, read Atheists Say They Lack Enough Lawyers to Sue ALL Christians

Because of the intimidation tactics of atheist lawyer organizations, state governments across America are educating its citizens on constitutional religious liberty by passing laws in Texas, and Louisiana, and North Carolina, and South Carolina, and Missouri, and Mississippi, and Florida, and Tennessee.

The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

Planned Parenthood Loses on South Dakota Law

A federal appeals court has given South Dakota pro-life advocates a victory by rejecting Planned Parenthood’s attempt to block a South Dakota law. The informed consent law is designed to help persuade women to consider positive alternatives to abortion.

For background, read Judge: Abortion Kills Living Human Being and also read SD Law Mandates Pro-life Counseling Pre-Abortion as well as Pro-life Legislation Floods America

UPDATE 6/27/12: Federal judge OKs abortion restrictions taking effect July 1st

-- From "Appeals court upholds most of South Dakota abortion law" by Andrew Stern, editing by Greg McCune, Reuters 9/2/11

An appeals court on Friday upheld much of a South Dakota law setting out what a pregnant woman should be told 24 hours before an abortion, including that the procedure would "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

The statement assures the woman that she should not feel pressured into having an abortion, the court said. The statement "conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision," the court said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court: Docs can discuss mother-fetus relationship" by Kristi Eaton, Associated Press 9/2/11

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier was incorrect when she ruled it was unconstitutional for doctors to be required to tell patients there is a relationship between mother and fetus.

But the court said Schreier was correct in striking down parts of the state's abortion law that require doctors to tell patients that undergoing the procedure increases the likelihood of suicide.

Both sides claimed victory Friday.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court: South Dakota Law Telling Women Abortion Risks OK" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 9/2/11

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, today, upheld the majority of South Dakota’s informed consent law, including a requirement that doctors inform pregnant women that they have “an existing relationship” with an “unborn human being.” A lower court ruling had struck down that provision because the judge concluded that preborn children are not “persons.”

[The Alliance Defense Fund] filed the brief on behalf of the Family Research Council, CareNet, Heartbeat International, and The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and its attorney, Harold Cassidy, appealed to the 8th Circuit on behalf of a group of pregnancy centers that successfully intervened in the suit to protect the interest of women.

Arguing that the “risk of suicide” provision should have been upheld, Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender wrote in dissent that “even the evidence relied upon by Planned Parenthood acknowledges a significant, known statistical correlation between abortion and suicide. This well-documented statistical correlation is sufficient to support the required disclosure that abortion presents an ‘increased risk’ of suicide, as that term is used in the relevant medical literature.” He noted that Planned Parenthood did not challenge the documented risks of depression.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

SD Law Mandates Pro-life Counseling Pre-Abortion

The South Dakota House has passed a bill requiring consultation with a crisis pregnancy center, plus a three-day waiting period prior to an abortion.

UPDATE 5/27/11: Planned Parenthood sues to halt July 1 implementation of new law

UPDATE 3/22/11: Governor signs bill into law

-- From "SD House passes abortion counseling measure" by The Associated Press 2/22/11

The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Roger Hunt of Brandon, says the bill would make sure women get help so they can resist efforts to force them into getting abortions.

But Rep. Peggy Gibson of Huron says the bill is an unconstitutional interference in a woman's right to get an abortion.

The House voted 49-19 to send the bill to the Senate.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Dakota Cmte OKs Bill for CPC Consult Before Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 2/15/11

The idea behind the bill — which goes further than legislation in other states — is to get women tangible pregnancy help and support that they won’t normally find at an abortion center.

A September 2010 report the Planned Parenthood abortion business issued of its own abortion numbers found, while abortions are on the rise at Planned Parenthood, adoption referrals declined to just 2,405 — a 51 percent drop since 2007. Planned Parenthood now does 134 abortions for every adoption referral it makes.

The abortion business also helped only 9,433 prenatal clients, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007. Combined with the number of abortion referrals, 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood had abortions while just 3.5 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

S. Dakota Pastor Defies IRS Muzzle

The Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, last month endorsed GOP state Sen. Gordon Howie in the South Dakota governor's race, in defiance of the Internal Revenue Service and a federal court ruling and in hopes of producing a landmark constitutional test case.

-- From "Pastor tests IRS by endorsing candidate" by Michal Elseth, The Washington Times 6/15/10

A South Dakota minister says he wants to do for religious freedom what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did for civil rights.

At issue is an IRS regulation called the Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, that says that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the section of the tax code under which most churches file, cannot endorse a specific political candidate and retain its nonprofit classification.

Mr. Howie's campaign, which had actively solicited support from the state's pastors, touted Mr. Williams' endorsement in a press release last month.

Mr. Williams said he will fight for his right to speak from the pulpit whatever he sees most fitting for his congregation, regardless of the consequences.

The Rapid City pastor is working with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative-leaning group that defends religious freedom.

Erik Stanley, an attorney for the organization, said the fund has been hoping that by encouraging pastors to break the federal tax code restrictions, they could get a test case to court and have the law declared an infringement of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The ban on political campaign activity does not restrict leaders of organizations from expressing their views on political matters if they are speaking for themselves as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.

The IRS has not indicated whether it will pursue an investigation of the South Dakota church.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pastors divided over Howie's pulpit challenge" by Mary Garrigan, Rapid City Journal staff 5/24/10

One Rapid City pastor has accepted gubernatorial candidate Gordon Howie's challenge to defy federal tax law and endorsed Howie from the pulpit.

However, other local religious leaders have dismissed Howie's Pulpit Challenge initiative as legally and pastorally irresponsible.

"The Johnson Amendment was merely a rider to a tax code. It is unconstitutional, impossible to enforce, cannot stand up in a court of law and has never been enforced on any church since its passage," said Scott Craig, a Howie supporter who recently moved to Rapid City from Hawaii to pastor the new Bighorn Canyon Community Church. In 2008, Craig was one of 30 pastors who endorsed John McCain over Barack Obama from the pulpit and provided the IRS with video and written documentation. None of those churches have faced revocation of their tax-exempt status to date, but the IRS said some investigations are still open.

Craig believes churches are constitutionally guaranteed their tax-exempt status as part of the founding fathers' desire to promote freedom of religion and freedom of speech, not as a reward for refraining from political activity as part of a church-state separation issue. "It's important for the nation to reframe this whole question, not as a church-state separation issue, but as a free speech issue. Specifically endorsing candidates from the pulpit is not breaking the law, as the nation has been led to believe," he said.

Craig [said] pastors have a responsibility to educate their flock on God's laws, including which elected officials do the best job of following those laws. Pastors who don't are "not doing their jobs."

Since 2004, the IRS has conducted "limited examinations" of allegations of political activity by tax-exempt groups but has proposed revocation of 501(c)(3) status in only a few "egregious" cases, according to a 2008 letter from Steve Miller, an IRS commissioner.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Failed Science Advocates Target 'Non-believers'

As scientific evidence mounts against the favored beliefs of the secularized liberal elites, namely Darwinism and Global Warming, left-wing journalists accelerate criticism of scientists who won't "drink the kool-aid."

-- From "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets" by Leslie Kaufman, New York Times 3/3/10

Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

. . . Yet there is little doubt that the skepticism about global warming resonates more strongly among conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular. . . .

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects.

Last year, the Texas Board of Education adopted language requiring that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming.

Oklahoma introduced a bill with similar goals in 2009, although it was not enacted.

In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds.

John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause.

“There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,” he said, “with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.”

Not all evangelical Christians reject the notion of climate change, of course. There is a budding green evangelical [sic] movement in the country driven partly by a belief that because God created the earth, humans are obligated to care for it.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Judge: Abortion Kills Living Human Being - Roe Doomed

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier's ruling today settled a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood contesting a South Dakota state law requiring abortionists to inform the mother that abortion kills the human in her womb.

-- From "Judge: SD doctors must say abortion ends life" by Carson Walker, Associated Press 8/20/09

[Judge Schreier] upheld part of a South Dakota law that requires women to be told abortion ends a human life, but struck down disclosures that the procedure increases the likelihood of suicide and that they have an existing relationship with the fetus.

She sided with the state in ruling that doctors must make the biological disclosure "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy counseling center in Sioux Falls, one of the intervening parties in the lawsuit, said she will appeal the suicide and relationship disclosure decisions.

The human being ruling was significant, she said.

"This is the unraveling of Roe (v. Wade). This is a huge, fatal blow to them," Unruh said of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

"We take the human being part and go to the Supreme Court and put the human relationship in. That knocks out Roe v. Wade."

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Planned Parenthood Defies Law - Fetus IS 'Human Life'

As of Thursday, Planned Parenthood abortionists in South Dakota have been accused of "defying" a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found constitutional a state requirement for informed consent. . . . which requires doctors to tell women that abortion ends a human life.

UPDATE 8/12/09: State threatens to suspend Planned Parenthood license

-- From "Judge vows to rule soon in abortion warning case" by Josh Verges, Sioux Falls Argus Leader 7/18/09

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier . . . could decide to send the case to a trial.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, asked a judge to rule that provisions of the law aimed at providing women with factual information before an abortion are too vague or simply inaccurate.

Lawyers for the state and the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls crisis pregnancy center that intervened in the case, accused Planned Parenthood of relying on bad research.

Planned Parenthood challenged the law soon after it went into effect in 2005, but its doctors began complying in July 2008 only when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction.

Even then, the Department of Health warned that the information being provided to patients does not match the language of the law.

Planned Parenthood objects to several statements doctors are required to tell patients: that abortion ends the life of a "whole, separate, unique, living human being"; that pregnant women's relationships with their unborn children are protected by the U.S. constitution and state laws; and that suicide and suicidal ideation is a "known medical risk."

The courts have ruled the clinic need not use the exact form created by the Department of Health, but the state says the form [that Planned Parenthood] abortion doctors are [currently] using does not comply with the law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood accused of 'defying' court decision" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/31/09

In a letter to the state, a copy of which was obtained by WND, a number of interveners in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against South Dakota over the law express alarm that even a full year after the appellate court issued its ruling, the organization apparently remains in deliberate violation.

Doneen Hollingsworth, the secretary of health for the state, told WND in a statement the agency "is required to inspect abortion facilities and enforce applicable laws and regulations. In order to ensure compliance with the law, the department met with Planned Parenthood representatives July 30 regarding findings from its most recent inspection.

The letter, dated just days ago, said, "The statute expressly states that the physician's disclosure statement must include the disclosure 'that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.' The term 'human being' is defined by S.D.C.L. 34-23A-1(4) in the biological sense."

Also, the letter said, "The Disclosure Form created by the South Dakota Department of Health, as it relates to the Human Being Disclosure, accurately reflects the command of the Statute, and is the only wording of the disclosure which would properly comply. Your language is correct as written: '1-b) The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being; the term 'Human Being' means, for the purpose of this and following disclosures, 'an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens during its embryonic and fetal ages.'"

It continued, "The en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that this disclosure as written was constitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). If Planned Parenthood does not use the language drafted by the Department of Health, it is not in compliance with the statute," the letter said.

"The language used by Planned Parenthood does not comply: 'South Dakota requires that you be informed that, as a matter of biology, the abortion will terminate a developing, living organism (an 'embryo' or 'fetus') of the human species ('Homo sapiens') that, in the absence of abnormality, has a complete, separate genetic makeup that is unique to that embryo or fetus,'" the letter said.

"The statute requires a straight forward statement that is easily understood by a lay person, that the abortion terminates the life of a human being. The precise language was carefully selected by the legislature. The language used by Planned Parenthood not only fails to use the clear and proper language, but Planned Parenthood’s language is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and very confusing," the letter said.

The South Dakota law . . . requires abortionists to explain to women that:

• The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
  
• The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
  
• That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
  
• A description of all known medical risks of the procedure, including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

South Dakota Grassroots Take Aim on Roe v. Wade

National pro-abortion groups are mobilizing to defeat a South Dakota initiative on the November ballot that would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother.

-- From "Pro-Abortion Groups Mobilize to Defeat Dakota Pro-Life Initiative" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 8/14/08

These [pro-abortion] groups see the initiative as the potential "first step" in a legal challenge to Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide. The principal pro-life organizer behind the South Dakota initiative, meanwhile, does not dispute this perception.

"Let’s not kid ourselves," Nancy Keenan, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told reporters at a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday. "The people behind this effort (want) to make South Dakota the first step in a long-term campaign to mount a legal challenge to Roe (vs. Wade)."

Keenan was joined by two other national pro-abortion figures, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parent Action Fund, the political arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"It seems desperate to me that they would hold a press conference in Washington, D.C.," Leslee Unruh, leader of the South Dakota organization behind Initiated Measure 11, "Vote Yes on Life," told CNSNews.com. Unruh said that calling national attention to her state's third attempt in almost as many years to ban abortion might backfire on the pro-abortion groups.

"Grassroots always trumps money in South Dakota," Unruh said. "People in South Dakota don't like it if they think someone nationally is trying to tell them what to do."

"Vote Yes for Life" gathered almost 60,000 signatures - more than three times the 17,000 required for inclusion on the ballot - and 48,000 signatures were officially turned in to the state.

To read the entire story, CLICK HERE.

SD: Planned Parenthood Abortions Terminated

The lone abortion center in South Dakota appears as if it is still not doing abortions following the implementation of a new law a week and a half ago. Rather than tell women abortion kills children and has numerous risks, Planned Parenthood closed its doors to women wanting abortions.

-- From "Women Seeking Abortion Must Be Told About 'Unique Living Human Being'" by Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/20/08

In a victory for antiabortion forces, doctors in South Dakota are now required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit last week lifted a preliminary injunction that prevented the language from taking effect. A spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which runs the state's only abortion clinic, said doctors will begin reciting the script to patients as early as this week.

Antiabortion forces in South Dakota have been trying for years to halt the procedure and to build a winnable challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

"The law is one more terrible, terrible barrier," said Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office. She described the rules as "unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman's life."

Mailee Smith, staff counsel at Chicago-based Americans United for Life, praised the regulations. "We do think it's a good law, because it does provide a woman with the broadest spectrum of information," she said.

-- From "South Dakota Abortion Center Apparently Still Not Doing Abortions With New Law" by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor 7/29/08

Normally Planned Parenthood flies in an abortion practitioner from Minnesota because no one locally in South Dakota will do abortions.

[Dr. Allen Unruh, a leading pro-life advocate who works with Alpha Pregnancy Center,] told the Catholic News Agency yesterday that it appears the abortion practitioner has not yet come and that no abortions have been done at the center, though it has seen non-abortion customers.

"We were the first state that ever made Planned Parenthood put up a closed sign," he said.

Minnesota-based Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kathi Di Nicola said last week that abortions never stopped at the center, but Unruh told CNA he thinks they have, at least temporarily.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Federal Court Rules Unborn as 'Living Human Being'

-- From "Pro-Lifers Praise Ruling Allowing Statement on Abortion" by Kaitlynn Riely, CNSNews.com Correspondent 7/2/08

(CNSNews.com) - South Dakota may enforce a law that requires doctors to provide pregnant women with a written statement saying, "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," a federal appeals court ruled last Friday.

In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7-4 to strike down a 2005 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for South Dakota.

The injunction had prevented a statute - requiring abortion providers to tell women, in writing, that an abortion would terminate the life of a "living human being" - from taking effect. The decision by the appeals court reversed the injunction and remanded it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The lawsuit, filed by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, required the court to consider whether the definition of human being should include "the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation."

The court's ruling said, "Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion."

"The Eighth Circuit Court's ruling is another significant pro-life victory in South Dakota," [said Kyle Holt, director of operations for South Dakota Right to Life]. "It sheds light on the ugly reality that abortion ends the life of a living, breathing human being. Women deserve to know the truth, and now they can."

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.