9th Court Forces Christians into Abortion Business

This week's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, overturning the 2012 ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton, reinstates a 2007 Washington state requirement forcing all Christian pharmacists to sell the morning-after pill (Plan B), thus violating their religious liberty.

“The government has no business punishing citizens solely because of their religious beliefs.  The pharmacists in this case willingly refer patients to over 30 pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill within a 5 mile radius, and no patient has ever been denied timely access to any drug.”
-- Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty

For background, read how Judge Leighton ruled the regulations to be anti-Christian.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Illinois Pro-life Pharmacists Win Against Plan B

Unlimited Plan B Abortion Pill in Stores for Kids

'Invisible' Abortions Soar Among Teens — Plan B

Over-the-Counter Abortion Paid by ObamaCare: Study

UPDATE 8/22/15: Persecuted Christians Testify at Iowa Rally Hosted by Sen. Ted Cruz

-- From "Pharmacy owners cannot cite religion to deny medicine - U.S. appeals court" by Dan Levine, Reuters 7/23/15

The state of Washington can require a pharmacy to deliver medicine even if the pharmacy's owner has a religious objection, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, the latest in a series of judgements on whether religious believers can opt out of providing services.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the Obamacare health law's contraception requirement.

A unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Thursday decided that the rules are constitutional because they rationally further the state's interest in patient safety. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, the court said.

"The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs," wrote Judge Susan Graber.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ruling: Washington can require pharmacies to dispense Plan B" by Gene Johnson, The Associated Press 7/24/15

A Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy in Olympia and two pharmacists sued, saying the rules required them to violate their religious beliefs, because the drugs can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which they consider tantamount to abortion. They argued that they should be allowed to refer patients to a nearby drug store rather than fulfill the prescription themselves.

But the appeals judges — Susan P. Graber, Richard R. Clifton Mary H. Murguia — said that wasn’t good enough.

In his initial ruling, Leighton said the rules infringed on the pharmacists’ religious freedom and issued an order blocking them, but in 2009 the appeals court reversed that decision. After holding an 11-day trial, Leighton in 2012 basically reaffirmed his original reasoning.

But the appeals court found that the rules were neutral, rather than targeted at suppressing the religious objections of the pharmacists.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "WA Pharms Must Stock Morning-After Pill" by June Williams, Courthouse News Service 7/24/15

Stormans Inc., owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, and two individual pharmacists sued the state in 2007 over new Board of Pharmacy regulations that require pharmacies to stock and dispense the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton initially barred enforcement of the new stocking rules, but the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction in 2009 after finding that the lower court had abused its discretion and "incorrectly applied a heightened level of scrutiny to a neutral law of general applicability."

Although the injunction was lifted, Washington state put off enforcing new rules pending trial. Leighton concluded after a 2012 bench trial that the stocking and dispensing laws were unconstitutional.

[This week, the Ninth Circuit] panel rejected the pharmacists' argument that they should be allowed to refer patients to other drug stores because of their religious objections to dispensing emergency contraceptives.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Washington Pharmacists Must Stock Plan B Despite Religious Beliefs" by Ruby de Luna, KUOW-FM94.9 (Seattle, WA) 7/24/15

“We’re disappointed with the ruling,” says Kristen Waggoner senior legal counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, the group representing the pharmacy owner and two pharmacists. Waggoner says the ruling has broader implications; it would affect the state’s health care system.

“One third of the state’s hospital beds are affiliated with religious entities and in this case, the Catholic hospitals have said they will not sell these drugs in their outpatient pharmacies,” Waggoner says.

“We have to take a look at if the state truly intends to enforce these regulations in an evenhanded manner, it will have significant implications to healthcare throughout the state.”

Those three pharmacists will not have to comply with the federal appeals court decision, because that ruling doesn’t end the matter. Waggoner says she and her clients are considering their options for appeal.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals court rules pharmacists must make Plan B, other contraceptives available in Washington" by Jim Camden, The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA) 7/24/15

Washington pharmacists who have religious objections to abortion or birth control can be sanctioned by the state if they send customers to another store for emergency contraception, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. . . . A pharmacist with a religious objection to the drug can refuse to fill a prescription only if another pharmacist at the store is available who will, the state had said.

The owners of Ralph’s Thriftway, a supermarket and pharmacy in Olympia which sued the state over the regulation, plan to appeal. Kevin Stormans, president of Stormans Inc., said in a news release that the state allows pharmacies to make referrals for other reasons and 33 stores stock the drug within 5 miles of the store.

“All we are asking is to be able to live out the beliefs that we hold, as Americans have always been able to do, and to be able to refer patients for religious reasons, as the medical and pharmaceutical associations overwhelmingly recommend,” he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court Says Washington State Pharmacy Must Provide Emergency Contraceptives Despite Religious Objection" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 7/24/15

In 2007, the Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission unanimously adopted two administrative rules, the "Pharmacist Responsibility Rule" and the "Delivery Rule."

The "Responsibility Rule" stated that a pharmacy could not refuse to provide "lawful prescriptions", but did provide a religious exemption for pharmacies and pharmacists.

By contrast the "Delivery Rule" lacks any exemption for religious or moral objections to providing "lawful prescriptions," like emergency contraceptives.

In February 2012 Leighton ruled in favor of Ralph's and the two pharmacists, arguing that the Commission's rules were "in practice unconstitutional."

"The Board of Pharmacy's 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable. They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted," wrote Leighton.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Pharmacy Owner Can Refuse Morning-After Pill in Washington, Court Rules" by Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 7/25/15

[. . . The 9th Circuit] court held that the state law is "neutral" and "generally applicable" and therefore citizens must obey it irrespective of their religious beliefs.

The court said this week that Stormans failed to establish their belief that the contraceptive pills can induce abortions, and that their religious freedom is a "fundamental right" in this case.

"On balance, however, we are unconvinced that the right to own, operate, or work at a licensed professional business free from regulations requiring the business to engage in activities that one sincerely believes leads to the taking of human life is 'so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,'" the court said, referring to Snyder v. Massachusetts.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Federal Judge Blocks ObamaCare Assault on Christians

And read California Forces Catholics to Fund Abortion Insurance

Courts Strike Abortion Bans, Supreme Court Next

Even as medical science proves fetal viability ever earlier in gestation, federal appeals courts continue to strike down state laws protecting unborn viable human beings from abortionists.  Now, with Congress passing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, the Supreme Court will soon have no choice but to consider when life begins.

“It is high time for this court to revisit the issue” of abortion, Mississippi Atty. Gen. Jim Hood told the Supreme Court justices in a brief filed in early May.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

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

Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming

Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws

Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses

Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.

And read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

-- From "Court nixes Idaho's 20-week abortion ban" by Peter Sullivan, The Hill 5/29/15

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's law violates Supreme Court precedent protecting abortions up to the point of viability for a fetus, which has been considered to be around 24 weeks.

Courts have struck down such bans before. In 2013, the 9th Circuit also ruled an Arizona ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to that decision.

Ten states currently have 20-week abortion bans, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute. [Those states being Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia].

There has been rising support for 20-week bans among Republicans. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Idaho's Abortion Ban Struck Down" by Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News Service 5/29/15

Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is "facially unconstitutional," a 9th Circuit panel said in a 28-page ruling, because "it categorically bans some abortions before viability" and "places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion by requiring hospitalizations for all second-trimester abortions."

The panel found that Jennie McCormack and her attorney-physician Richard Hearn still faced the "lingering risk" of prosecution under a law which banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore they could challenge the constitutionality of the law, the panel said.

In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill found that the regulations are unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision on Friday . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arkansas: Stringent Abortion Limit Struck Down" by The Associated Press 5/27/15

A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions [Act 301 of 2013, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act] on Wednesday, agreeing with a lower court that a state law unconstitutionally burdens women by banning abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus’s ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat, which can be detected weeks earlier.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "8th Circuit Strikes Down Arkansas Abortion Law" by Joe Harris, Courthouse News Service 5/27/15

In 2014, an Arkansas federal judge sided with Supreme Court precedent and struck down the law.

Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the viability standard cannot be the end of the discussion when weighed against the state's interest in protecting human life.

The court did acknowledge that medical advances since Roe v. Wade - the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that privacy and due-process rights extend to a woman's decision to have an abortion - have moved fetus viability closer to conception, but found that "viability determination necessarily calls for a case-by-case determination and changes over time based on medical advancements" and that legislatures are better suited to make judgments in this area.

Circuit Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd comprised the three-judge panel.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court: 12-week abortion ban unconstitutional" by John Lyon, Arkansas News Bureau 5/27/15

Then-Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill [in 2013], saying it was unconstitutional, but the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Act 301 on behalf of two Little Rock doctors who perform abortions [Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten].

Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, who sponsored the legislation that became Act 301, said he was disappointed with the ruling but happy that “every single woman who goes to a clinic is going to have to have an ultrasound. She will have to be informed if there is the presence of a heartbeat in the womb.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court to decide whether to plunge back into abortion debate" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 5/29/15

For years, the [Supreme Court] justices have steered clear of most abortion cases. A decision to turn down the latest appeals, from Mississippi and North Carolina, would be a victory for abortion rights advocates. . . .

At the Supreme Court, justices could announce as soon as Monday whether they will hear the Mississippi case. A decision on whether to hear North Carolina's appeal should come by mid-June.

Attorneys for the states that have passed new restrictions say the court should clarify the law governing abortions. In 1992, in its last sweeping abortion ruling, the high court said states may regulate the procedures so long as their rules do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking to end a pregnancy.

Lawyers for Mississippi called that a “vague and amorphous standard” which has not provided “meaningful guidance” to lawmakers or judges.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion Edges Up as Important Voting Issue for Americans" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/29/15

The percentage of Americans who say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion has been edging up over the past seven years. The 21% who currently say this is, by one percentage point, the highest Gallup has found in its 19-year history of asking the question. The percentage of Americans who do not see abortion as a major issue in their voting decision has declined over the same period, and is now at 27%. Most of the rest (46%) say that abortion is one of many important factors they will take into account.

The recent uptick in the importance Americans place on where candidates stand on abortion comes as many states have enacted new or increased abortion restrictions. State lawmakers have passed more than 200 regulations on abortion since 2010, after Republicans gained control of many state legislatures. Republicans in Congress are currently advocating a federal bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although President Barack Obama is unlikely to sign it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

However, as Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back; for example, Abortionists and Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

And read Abortionists Forced to Risk All in Supreme Court

Calif. Warns Porn Makers of Gay HIV Transmission

The California Department of Public Health has issued an alert to the pornography industry that on-set homosexual anal sex has infected a man with HIV during filming in Nevada -- a state that does not require condoms for porn actors.

For background, read why pornography filming permits have plummeted in Los Angeles County:  Too much health-safety regulation as LA Voters Favor On-set Inspection of Porn Shootings

UPDATE 2/15/16: Failed HIV Test on Gay Porn Star Causes Multiple Infections

Also read Drama-teaching Gay Sex Offenders: California Trend

In addition, read The Only 'Safe Gays' are Celibate Gays, Says President Obama's FDA

-- From "Porn actor sparks Calif. health alert by apparently transmitting HIV during filming" by The Associated Press 12/29/14

One actor from the second shoot has since tested positive for HIV. According to the health department, lab results indicate the first actor who tested positive "probably transmitted" HIV to the second.

A health department official declined to release any information regarding when the transmission had taken place or which company it involved, citing privacy restrictions, but said the apparent transmission occurred in Nevada.

Several porn companies have moved shoots out of the county over the last two years in response to the ordinance [requiring condoms]. The number of porn filmmakers applying for permits in LA County has declined sharply, from 485 in 2012 to 40 in 2013.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "California Says Porn Actor Infected on Adult Film Set" posted at Business Wire 12/29/14

. . . The case involves a male performer who was filmed performing with other male performers. The newly infected individual initially tested HIV-negative in California after what was on–set exposure out of state (shooting films without condoms or protective barriers); however, two weeks later, the individual in question then tested HIV-positive. . . .

Since 2004 there have been numerous other cases of performers testing HIV-positive while working in California’s porn industry, including cases in 2010 (Derrick Burts) and 2013 (Cameron Bay and Rod Daily). However, despite the largest-ever OSHA fines levied against the adult film industry in the Cameron Bay case, porn producers continue the spin that these individuals did not contract HIV on set in the industry, but in their personal lives.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Condom free speech argument fails to stand up in court" by Rory Carroll in Los Angeles for The UK Guardian 12/16/14

The [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] ruled on Monday that an LA county ordinance mandating condoms in films did not violate the adult entertainment industry’s first amendment rights.

Vivid Entertainment, Califa Productions and other producers had argued that the 2012 ordinance [Measure B], which was passed by voters, restricted their ability to create alluring scenarios free of real-word concerns like pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Diana Duke, head of the Free Speech Coalition, an industry group, said in a statement that the condom mandate was “terrible” policy [and that] performers disliked condoms because aggravated friction amid bright lights and prolonged periods of penetration caused discomfort and impeded erections.

The number of permits issued for adult films in LA county had fallen 95% since measure B passed, said Duke. However, as a film can be shot in a few days in a private house without a permit, it is unclear how much production has fled.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Pennsylvania Middle School Sex Video Illegal, Police Say

And read Illinois School Sexting: Police Find Nude Student Selfies

However, Education Experts Say: Relax Parents, Sexting is Simply How Kids Flirt Today

Calif. School Lawyers Strip Student's Jesus Speech

When the Brawley (California) Union High School was challenged by attorneys representing class salutatorian Brooks Hamby for their action of forbidding him to deliver any graduation speech containing the words "God" or "Jesus," lawyers representing the school issued a 10-page certified letter stating that such words spoken publicly violate the First Amendment, and thus the school was obligated to censor his First Amendment free speech rights.

“Censorship of the speech was necessary to avoid an Establishment Clause violation. . . . Mr. Hamby’s salutatorian speech was a sectarian invocation, which is not legally permitted in California or the Ninth Circuit.”
-- Brawley Union High School District, via the San Diego law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Lord's Prayer at South Carolina Graduation, Atheists Fume

Prayer at Kentucky Graduation Despite Atheists' Demands

Texas School Cuts Mic on Christian Valedictorian Speech

Jesus, God Almighty Censored at Vermont Graduation

Indiana Graduate Praises God Despite Judge's Ruling

Federal Appeals Court Overrules Texas Judge: Christian Speech OK

Also read the long list of states enacting laws to bring religious liberty back to schools.



-- From "Brooks Hamby’s salutatorian address gains wider audience than intended Brawley Union High School community" by Karina Lopez, Staff Writer, Imperial Valley Press (El Centro, CA) 6/17/14

When Brooks Hamby delivered his salutatorian address at Brawley Union High School’s graduation ceremony on Thursday, his intention was to share a few encouraging thoughts and words from the "the biggest, bestselling book of all-time in history" with his fellow graduates.

Yet in quoting the "bestseller" the 18-year-old used the names "God" and "Jesus," which were deemed “unconstitutional” by the school’s administration, he explained.

Hamby said he was asked to omit references to "God" and "Jesus" in his rewrites, and rather than become upset or frustrated the Stanford-bound student said he tried his best to work with the administration's requests while remaining true to himself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Liberty Institute: Brawley Union High School Censors Salutatorian, Violates Constitution" by PRNewswire-USNewswire, posted at CNBC-TV25 6/19/14

On Wednesday, Liberty Institute sent a demand letter to Brawley Union High School District officials on behalf of its client, salutatorian Brooks Hamby, whose written speech school officials repeatedly rejected claiming, "reference to religious content is inappropriate and…will not be allowed." Although Hamby eventually delivered a fourth version of his speech at his graduation ceremony, for school officials to censor three different versions of his speech – and then threaten to turn off his microphone – just because he wanted to reference his faith is a serious First Amendment violation.

After school officials rejected two drafts of Hamby's graduation speech for what they considered unconstitutional and inappropriate religious references, Hamby received his third draft with all references to God, faith, and the Bible blacked out. Despite three rejections and the threat to have his microphone turned off, Hamby presented a fourth version of his speech at the graduation ceremony. Hamby's speech contained nothing that could be considered obscene or proselytizing, but instead reflected his personal story of inspiration and faith as an integral part of his life.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Brooks Hamby gives his thoughts on his speech heard around the U.S." by Lloyd Miller, The Desert Review (Brawley, CA) 6/16/14

When asked if the speech he gave was ad-libbed, Hamby was quick to say no. He wanted to do everything by the book.

“The speech I gave was my fourth draft,” said Hamby, “which was a variation of my first 3 drafts. On Wednesday morning I had my first draft denied by the counselor. Thursday morning my second draft was denied by the counselor and the principal. Thursday afternoon my third draft was denied by the counselor, the principal, and the superintendent. They sent me back a version of my third draft with any word or reference to God or religion blacked out. They said this would be approved. I sent the fourth draft to the counselor, the principal, and the superintendent at 5:09 p.m. on Thursday. The ceremony was at 8:00 p.m. I did not get a response on my final draft electronically and they didn’t speak to me before the speech. They never said a thing.”

After he finished [delivering his speech], the audience of several hundred comprised of his fellow students, family members, and staff responded with thundering applause.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "School: We have a right to ban God" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/11/14

The school district, in the certified letter its attorneys sent to Liberty Institute, says . . . There will be no apology.

[Hamby] was supposed to stand in front of his graduating class as a “representative example of the success of the school’s own educational mission,” the attorneys wrote, referencing a previous court case.

Are they trying to tell us the reason the district took offense was because Brooks Hamby thanks God for his success instead of the school district?

[Attorney Jeremy Dys of Liberty Institute] said if the school district is hankering for a legal fight – “we may be willing to oblige them.”

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Brooks Hamby looks to the future" by Lloyd Miller, The Desert Review (Brawley, CA) 7/11/14

The school was asked to have a meeting with Hamby and his attorney. They requested that the school give a public apology that stated religious discrimination will not happen in the future.

The school responded by denying the request to meet with Hamby and have hired attorneys to fight him.

“It’s shocking that the administration would want to spend that much money in potential litigation,” said Dys.  “This could cost taxpayers up to a seven figure sum. We have no problem doing that if that’s what they want to do. It would be best if they would come out and apologize to Brooks for censoring his First Amendment rights. The real winner here so far is the law firm out of San Diego. They are walking away with a lot of money. Brooks, in the meantime, is suffering with this black cloud over his graduation. This all goes to show what the school feels about the First Amendment.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Atheists, Liberals Lament Recent Supreme Court Religious Liberty Rulings

'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

While more activist judges rule that voting for natural marriage is unconstitutional, such as yesterday's ruling in Oregon, polls show that a majority of the American electorate will continue to vote in support of marriage as one man and one woman.  It's not just Republican voters who favor natural marriage, even most people in the "blue state" of Oregon want to negate the tyrannical judge's ruling.

“It is clear that the GOP faithful are not ready yet to support changing the [Iowa] state party’s defense of the traditional definition of marriage.”
-- Christopher Budzisz, Associate Professor of Politics and Director of the Loras College Poll

UPDATE 5/29/15: Homosexualists' Lies: Can't Change Public Opinion

UPDATE 2/26/15: (read below)

UPDATE 4/29/15: Gallup Poll Finds Almost No Americans Want a 'Homosexual Marriage'

UPDATE 9/24/14: Poll Finds Americans NOT For 'Gay Marriage' or Anal Sex

UPDATE 9/6/14: 'Gay Marriage' Battle Seeks Supreme (Court) Savior

For background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

But many polls continue to show that 'Gay Marriage' is NOT America's Choice.  For example read Detroit Black Pastors Denounce 'Gay Rights,' Same-sex 'Marriage'

In addition read how it's the Republican Party that is pushing the Gay Agenda.

-- From "Generational divide over gay marriage, pot" by Katie Glueck, Politico 5/19/14

Clear generational divides exist on the hot-button social issues of gay marriage and marijuana legalization, a new POLITICO poll of voters who will decide the most competitive House and Senate races finds.

That split is starkest on the question of same-sex marriage, which is supported by 48 percent of those surveyed overall. But that number skyrockets to 61 percent among people between the ages of 18-34.

Slightly more than half of those between ages 35 and 49 support gay marriage; the figure drops to 48 percent among those aged 50-64 and tapers off to 35 percent among those 65 and older. Overall, 52 percent of those surveyed oppose gay marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Poll finds strong support for defense of marriage among Iowa GOP voters" by James Q. Lynch, Sioux City Journal Des Moines Bureau 5/19/14

More than three-fifths of likely Republican primary election voters would like to maintain the party’s plank affirming traditional marriage, according to poll results released Monday.

Nearly a quarter of the 600 Iowa Republicans polled agreed that government shouldn’t have a role in marriage – a position taken by delegates to the 1st District Republican convention. The 20-county 1st District includes Cedar Rapids, Cedar Falls-Waterloo and Dubuque.

Just 10 percent favored altering the state party’s platform to reflect the legalization of same-sex marriages by the Iowa Supreme Court decision in the 2009 Varnum v. Brien, according to the Loras College Poll conducted by phone May 12-13.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Poll: Iowa Republicans strongly support 'traditional' marriage plank in party platform" by Jason Noble, Des Moines Register 5/19/14

A poll of likely Republican primary voters conducted earlier this month by Loras College found 61.7 percent favor defining marriage within the party platform as between one man and one woman, as it currently is.

Republicans have long opposed same-sex marriage and supported policies – including state law and constitutional amendments – mandating that marriage be only between a man and a woman.

In the party's 1st District convention last month, though, delegates approved rewriting the marriage plank to say government should not be involved in such matters.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal court strikes down Oregon’s gay-marriage ban" by Jonathan J. Cooper, The Associated Press 5/19/14

Within minutes of Judge Michael McShane's ruling, county clerks across the state started issuing marriage licenses.

In Portland, some couples lined up for their licenses at the Multnomah County building more than four hours before McShane released his opinion. The county issued more than 70 licenses Monday afternoon, according to Oregon United for Marriage.

McShane's opinion came a decade after voters amended the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Four same-sex couples challenged the ban last year. In February, state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said she would not defend the ban in court, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Lawless Obama Administration: States Should Violate Oath for 'Gay Marriage'

From "Gay marriage in Oregon (no appeal)" by Dale Carpenter, Washington Post 5/19/14

In an unusually personal opinion, Oregon District Judge Michael McShane today held that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. . . . and the Ninth Circuit today rejected a last-ditch effort by the National Organization for Marriage to intervene, so it seems there will be no appeal. That makes Oregon the 18th state to recognize same-sex marriages.

Counting both federal and state court decisions, it’s the seventeenth consecutive judicial win for same-sex marriage advocates since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor last summer. Most of the federal court wins are on hold while appeals are pending.

What really distinguishes the decision from many others is the personal terms in which Judge McShane, who has a son and is in a same-sex relationship, concluded it:

Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. . . .

It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.

. . . Where will [the Gay Agenda] lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other … and rise.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Poll: Majority say Oregon same-sex marriage issue should go before voters (again)" by KATU-TV2 Staff (Portland, OR) 5/19/14

About 52 percent of the 600 adults surveyed said voters should vote on the issue while 45 percent said the issue has been decided.

In the same poll, 66 percent said a judge should not have the right to “in general” overturn the will of voters.

More specifically, pollsters asked whether a judge has the right to overturn the voters’ will on the same-sex marriage issue. In that case, 64 percent said no – a judge does not have that right.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 2/25/15: From "81% of Americans Want To Be ‘Free to Follow Their Beliefs About Marriage’" by Rudy Takala, CNSNews.com

An overwhelming majority of Americans (81 percent) - including 80 percent of non-religious people - believe that the government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.”

That's according to a national survey commissioned by the Family Research Council (FRC) and conducted by WPA Opinion Research.

Respondents from all key demographic groups said Americans should be free to follow their religious beliefs about marriage without government interference. Hispanics were most likely to do so, with 89 percent supporting religious freedom, followed by whites (81 percent) and African Americans (77 percent).

A smaller majority said they support traditional marriage, with 53 percent answering in the affirmative when asked whether they agreed with the statement: “I believe marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 2/26/15: From "61% of Americans don’t want Supreme Court to force gay ‘marriage’ on the states: poll" by Lisa Bourne, LifeSiteNews.com

Along with profound opposition to governmental tampering with religious freedom, more than six in 10 Americans also agreed with the statement, “States and citizens should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the Supreme Court shouldn’t force all 50 states to redefine marriage.”

The results fly in the face of the presumption for Americans to concede that the whole country accepts homosexual “marriage,” undoubtedly telling a different story than what the media would have everyone believe, said FRC President Tony Perkins.

A Fox News poll also found last fall that a more Americans oppose legalization of homosexual “marriage” than support, at 47 percent and 44 percent respectively.

A recent Associated Press poll said most Americans favor not forcing the owners of wedding-related business to go against their religious convictions by compelling them to provide services for homosexual “weddings.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs. Christians

And read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

Supreme Court Forces Abortion on Arizona Taxpayers

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling that negates Arizona voters' rights to refuse to fund abortion, the voters' legislators continue to pass bills limiting abortionists' latitude in killing children.

For background, read Arizona Law Defunds Planned Parenthood as well as 9th Circuit Strikes Down Arizona's 20-week Abortion Law

Also read about the battle of the homosexualists vs. the citizens of Arizona.

-- From "Supreme Court won't consider Arizona abortion law" by The Associated Press 2/24/14

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a move to resurrect an Arizona law that would have disqualified abortion providers from receiving public funding for other medical services.

That ruling was upheld last August by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with U.S. District Judge Neil Wake that the law violated federal Medicaid law by not allowing patients to freely choose a qualified medical provider.

The Supreme Court in May refused to revive a similar law in Indiana that also has been blocked.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court: Arizona can’t defund Planned Parenthood" by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 2/25/14

In 2012 . . . state legislators amended the law [funding Medicaid] to say any organization that also provides abortions cannot be a “qualified provider.” Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who sponsored the legislation, said any money the government gives Planned Parenthood to pay for other expenses frees up funds for abortions [-- federal and state laws prohibit taxpayer-funded abortion].

Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, pointed out that the law says those enrolled in Medicaid, which includes the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, to get the services they need from any qualified provider. And Berzon said there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood medical staffers are not “qualified.”

In seeking Supreme Court review, Attorney General Tom Horne said states have a constitutional right to decide for themselves who is “qualified” to provide family planning services. He said that is not limited to the medical ability of staffers.

. . . Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, whose funding was at issue, called the ruling “a victory for Arizona women and their families.” Howard said the legislation amounted to political interference with health care choices by women.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court Forces Arizona Residents to Fund Planned Parenthood, Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 2/24/14

The [2012] Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act of Arizona (HB 2800) de-funded abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood of state family planning money. The bill prioritizes family planning funds away from abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood to entities that provide women with comprehensive health care. The measure prohibits the state or any local government from using public money to contract with an organization that includes abortions.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden, special assistant attorney general in defense of Arizona’s Whole Woman’s Healthcare Funding Prioritization Act, responded to the decision in an email to LifeNews:

“Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the work of abortionists. Arizona should be free to enforce its public interest against the taxpayer funding of abortion and in favor of the best health care for women, which is what this law sought to do. We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not decide to weigh in on that principle. Arizonans deserve the best policies and laws possible to protect both their money and their health,” Aden said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arizona: Bill Advances to Allow Surprise Inspections of Abortion Clinics" by Hank Stephenson, New York Times 3/4/14

The State House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a measure that would allow state health department officials to conduct unannounced inspections of abortion clinics. The clinic inspections now require warrants, and Democrats argued that the legislation would empower public officials to harass abortion providers. Republicans said the bill would ensure that abortion providers were following state and federal laws.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arizona advances bill for surprise inspections of abortion clinics" by David Schwartz, Reuters 3/4/14

The bill, which passed in the state House of Representatives 34-22, would delete a provision in state law mandating that an administrative warrant be obtained from a judge to inspect any of the nine licensed abortion clinics in Arizona. A warrant is not required to inspect other clinics and medical facilities.

The measure, which still must be approved by the state Senate and signed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer before it can become law, is the latest abortion-related restriction to be sought by conservatives in state legislatures across the United States.

Lawmakers in the southwestern U.S. state have taken steps to limit abortions, and a federal appeals court last year struck down as unconstitutional an Arizona 2012 law banning abortions from 20 weeks gestation, except in medical emergencies. Late-term abortions remain relatively rare.

If the surprise inspection measure is ultimately signed into law, Arizona would join 10 other states that allow for such surprise inspections, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit sexual health organization. Only one Republican voted against the bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House approves warrantless abortion clinic inspections" by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 3/4/14

The 34-22 vote for HB 2284 came after almost an hour of debate about whether the legislation is needed and whether it is even legal. But in the end the majority concluded there was no reason for the special requirement for the Department of Health Services to get consent or a warrant for an abortion clinic when it does not need to do so for any other health facility.

“I call this bill ‘The Women’s Health Protection Act,’” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, sponsor of the measure that was crafted by the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy. Lesko called it “amazing’’ that only abortion clinics have managed to escape having unannounced inspections.

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, defended the legislation as the government performing its role of protecting women and children.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Suit filed to block new Arizona abortion regulations" by Cindy Carcamo, Los Angeles Times 3/5/14

Abortion providers have filed suit against Arizona to block a new rule that limits the use of medications to induce abortions.

Restrictions on similar medication-induced abortions have been enacted in other states and made their way through the courts with mixed results. Courts have ruled in favor of similar provisions in Ohio and Texas, while judges in Oklahoma and North Dakota have struck down such measures.

In Arizona, a 2012 law states that when an abortion doctor performs a medication abortion, the doctor must follow the Food and Drug Administration’s instructions provided on the drug label.

“It is a shame that when Planned Parenthood can’t win public opinion, they try to use the courts to impose their will and bail out their abortion business,” said Cathi Herrod, [The Center for Arizona Policy] president.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Sues to Violate FDA Protocols, Injure Women With Dangerous Abortion Drug" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3/5/14

The abortion drug is responsible for the deaths of dozens of women worldwide, including several in the United States alone, and it has injured at least 1,100 women in the United States alone as of 2006 figures from the Food and Drug Administration. Yet, the abortion business has filed suit to void an Arizona law to require FDA protocols be followed when dispensing the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 (mifepristone).

The FDA, with no fanfare, released its April 2011 report showing 14 women in the United States alone have died from using the mifepristone abortion drug and 2,207 women have been injured by it.

The FDA figures also reveal that abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood are still misusing the abortion drug.

Despite the FDA indicating, “Administration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy outside the uterus,” the abortion drug was given to women in 58 cases where they had an ectopic pregnancy at that time.

An FDA panel eventually investigated the deaths and found that the vaginal, rather than oral, use of the abortion drug was likely contributing to the deaths. Planned Parenthood had been going against the FDA guidelines on using the abortion drug and changed its protocols to allow for oral use after women died at their facilities.

To read extensive documentation from the article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Taxpayers Want Prayer Back at Arizona School Board Meetings

Atheists Sue to Bring Goofy Jesus Down in Montana

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is considering an appeal of the decision of U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to allow the "goofy statue of Jesus Christ," placed by the Knights of Columbus in the 1950s, to remain on Big Mountain at the Whitefish Mountain Resort where He overlooks Whitefish Lake and the Flathead Valley in Whitefish, Montana.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Atheists Sue to Remove Christ from 9/11 Memorial

Atheists Want Marine Memorial Demolished at Pendleton

Atheists Want WWI Memorial Cross Demolished in Rhode Island

Lone Atheist Removes Cross from Catholic Athletes

University Strips Crosses from Students' Chests

Atheists Knock Christmas Cross Off Illinois Water Tower

Supreme Court Says No Crosses - Does that mean Arlington Also?

-- From "Judge: Jesus statue can stay on Montana mountain" by The Associated Press 6/28/13

The judge disagreed with a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics that argued the Forest Service was unconstitutionally sanctioning the statue. Its religious nature has been made clear in special-use permit applications since the 1950s, the Freedom From Religion Foundation had argued.

The Forest Service first indicated in 2011 that it would reject a new permit for the statue, which occupies a 25-by-25 foot patch of land at Whitefish Mountain Resort. But the agency reversed itself in 2012 amid public outcry.

Christensen said that the statue does not convey to a reasonable informed observer that the government, rather than a private party, endorses Christianity over any other faith or the absence of faith. The new federal judge, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2011, said the statue is one of the last remaining remnants of the original Big Mountain Ski Resort, and some locals say it reflects the transition from old timber town to tourist hotspot.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Jesus statue can stay on Montana mountain, federal judge decides" by Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times 6/29/13

In 2011, the Freedom From Religion Foundation — a Madison, Wis.-based group of atheists, agnostics and skeptics — objected to having a religious statue on federal land. That prompted the Forest Service to decide the statue should go, only to quickly reverse course after falling under criticism [by local residents and the Knights]. Freedom From Religion then sued the government.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen, who was appointed to his bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, granted the Knights of Columbus permission for a 10-year permit to stay on the site. Christensen ruled that the ski Jesus has been a little too goofy to be sacred, as the suers had claimed.

"The statue's secular and irreverent uses far outweigh the few religious uses it has served. The statue is most frequently used as a meeting point for skiers or hikers and a site for photo opportunities, rather than a solemn place for religious reflection," the judge wrote in the ruling. "Typical observers of the statue are more interested in giving it a high-five or adorning it in ski gear than sitting before it in prayer."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge says Big Mountain Jesus can stay" by Daily Inter Lake (NW Montana) 6/27/13

“Leasing public land within a private ski resort to a private organization that maintains a statue of Jesus does not violate the establishment clause,” Christensen ruled, referring to the First Amendment’s assurance that the state shall not establish a religion.

Charlie Harball, the Kalispell attorney representing the Knights of Columbus locally, praised Christensen’s ruling. “I think it is a very well written ruling. He applied the law in a very thoughtful way. If it is appealed, it will go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We feel very comfortable that Judge Christensen’s ruling will withstand the scrutiny of the court of appeals.”

According to Flathead National Forest Supervisor Chip Weber, "I am pleased that the court validated the re-issuance of this special-use permit. It is my position that the statue has been a long-standing object in the community since 1955.  It is important to the community for its historical heritage in association with the early development of the ski area on Big Mountain.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 8/31/15: From "'Big Mountain Jesus' gets OK from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals" by Vince Devlin, Helena Independent Record

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that a 12-foot statue of Jesus at Whitefish Mountain Resort “did not sprout from the minds of (government) officials and was not funded from (the government’s) coffers.”

The Ninth Circuit upheld a 2013 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen, who dismissed a lawsuit by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation objecting to the statue.

“Thank goodness for common sense,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued on behalf of the statue that has stood on a mountain at the ski resort for 61 years. “Today’s decision rejects the idea that history and the First Amendment ought to be enemies.”

Judges Harry Pregerson of Woodland Hills, California, N. Randy Smith of Pocatello, Idaho, and John Owens of San Diego heard the appeal.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 8/31/15: From "Federal government’s allowing Big Mountain Jesus statue on federal land in Montana doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause" by Eugene Volokh, Washington Post

Here’s most of the opinion, signed by Judges N.R. Smith and John Owens:

First, USFS’s decision to renew the statue’s permit reflected a primarily secular purpose. The government identified secular rationales for its continued authorization including the statue’s cultural and historical significance for veterans, Montanans, and tourists; the statue’s inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; and the government’s intent to preserve the site “as a historic part of the resort.” . . .

Second, USFS’s permit authorization did not constitute an endorsement of religion. Our determination is based on the following: (1) there is nothing in the statue’s display or setting to suggest government endorsement; the twelve-foot tall statue is on a mountain, far from any government seat or building, near a commercial ski resort, and accessible only to individuals who pay to use the ski lift; (2) the statue’s plaque communicates that it is privately owned and maintained — “it did not sprout from the minds of [government] officials and was not funded from [the government’s] coffers”; (3) besides the statue’s likeness, there is nothing in the display or setting to suggest a religious message. . . . (4) the flippant interactions of locals and tourists with the statue suggest secular perceptions and uses: decorating it in mardi gras beads, adorning it in ski gear, taking pictures with it, high-fiving it as they ski by, and posing in Facebook pictures; (5) local residents commonly perceived the statue as a meeting place, local landmark, and important aspect of the mountain’s history as a ski area and tourist destination; and, (6) there is an absence of complaints throughout its sixty-year history . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Calif. 'Gay Marriage' NOT Legal, Despite Supremes

Although the media hype that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling means same-sex "marriage" is back in California, it's NOT. Yes, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was negated, leaving in place the (lower) district court ruling by the openly homosexual Judge Vaughn R. Walker favoring same-sex "marriage," but still the traditional marriage Proposition 8 remains in effect.

It sounds like complicated legalese, but it's easily explained; read on . . .

For background, read California Same-sex 'Marriage' Ruling by Biased Judge and also read Homosexual Judge Walker Says Children Don't Need Parents as well as Supreme Court Favors California Defenders of Marriage

UPDATE 6/29/13: 9th Circuit gives immediate green light, short-circuiting legal process

-- From "Court to wait to make move on same-sex marriage in California" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press 6/27/13

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said backers of Proposition 8 — the state ban on gay marriages — have [at least 25 days] to ask the Supreme court to rehear the case.

The San Francisco-based court said it may continue to bar gay marriages even beyond that time if proponents of Prop 8 ask for a rehearing.

The Supreme Court’s ruling earlier in the day cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume, but sidestepped the larger question of whether banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 to let stand a trial court’s August 2010 ruling that overturned the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban, holding that the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified Prop 8 for the ballot did not have authority to defend it after state officials refused to do so.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "What's next for California after Prop. 8 case dismissed" by Stephanie Condon, CBS News 6/26/13

. . . one of the proponents of Prop. 8 suggested the same-sex marriage ban remained in place. "We remain committed to the continued enforcement of Prop. 8 until there is a statewide order saying otherwise," Andy Pugno of the Prop. 8 Legal Defense Fund said outside the court Wednesday.

In dismissing the case, the Supreme Court nullified the appeals court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, leaving in place just the district court decision. Even though the district court found Prop. 8 unconstitutional, district courts are typically not able to issue statewide injunctions against a law. That means if left up to conservative interpretation, the district ruling would only apply to the two gay couples who brought the case to court. The rest of California's same-sex couples would be out of luck.

Proponents of Prop. 8 argue that state officials should be obligated to defend and enforce a law directly approved by voters. After all, Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent support in California in 2008 - on the same day Californians helped elect President Obama.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/29/13: From "Appeals court OKS same-sex marriages to resume in Calif., prompting Friday flurry of weddings" by The Associated Press

. . . a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order Friday afternoon dissolving a stay it had imposed on gay marriages while the lawsuit challenging the ban advanced through the courts.

The [Supreme Court] said, however, that it would not finalize its ruling “at least” until after the 25 days the ban’s backers have under the court’s rules to seek a rehearing. The 9th Circuit was widely expected to wait until the Supreme Court’s judgment was official before clearing the way for same-sex marriages to start again.

“The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for a coalition of religious conservative groups that sponsored the 2008 ballot measure.

“It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California,” he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/29/13: From "Flood of gay marriages expected this weekend in California" By Maura Dolan and Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times

In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge's order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

"It is part and parcel of the utter lawlessness in which this whole case has been prosecuted, said Chapman Law professor John Eastman, a supporter of Proposition 8. "Normally, courts let the parties kind of pursue their legal remedies before they issue a mandate."

"Tonight it is chaos and lawlessness, and anyone who is concerned about the rule of law ought to be deeply troubled by what happened here," the constitutional law professor said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Study: Media Bias FOR "Gay Marriage" is Christians' Fault as well as TV's Disproportionate Attention to the Gay Agenda

Liberal Court Forces Roe v. Wade back to Supremes

With myriad new state laws restricting abortion in the earliest weeks of gestation, Tuesday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Arizona's 2012 20-week abortion law will most certainly force the Supreme Court to hear the case and thus "open Pandora's box."

For background, read details of the Arizona law and the previous lower court ruling.

In addition, read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America as well as Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state

-- From "Arizona abortion ban struck down" by The Associated Press 5/21/13

A three-judge panel of the court said the law violated a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus can survive outside the womb. "Viability" is generally considered to begin at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks.

Nine other states have enacted similar bans at 20 weeks or even earlier. Several bans have been placed on hold or struck down by other courts.

Judge Marsha S. Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violated a long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals court: Arizona abortion restriction unconstitutional" by Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services 5/21/13

In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the law on what states can and cannot restrict have varied since the landmark 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. That ruling barred states from banning a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, at least during the first trimester.

Berzon said states can regulate the mode and manner of terminating a pregnancy prior to viability — but not more.

"It may not proscribe a woman from electing abortion, nor may it impose an undue burden on her choice through regulation,” she wrote.

But it is not likely the last word. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who personally argued the case to the appellate court, has said he sees the law as a chance to have the whole issue revisited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arizona Law Limiting Abortions Tossed Out" by Tim Hull, Courthouse News Service 5/21/13

After Arizona House Bill 2036 became law in April 2012, three doctors sued to stop it from going into effect. Paul Isaacson, William Clewell and Hugh Miller, with help from the ACLU of Arizona, won an emergency injunction . . .

In a concurrence in which [9th Circuit] Judge Andrew Kleinfeld appeared to be apologizing for following Supreme Court precedent, he pointed out . . . "Were the statute limited to protecting fetuses from unnecessary infliction of excruciating pain before their death, Arizona might regulate abortions at or after 20 weeks by requiring anesthetization of the fetuses about to be killed, much as it requires anesthetization of prisoners prior to killing them when the death penalty is carried out."

Kleinfeld lamented that viability remains the "'critical fact' that controls constitutionality," because its definition "changes as medicine changes."

"The briefs make good arguments for why viability should not have the constitutional significance it does, but under controlling Supreme Court decisions, it does indeed have that significance," he wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion ban after 20 weeks rejected" by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 5/22/13

Montgomery said he believes the [Supreme Court] justices will conclude the state has a right to impose restrictions -- even strict ones -- on abortions for legitimate reasons.

But Montgomery may have an uphill fight, especially if the justices see Montgomery's defense of the Arizona law as a bid to overturn Roe v. Wade and its 40 years of precedent. So Montgomery said he'll try instead to ask the high court to find the Arizona law is a legitimate exception.

But he's prepared for a direct challenge.

"I would certainly prefer, not as an advocate in the right-to-life issue but as an attorney, for the court to address head-on whether or not the presumptions that Roe was premised on truly exist to this day and can fairly be said to demand ongoing deference as a matter of precedent," Montgomery said. "I don't think it can."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals Court Strikes Down Arizona Law Banning Abortions at 20 Weeks" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 5/21/13

The ruling does not affect similar laws passed in other states except the law in Idaho, which is also covered under the jurisdiction of the [9th Circuit] appeals court.

The Center for Arizona Policy helped draft HB 2036, known as the Mother’s Health and Safety Act, and testified in support of the bill and complained when the ACLU sued.

“Once again, we see supposed ‘pro-woman’ organizations fight to protect abortion-on-demand despite the serious risks abortion presents to new moms,” said Cathi Herrod, President of Center for Arizona Policy. “The medical evidence presented during committee hearings make it clear that abortions after 20 weeks present a much greater risk to the life of the women. There is also substantial medical evidence that preborn children can feel pain at this age.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Prayers in Gov't Meetings OK, Says San Fran. Court

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled yesterday that the policy in Lancaster, Calif. of allowing local clergy to pray at city council meetings is NOT a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state," even though the vast majority of the prayers are by Christian pastors who pray in the name of Jesus Christ.  The plaintiffs' attorney said "This case is definitely not over."

For background on this case, read U.S. District Judge OKs Prayer in Lancaster (the lower court ruling in July 2011) and also read Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public, Says Federal Court

For background on public prayer, read Prayer Returns to Mississippi Schools: New Law and also read Missouri Votes to Bring Prayer Back to School, Countering Atheists as well as Prayer in America: Hidden Faith, or Public?

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

-- From "CA City Council Prayers Didn't Endorse Jesus" by Tim Hull, Courthouse News Service 3/26/13

In 2010, the city's former mayor, Bishop Henry Hearns, delivered an invocation that included the phrase "Bring our minds to know you and in the precious, holy and righteous and matchless name of Jesus I pray this prayer."

A three-judge panel noted that, of the 26 prayers given between the day that Lancaster passed its prayer policy and the day that Hearns gave the offending invocation, a full 20 of them were delivered by Christian preachers, all of whom used Jesus' name. That does not necessarily mean, however, that the "city itself has taken steps to affiliate itself with Christianity," according to the ruling.

"The city has instead taken every feasible precaution - short of the extra step (itself fraught with constitutional peril) of requiring volunteers to refrain altogether from referencing sectarian figures - to ensure its own evenhandedness," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the panel (parentheses in original).

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that "when a neutral government policy or program merely allows or enables private religious acts, those acts do not necessarily bear the state's imprimatur," he added.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "9th Circuit Upholds Lancaster (CA) Prayer Policy Despite Sectarian Invocations" by Don Byrd, BJC News 3/26/13

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld the constitutionality of Lancaster, California's City Council prayer policy against charges that it violates the separation of church and state. In so doing, the 9th Circuit seems to have taken a different approach than the 4th Circuit, which recently held unconstitutional a policy that resulted in consistently sectarian Christian prayer to open meetings of North Carolina's Forsyth County Commissioners, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Marsh and Allegheny.

Here, the court emphasized that because Lancaster's policy takes great pains to avoid favoritism in determining who will give the prayer, the fact that the policy does not require nonsectarian invocations is unconcerning.

[S]o long as legislative prayer—whether sectarian or not—does not proselytize, advance, or disparage one religion (Marsh’s language) or affiliate government with a particular faith (Allegheny’s reiteration), it withstands scrutiny. Marsh. . . .  For these reasons, we join several of our sister circuits in concluding that neither Marsh nor Allegheny categorically forbids sectarian references in legislative prayer.
...
Indeed, if “what matters under Marsh is whether the prayer to be offered fits within the genre of legislative invocational prayer that has become part of the fabric of our society,” then surely, as a general matter, sectarian and nonsectarian legislative prayer stand on equal footing.

. . . Despite the differences in factual context, these 2 approaches between the 4th and 9th Circuits seem at odds. Will this impact how future courts determine legislative prayer disputes? Or whether the Supreme Court decides to further clarify the law in this area?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court: Calif. city officials can pray at meetings" by The Associated Press 3/26/13

The lawsuit was filed by Shelley Rubin and Maureen Feller.

Rubin is the widow of late Jewish Defense League head Irv Rubin. Feller is a Lancaster resident who claimed the invocations violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.