Several families have filed a federal lawsuit against numerous Obama administration officials and the Virginia (Minnesota) School District for permitting a sexually confused boy to confront half-naked girls in their locker rooms. After the girls and their parents complained, the school suggested they use a private room, but the boy follows them there repeatedly and harasses them by raising his dress and otherwise exposing himself.
"No student should be forced to use private facilities at school, like locker rooms and restrooms, with students of the opposite sex. No government agency should hold hostage important education funding to advance an unlawful agenda."
Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF] is fighting a Virginia, Minnesota school district. The conservative group filed a lawsuit on the behalf of 11 families who want to stop the allowance of the opposite sex in their children’s locker rooms, Fox News reports. The lawsuit named Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Virginia School District #706, and Secretary of Education John King Jr. as defendants.
The lawsuit filed said that a transgender student, only identified as Student X, used the female locker rooms and restrooms and participated on girl athletic teams. The ADF said that Student X violated some girls by twerking in their presence, dancing to suggestive songs, and making jokes about a girl’s bra size.
According to the lawsuit, girls who were uncomfortable with Student X were told they could use another locker room. One student, called Plaintiff A, said that she was told she could change in an empty boy’s locker room but Student X followed her in there. Plaintiff A said there was nowhere to go for privacy.
The ADF lawsuit explains that the [federal] DOE and DOJ are unlawfully redefining the terms of Title IX, something that only Congress can alter, and are illegitimately forcing their political will on all public schools across the nation. As the lawsuit points out, no federal law requires schools to allow boys into girls’ locker rooms or girls into boys’ locker rooms, and other courts have rejected the agencies’ interpretation to the contrary. The lawsuit also explains that the DOE did not comply with key provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted its rules.
The complaint explains some of the real concerns of students and parents, such as when a biologically male student who identifies as a female—and who is allowed to enter the girls’ locker room under the district’s policy—went on to dance in the locker room “in a sexually explicit manner—‘twerking,’ ‘grinding’ and dancing like he was on a ‘stripper pole’ to songs with explicit lyrics, including ‘Milkshake’ by Kelis. On another occasion, a female student saw the male student lift his dress to reveal his underwear while ‘grinding’ to the music.”
"What these girls are asking for is something that for all of American history has been the common-sense presumption, that you have facilities for girls, facilities for boys and any student that is uncomfortable with that — including the transgender student at the heart of this case, (who) they're not uncompassionate to — they would think the best thing would be for this student to have the option to use the ... restroom of (the student's) biological sex or to make one of the single-stall restrooms available for (the student) to use," said Matt Sharp, an attorney with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious legal advocacy nonprofit group.
The lawsuit seeks to have the district's policy and the federal guidance declared unlawful, and a permanent injunction issued against both. It also seeks "an award of nominal damages in the amount of one dollar, and compensatory damages" for each plaintiff, along with legal fees.
Virginia Superintendent Noel Schmidt declined to comment Thursday, and the school district's attorney, John Colosimo, couldn't be reached for comment.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State plans to sue the Berkeley County School District based in Moncks Corner, South Carolina because the Board has voted to ignore the atheists' threats and continue a years-long practice of opening board meetings with the Lord's Prayer.
“We’re Americans, aren’t we? Looking back at where our nation began we cannot, cannot as a nation forget we have a God and all that we do we must acknowledge that. Let’s continue to do the right thing … there’s nothing wrong with public prayer as long as we do it in accordance with the law.” -- Julius Barnes, board member
The Post and Courier of Charleston reports the school board gave initial approval Tuesday after dropping the use of the prayer earlier this year. The board has been using a moment of silence instead.
State Sen. Larry Grooms sent the board a letter signed by 50 state lawmakers citing a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right to pray at public meetings. Gov. Nikki Haley last month signed a state law allowing school boards the right to open meetings with prayer.
Despite receiving a letter the day before its meeting saying prayer at school board meetings violates the U.S. Constitution, Berkeley County School District’s school board has unanimously voted for the first of two readings on a policy that would bring prayer back to the beginning of its meetings.
The policy states:
“The public invocation will be non-sectarian and non-denominational, and will not proselytize for or advance any one or disparage any other, faith or belief. The public invocation is for the benefit of the Board, but no member of the Board, or any other person, attending, the meeting, will be required to participate in the public invocation. The public invocation will be offered on a voluntary basis by a member of the Board selected by the Board Chair or his/her designee.”
During the Aug. 9 meeting, the board members lauded the new policy.
In July, state Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Charleston, sent a letter to board members — signed by 50 legislators — citing a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway, which reaffirmed the right to pray at public meetings. Additionally on June 3, Gov. Nikki Haley signed an amendment to the Public Prayer and Invocation Act that includes a school board as being as a “deliberative body” with the right to open meetings with an invocation.
“I appreciate everyone’s hard work on working through this policy in light of the threats we’ve gotten,” said board member Mac McQuillin, a lawyer.
“It took courage for us to do this motion and I’m proud.”
Brittany Conover gave birth to her son Jaxon Conover in 2010, who was conceived by artificial insemination without a legal father, and thereafter "married" her lesbian lover Michelle Conover, from whom she is now divorced. However, last week, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that Michelle Conover, who now claims to be a transgender named Michael and is suing for visitation rights to Jaxon, is the child's "de facto" parent.
“Gays and lesbians are particularly 'ill-served by rigid definitions of parenthood'...When gay or lesbian relationships end, at least one member will find itself in a court system ill-prepared to recognize its existence and to formulate rules to resolve its disputes.” -- Judge Sally D. Adkins wrote in the majority opinion
Maryland's highest court has ruled an adult who is intimately connected to a child's upbringing is entitled to visitation and a share of custody, if the child's best interests are served.
The Court of Appeals decision overturns an eight-year-old ruling. In that decision, judges declined to grant de facto parental rights to unrelated individuals, unless they could prove exceptional circumstances.
The boy [Jaxon] was born six months before [the two women] married and 17 months before they divorced.
De facto parents can include the partner of a lesbian who undergoes artificial insemination, a gay man whose partner adopts a child from a country that does not allow same-sex couples to jointly adopt, or a straight man who raises a child with a woman for years without formal adoption.
R. Martin Palmer Jr., an attorney for Brittany Conover, said the court usurped the role of lawmakers in defining a parent and may have created a situation in which stepfathers can take control of children from capable mothers.
“Seeking to serve the needs of the LGBT community has created a bad situation for traditional families and their children,” Palmer said.
Nancy Polikoff, a family-law professor at American University who studies LGBT issues, said the ruling does not address all issues nontraditional parents face, including what happens when parent split up before an artificially conceived child is born and whether the children of non-biological parents qualify for benefits after their death.
In the decision, the court established de facto parenthood for a person who formed a “parent-like” relationship with the child that “the biological or adoptive parent consented to and fostered,” provided that “the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household, that the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood by taking significant responsibility for the child’s care, education and development, including contributing towards the child’s support, without expectation of financial compensation, and that the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.”
Michelle/Michael filed a court request for visitation rights claiming that she had standing as a parent under Maryland’s definition of “father” for children of unmarried parents. Michelle still identified as a woman at that time.
In 2013, the circuit court ruled that “[Michelle] is in fact a female, had not adopted the child, and in no way was related to the child, thus not sufficiently establishing that she could be the ‘father’ of the child.”
The lower court ruled that Michelle did not have parental standing, but as a third party, must first show that Brittany was an unfit parent or that exceptional circumstances existed in order to claim visitation rights.
Since the issue of de facto parenting isn't addressed under existing statute, the court endorsed standards set forth under a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision: That the biological or adoptive parent consented to and fostered the third party's parent-like relationship, that they lived together in the same household, that the de facto parent took on significant responsibility for the child's care, education and development without expectation of financial reward, and the parental relationship lasted long enough for them to be bonded and the child to feel dependent.
Divorce and child custody decisions have always been a messy and difficult business with, as Judge Sally Adkins writes in the opinion, "grave implications for all parties." The case isn't resolved by the Court of Appeals ruling, only the legal standing of Michelle Conover who, according to a court filing, transitioned to living as a transgender man after the divorce. Now, the matter of visitation will be back in the hands of the lower court.
What constitutes a parent? Clearly, the answer to that question has evolved over time, and the law has failed to keep up with that social progress. . . .
Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, have sued the city of Phoenix in Maricopa County (Arizona) Court over a new "gay rights" ordinance that restricts their freedom of religion to operate their calligraphy business, which includes wedding invitations, according to their Christian conscience (e.g.: marriage is the union of one man and one woman).
“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with jail for disagreeing with the government. The government must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they will create and what art they won’t create.” -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
For background, click headlines below to read how "gay rights," including same-sex "marriage," are inherently anti-Christian:
Lawyers for Brush & Nib, a calligraphy studio run by two Christian women who sell hand paintings and calligraphy for weddings and events, filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the Phoenix LGBT non-discrimination ordinance. The city’s ordinance prohibits businesses from refusing service based on sexual orientation. The lawsuit claims this could be used to punish Brush & Nib by forcing them to service a same-sex ceremony, thus violating the owners’ consciences and religious freedoms. The business argues that since calligraphy is art, it should be considered free speech that cannot be censored or compelled by government.
“The Phoenix non-discrimination ordinance protects fundamental civil rights for everyone, and we will defend it aggressively,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton [who voted for the ordinance] said in a statement.
The lawsuit could reignite a fiery debate about the intersection of constitutional freedoms and Phoenix's ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Opponents want the city's law overturned to allow business owners to deny service to LGBT people if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Duka and Koski directed a request for comment to their attorneys. Their representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom said the plaintiffs cannot comment because they worry they could be violating the city's ordinance if they explain their desire not to do work for same-sex weddings.
Duka and Koski's lawsuit asks the court to declare the city's ordinance unconstitutional under the Arizona Constitution's Free Speech Clause and Religious Toleration Clause, among other areas of the law, so they and other artists can create art that "reflects their beliefs, not the government's."
The city ordinance says service cannot be denied due to sexual orientation. Violations are punishable by up to a $2,500 fine, six months in jail and three years probation for each day of violation. It also prevents businesses from displaying information about why they will refuse such service.
"Joanna and Breanna believe Jesus commanded Christians to love their neighbors no matter who they are, what they believe, or what they do," the complaint states. "To love their customers, Joanna and Breanna believe they must be upfront and honest with their customers and respectful toward their customers and their customers' time."
They say in the 86-page lawsuit that they do not object to selling artwork to customers of any background, except for same-sex marriages, because it violates their religious beliefs.
The City Council adopted the anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 to stop discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents by privately owned businesses.
[ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said,] “Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean she is required to express all viewpoints. It’s unjust, unnecessary, and unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence.”
The lawsuit is known in legal circles as a “pre-enforcement challenge,” a lawsuit that allows citizens to challenge a law—in this case, a law that threatens First Amendment freedoms—before the government enforces it against them. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood routinely file such lawsuits against laws they oppose.
“Phoenix has already investigated another business for declining to promote a same-sex wedding ceremony for religious reasons and issued a formal report saying [the ordinance] requires businesses like Brush & Nib—those that create expression—to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies if they promote opposite-sex wedding ceremonies,” the ADF complaint explains.
“We simply value art too much to let Phoenix invade the artistic process as if Phoenix were regulating widgets…,” the ADF brief contends. “And make no mistake. Phoenix is playing favorites. It allows artists to speak and create in favor of same-sex marriage yet threatens to incarcerate artists if they speak or create only for opposite-sex marriage. We should all be concerned when the government tries to eradicate a particular idea by silencing adherents and forcing dissenters to profess orthodoxy. When the government manipulates the artistic marketplace and commandeers artists’ minds to squelch an idea, no idea is safe. Everyone eventually loses.”
They say they just want to go to the bathroom and take a shower in private!
Parents and students who formed North Carolinians for Privacy have filed a lawsuit in the Raleigh, North Carolina Federal Court to stop President Obama from using billions of taxpayer dollars to hold them hostage to his Gay/Transgender Agenda that demands men be permitted to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms.
"The [U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education] must stop using falsehoods about what federal law requires to threaten student access to educational opportunities and financial assistance." -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
The suit accuses the U.S. Department of Justice and Education of holding federal education money hostage.
The group, North Carolinians for Privacy, argues that federal law does not forbid sex-specific restrooms and that the federal government is bullying North Carolina by threatening to cut federal funding.
The issue of whether transgender people deserve the same federal protections extended to blacks and religious minorities is already before courts in North Carolina.
The Justice Department sued the state on Monday, asking a federal district court to rule that North Carolina was violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act [Title IX] and order it to stop enforcing [the state's new HB2 that provides privacy in restrooms].
North Carolina stands to lose $4.8 billion in funds, mainly educational grants, if it does not back down, according to an analysis by lawyers at the University of California, Los Angeles Law School.
As far as the plaintiffs [North Carolinians for Privacy] are concerned, the defendant departments [of education and justice] are making student aid and other educational funding contingent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with members of the opposite sex.
They claim the DOJ and education department have overstepped their authority in redefining sex and gender under Title IX, and that students' constitutional right to privacy would be violated if the state or the University of North Carolina were to bow to federal demands that transgender students be afforded full access to bathrooms that do not comport with the gender identified on their birth certificates.
The group is represented by Jeremy Tedesco, James Campbell, Kristen Waggoner, Joseph LaRue, and Jonathan Caleb Dalton of the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Arizona, David Cortman and J. Matthew Sharp of the Alliance's Lawrenceville, Georgia chapter, and by Deborah Dewart of the Liberty, Life and Law Foundation of Swansboro, North Carolina.
Attorneys representing 73 parents and 63 students in suburban Chicago filed a lawsuit this week against the Obama Administration and the largest high school district in Illinois for colluding to invade the privacy of students in the girls restrooms and locker rooms using new unlawful "transgender rights" edicts.
“It’s important to recognize that there’s a lagging legal framework in the face of rapidly changing social norms. Our understanding of gender identity is changing, and the law hasn’t kept up.” -- Francisco Negrón, National School Boards Association General Counsel "No school should impose a policy like this against the will of so many parents.” -- Vicki Wilson, Illinois parent and co-founder of Students and Parents for Privacy (lead plaintiff) “Allowing boys into girls’ locker rooms, a setting where girls are often partially or fully unclothed, is a blatant violation of student privacy. The school district should rescind its privacy-violating policies, and the court should order the Department of Education to stop bullying school districts with falsehoods about what federal law requires.” -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom “To impose such a rule on still-developing teenage girls, as they’re already struggling with puberty’s changes on their bodies and social pressures to look a certain way, undermines their dignity and tells them that their rights don’t matter. This isn’t a message our schools should be sending to our girls.” -- Jocelyn Floyd, Attorney, Thomas More Society
Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom and Thomas More Society, two conservative groups, filed the 77-page suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago on behalf of 51 families with links to Palatine-based Township High School District 211. It names the district and the U.S. Department of Education as defendants.
The battle for access to girls' facilities at William Fremd High School by the transgender student — who was born male but identifies as female — helped spark a national debate last year that has since spread to other districts.
The [new transgender] policy, [the lawsuit] says, causes other girls fear and embarrassment. It adds: They are "afraid they will have to see a male in a state of undress," which, for some, is a "distraction throughout the school day." One girl's anxiety led her to wear gym clothes under her street clothes so she can peel just the outer clothes off in the locker.
A group of Illinois students and parents sued the Obama administration Wednesday over its stance on transgender students’ access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, arguing that the U.S. Education Department is illegally forcing local authorities to let children use facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
The complaint alleges that the federal government has violated students’ fundamental right to privacy and parents’ constitutional right to instill moral standards and values in their children.
The lawsuit represents the first legal challenge to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a federal anti-discrimination law, as providing transgender students with the right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity instead of their biological sex.
Palatine officials — facing the loss of $6 million in federal funding — ultimately decided to allow a transgender student to change in the girls locker room instead of sending her down the hall to a separate facility.
Students and Parents for Privacy and three female students sued the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education John King, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Cook County, Ill., and the directors of Township High School District 211 in Illinois Federal Court on Wednesday.
"This is a civil rights action to stop the Department of Education and Township High School District 211 from continuing to trample students' privacy and other constitutional and statutory rights by forcing 14- to 17-year-old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males; and to set aside DOE's ultra vires legislative rule redefining 'sex' in Title IX to include gender identity," the 83-page complaint begins.
"This creates an intimidating and hostile environment for the girl members of Students and Parents for Privacy, some of whom are as young as 14, because Student A - who is biologically a male - actively uses their private facilities at the same times as plaintiffs," the complaint states. "As a direct result of defendants' policies and actions, every day these girls go to school, they experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation, and loss of dignity because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male."
The District 211 transgender student, who has not been identified publicly, initially filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights alleging that the district discriminated against [Student A] when it denied [him] access to the girls locker room. The district had previously allowed the student to use the girls restroom.
In an unprecedented decision, federal education authorities found that the district had violated Title IX. The district risked losing millions of federal dollars and a possible lawsuit by the federal government if it failed to reach a resolution. In a controversial decision, the district agreed in December to allow the student locker room access and installed privacy stalls. Proponents of the settlement heralded it as a civil rights victory.
The religious liberty group Thomas More Society also is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks to keep the district from enforcing the locker room agreement and restroom policy and to bar the Department of Education from taking action against the district. The plaintiffs also argue in the suit that the locker room agreement prevents students from practicing the modesty that their faith requires of them.
The lawsuit, Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education, seeks an injunction against District 211. Headquartered in Palatine, it serves nearly 12,500 students from Palatine, Hoffman Estates, Inverness, Schaumburg and parts of seven other northwest suburbs in five high schools and two alternative high schools.
It also asks the court to declare the policy and the district’s agreement with the Department of Education unconstitutional and illegal under both federal and Illinois law, and to have the court invalidate the department’s interpretation of Title IX’s sex discrimination provisions.
District 211 Supt. Dan Cates said Wednesday that the district affirms and supports the identity of all its students and will stand by the highly publicized agreement it reached last December with the department’s Office for Civil Rights. . . .
“We have implemented the agreement without any reports of incident or issue,” Cates said. “Our students have shown acceptance, support and respect of each other. Individual changing stalls in our locker rooms are readily available to every student and further accommodations that provide even greater privacy remain available upon request.”
The divisive and politically combustible issue of bathroom access for transgender individuals is about to become further inflamed, as the Obama administration is expected in coming weeks to aggressively reinforce its position that transgender student rights are fully protected under federal law, sources told POLITICO.
With the Justice Department already locking horns with North Carolina over the state’s so-called bathroom bill, the administration plans to reaffirm its view that robust protections for transgender students are within the existing scope of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. Multiple agencies are expected to be involved.
New guidance on Title IX represents a natural outgrowth of the administration’s aggressive agenda on gender equity and civil rights. In April 2014, guidance issued by the Education Department on sexual violence explicitly mentioned that transgender students are protected under Title IX. LGBT advocates saw it as an important moment for the transgender community, but have wanted the administration to go even further in clarifying the law.
Attorneys for Andrew Cash have filed a federal lawsuit against Missouri State University (MSU) saying that the graduate student was kicked out of a master's counseling program because he said that validating same-sex marriage violated his religious beliefs.
“[Andrew Cash] was targeted and punished for expressing his Christian worldview regarding a hypothetical situation concerning whether he would provide counseling services to a gay/homosexual couple. . . . Since he did not give the ‘correct’ answer required by his counseling instructors, he was considered unsuitable for counseling and terminated from the program.” -- Complaint, filed in the Western District of Missouri Court
Andrew Cash said he was removed from the master's counseling program at Missouri State in 2014 after telling a professor in 2011 he would not counsel gay couples. Cash started the program in 2007.
The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, filed the lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of Cash. The lawsuit in federal court in Springfield names the university's board of governors and several school officials as defendants. It claims the university denied Cash's rights to religion and free speech and seeks unspecified monetary and punitive damages.
According to the lawsuit, W. K. Boyce, executive director of the Christian-based counseling center where Cash interned, made a presentation to one of Cash's classes in 2011. In response to a question during that presentation, Boyce said he would counsel gay individuals separately but would refer gay couples to other counselors who did not share his religious beliefs.
About a week later, Cash's internship coordinator questioned Cash about his own views on counseling gay couples, the lawsuit said. Cash said he also would counsel gay people individually but refer them to someone else for couple counseling.
The lawsuit says Cash was a student at MSU in January 2011 when he began an internship at the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute, a Christian-based organization.
Cash told his internship coordinator, Kristi Perryman, that he would also not counsel gay couples, according to the lawsuit, and Perryman told Cash that went against the American Counseling Association's code of ethics.
The lawsuit says Perryman told Cash he was not allowed to continue his internship at the Springfield Marriage and Family institute because of "ethical concerns."
In November 2014, the lawsuit says, Cash was removed from the master's program. The lawsuit says he had a 3.81 GPA.
From "Student Sues MSU" by John Thomas, KTTS-FM94.7 (Springfield, MO) 4/22/16
Andrew Cash claims the University is violating its mission of being a place for free exchange of ideas and values, both religious and secular.
"Traditionally, universities have been places for free exchange of ideas and values, both religious and secular," said Thomas Olp, Executive Director and Attorney for the Thomas More Society. "Unfortunately, Missouri State University departed from its mission by denying educational opportunity to Mr. Cash simply because he expressed, in an academic setting, sincerely-held religious beliefs which his advisor deemed hostile to her own and therefore unacceptable.
"An educator should not permit her own ideology and agenda to ruin the educational opportunities of her students. We feel the responsibility, on Mr. Cash's behalf, to try to correct this."
Emily Brooker sued the university in 2006, accusing the school and a faculty member of violating her First Amendment rights when she refused to sign a letter supporting same-sex adoption. Brooker was a student in the School of Social Work.
Brooker alleged in her lawsuit that faculty members interrogated her for over two hours and asked her questions such as: “Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?” and “Do you think I am a sinner?”
Brooker made national headlines before reaching a settlement with the university.
David Kaplan, the chief professional officer of the American Counseling Association, said students in other states have filed lawsuits against schools when they felt their religious beliefs came in conflict with the professional association's code.
. . . [Cash's] suit claims that he was unable to complete his counseling curriculum, and is now prevented from working as a counselor, causing him daily emotional suffering. He is seeking for MSU to reinstate him in his counseling program with safeguards put in place so that he can successfully earn his degree.
As a part of the degree program, students are required to complete clinical internship hours. Cash started his internship in January 2011 with the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute, which had been approved by MSU as an internship site. At least one other student in the M.S. in Counseling program had previously completed an internship there. The Institute is a Christian-based counseling agency, and MSU knew this when it approved Cash's internship in January 2011.
. . . Although Cash worked with the administration to find a different internship, the faculty advisor required him, as a condition of being re-accepted to a new internship, to prove to her that he "had learned something from the experience at the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute." Later, the same advisor wrote a letter to department officials claiming that it appeared to her – despite a total lack of evidence – that she suspected that Cash had not recanted from his earlier-stated religious views. She then made a recommendation, which was accepted, to force Cash into "remediation."
In two unrelated court cases, judges dealt blows yesterday to the abortion industry. A federal judge in Detroit dismissed an attempt by the ACLU to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and a judge in Illinois upheld the First Amendment rights of a pro-life organization to distribute fliers exposing the gruesome business of dumping babies in landfills.
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Detroit federal Judge Gershwin Drain says the American Civil Liberties Union and its members have no standing to sue Trinity Health Corp. In a 13-page decision Monday, he said the ACLU failed to explain what medical conditions would place their members at risk or if they are currently at risk.
The judge says any harm is "speculative."
An attorney for Trinity, Kevin Theriot, says no one should be forced to perform abortions. The ACLU says it's considering its next step.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of its members last year, calling for an injunction against the anti-abortion policies of Trinity Health Corporation, a Livonia-based health care group with 90 hospitals that adhere to directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
ACLU lawyers pointed specifically to one member who was denied abortion procedures at a Trinity hospital despite suffering "emergency complications during her pregnancy that required the termination of her pregnancy in order to stabilize her condition."
The lawsuit also argued that other pregnant members were "at risk of suffering similar harm should their pregnancies suffer complications in the future."
In his ruling, [Judge] Drain said the ACLU did not provide enough specific proof of harm to its members to give the organization standing to sue.
“Therefore, even assuming that the complaint contains sufficient factual matter to establish past actual harm — considering the vagueness of the allegation, this is dubious — the allegations of past exposure to defendants’ illegal conduct is not sufficient to create standing,” he wrote.
Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF] attorneys represent the Catholic Medical Association, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which the court allowed on March 10 to intervene in the case in defense of Trinity Health Corporation. Trinity Health operates 86 facilities in 21 states.
“No American should be forced to commit an abortion—least of all faith-based medical workers who went into the profession to follow their faith and save lives, not take them,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “No law requires religious hospitals and medical personnel to commit abortions against their faith and conscience, and, in fact, federal law directly prohibits the government from engaging in any such coercion. As we argued in our brief to the court, the ACLU had no standing to bring this suit and demand this kind of government coercion.”
“Those who doubt that anyone would ever try to force someone to commit an abortion need only look at this case,” explained ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman. “This is precisely what the ACLU sought to do. The court came to the right conclusion in putting an end to their quest. The ruling relies on important case law that our pro-life medical group clients cited showing that the ACLU’s case was based on pure speculation.”
“Forcing health care workers to act contrary to the very faith and ethical convictions that led them into the medical profession—to serve, help, and bring healing to people—is counterproductive, unnecessary, and against the law,” Bowman continued.
Lake County [Illinois] Associate Judge Margaret Marcouiller ruled Monday that the Ohio-based group Created Equal can keep distributing fliers that show pictures of an aborted fetus and a Lake Forest [Illinois] resident, and also include the executive's home address.
The fliers have been left with neighbors of Charles Alutto, who heads Stericycle, a medical waste company.
Created Equal says Stericycle "enables baby killing" by transporting medical waste from a Planned Parenthood facility in Ohio
Marcouiller said Monday that "even insulting and outrageous speech must be tolerated."
Created Equal Executive Director Mark Harrington called the court ruling a victory and said the campaign, which includes fliers, mobile billboards and postcards, will continue.
"If Stericycle wants to stop our awareness campaign, they simply need to cease transporting and disposing of aborted babies for Planned Parenthood," Harrington said.
Despite denying the emergency order, the judge said she will take up the issue again and gave the plaintiffs two weeks to update and resubmit their complaint.
Stericycle's “regulated medical waste acceptance policy” states that the company does not accept “complete human remains (including heads, full torsos, and fetuses).”
Mark Harrington, the national director of Created Equal says the company is playing a game of semantics.
“However, babies are not 'complete' after being dismembered, decapitated, and disemboweled in standard abortion methods,” Harrington said. “Their broken parts and torn tissue are categorized by Stericycle as 'pathological waste,'” which the company willingly transports.
He wrote a letter to Alutto on February 10 with a sample flier that would be handed out in his community to raise awareness of Stericycle's actions. It included Alutto's home address and business phone number. If the company would stop providing services to abortionists, Harrington said, he would not go forward with the campaign.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California by ruling that the elected supervisors of Los Angeles County violated the U.S. Constitution by authorizing an accurate depiction of the San Gabriel Mission for the county seal — the historic mission has a cross on top.
"The court failed to see that the board corrected the inaccurate depiction of the San Gabriel Mission on the seal with an architecturally accurate version that featured a small cross - which of course the mission has. As any California fourth-grade student knows, the San Gabriel Mission is an important icon to the region and the birthplace of Los Angeles County." -- Michael Antonovich, County Supervisor
The ACLU alleged a Jan. 7, 2014, decision by the Board to restore the cross was unconstitutional because it “favors the Christian religion over all other religions and divides county residents by religion and by adherence or non-adherence to religious beliefs”, according to the complaint.
The Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 in 2014 in favor of a motion introduced by Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe to add a cross to the top of the San Gabriel Mission on the county emblem, which is displayed on buildings, vehicles and official communications.
At the time, Antonovich and Knabe argued that restoring the cross is vital to the historical accuracy of the seal.
In her summary of the history of the case and the seal's controversy over the years, Snyder noted the back-and-forth that took place at several public meetings in 2004 after the ACLU threatened to file suit against the county.
The board voted 3-2 in favor of adopting the revised seal in 2004 [to remove the cross]. Changing the seal cost the county $700,000 to replace the image on county-owned and leased facilities and other property.
Antonovich and Supervisor Don Knabe proposed adding a cross to the 2004 redesign in 2009, when the Roman Catholic Church placed a cross on the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel 11 miles east of downtown LA. The two supervisors introduced a motion to add a cross to the depiction of the mission on the seal in December 2013.
In her order, Snyder found "that an 'informed and reasonable' observer who is 'familiar with the history of the government practice at issue' would perceive the county's addition of the cross to the 2004 seal to constitute approval or endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs."
. . . When the seal was redesigned in 2004, there was no cross on top of the mission, as it had gone missing during earthquake retrofitting. The cross was later restored atop the building.
In a 55-page ruling released Thursday, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wrote that the addition of the cross ”carries with it an aura of prestige, authority, and approval. By singling out the cross for addition to the seal, the county necessarily lends its prestige and approval to a depiction of one faith’s sectarian imagery.
“The county also provides a platform for broadcasting that imagery on county buildings, vehicles, flags, and stationary.… Permitting such a change and the associated expenditure of public funds places the county’s power, prestige, and purse behind a single religion, Christianity, without making any such benefit available on an equal basis to those with secular objectives or alternative sectarian views."
But the two county supervisors who led the push to reinstate the cross criticized the judge’s decision, pointing out that other California municipalities – including Ventura and San Benito counties and the city of San Luis Obispo -- depict missions with crosses on their seal.
14-year veteran of the Indiana State Police, Brian L. Hamilton, 40, of Connersville was fired yesterday for twice asking drivers about their faith during routine stops for traffic violations over the past two years.
“[Later, the ticketed driver] was approached by someone who attended church with Trooper Hamilton who informed her that Trooper Hamilton had placed her on a prayer list.” -- Lawsuit against ex-Trooper Hamilton
“I was just following what the Lord told me to do and you can’t change what the Lord tells you to do. So if the Lord tells me to speak about Jesus Christ, I do. And that’s why they fired me so that’s where we’re at.” -- Brian Hamilton
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
ISP officials said that Hamilton directly violated an August 2014 counseling statement where he was told in writing: "During the course of his official duties, S/Trp. Hamilton will not question others regarding their religious beliefs nor provide religious pamphlets or similar advertisements.”
This allegation brought a lawsuit against the ISP, and it was brought to a close in April 2015.
The most recent allegation of Hamilton questioning a citizen’s religious affiliation, while engaged in enforcement actions, was reported in a citizen complaint on January 14, 2016.
He allegedly invited her to his church, and gave her the address, and then went on to ask her if she was saved.
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] is preparing to sue Hamilton as an individual.
Indiana State Police trooper Brian Hamilton pulled over Wendy Pyle in January, according to a lawsuit filed this week. He told Pyle that she had been speeding, went back to his patrol car and returned with a warning ticket.
Then, the lawsuit alleges, Hamilton asked Pyle where she attended church — and whether she had been “saved.”
As the state police indicated, this isn’t the first time Hamilton has been sued for on-the-job displays of faith. In 2014, another driver, Ellen Bogan, filed suit after Hamilton gave her a warning ticket during a traffic stop — and a pamphlet for a church.
The material from the First Baptist Church in Cambridge City, Ind., referred to a radio broadcast, called “Policing for Jesus Ministries,” among other items.
“The pamphlet also outlines ‘God’s Plan of Salvation’ that requires the reader to acknowledge that she is a sinner and to realize that ‘Salvation is a gift and is received by faith in Jesus Christ’ and that ‘the Lord Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sins,'” the 2014 complaint stated. “Ms. Bogan said thank you to the Trooper and the Trooper said ‘God Bless You,’ and returned to his car.”
"While all of us — citizen and police officer — enjoy the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, there are appropriate and proper restrictions placed on agents of the State related to their actions while engaged in their official duties," State Police Superintendent Doug Carter said in a statement. “While I respect Mr. Hamilton’s religious views I am also charged to respect every citizen’s rights, and the best way forward for the citizens of Indiana, and for Mr. Hamilton, was to end his employment as a State Police officer.”
State Police Capt. Dave Bursten said the department's internal investigation was separate from the lawsuit pending against Hamilton, adding that it "would have occurred regardless of any legal action initiated" by the ACLU.
Bogan’s lawsuit was eventually settled. According to court records, Hamilton was counseled not to question others regarding their religious beliefs, nor was he to provide religious pamphlets or similar advertisements to them.
State police said Hamilton was fired for insubordination and neglect of duty . . . But those same restrictions are not applied to the state's elected officials, many of whom, like Gov. Mike Pence, speak openly and often about their faith.
In January, during his State of the State address, Pence spoke at length about protecting the freedom of religious beliefs and invoked God's blessing on four separate occasions.
But displays of religiosity aren't limited just to the governor's office. Lawmakers in both chambers of the state legislature cited their religious beliefs as reasons for supporting Indiana's controversial new abortion law. And in March, Hoosier evangelist (and former RTV6 employee) Clayton Jennings was invited to deliver a prayer on the floor of the Indiana House of Representatives . . .
While the debate over where to properly draw the line between the separation of church and state isn't limited to Indiana, who else should Hoosiers look to for guidance but their own elected officials?
Yesterday, Gov. Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337, which makes it illegal to perform abortions on babies based on fetal genetic abnormalities or the fetus's race, sex or ancestry, and mandates that otherwise aborted babies must be buried or cremated. Planned Parenthood has announced it will seek a court injunction to continue its butchery status quo.
"I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable — the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn." -- Gov. Mike Pence, Indiana
Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the measure just hours ahead of his deadline to take action on the proposal approved by the Republican-dominated Legislature two weeks ago, the governor's office said. It is due to take effect in July, but Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky said it will ask a court to block the measure before that can happen.
Pence called the bill "a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life."
Pence was a prominent abortion rights opponent while serving in Congress before being elected governor in 2012 and received perfect scores from Indiana Right to Life for his record of opposing abortion.
Pence is also facing a tough re-election campaign in a rematch against Democrat John Gregg and will be counting on a strong turnout from his evangelical base in November. Gregg said Thursday he would have vetoed the measure.
The law, which passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled General Assembly with large majorities, builds on Indiana’s already restrictive abortion rules, and was cheered by anti-abortion groups that had encouraged Gov. Mike Pence to sign it.
In addition to holding doctors liable if a woman has an abortion solely because of objections to the fetus’s race, sex or a disability, like Down syndrome, the law restricts fetal tissue donation and requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital or to have an agreement with a doctor who does.
The measure drew a sharp rebuke from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other abortion rights groups, and the law returned Indiana to the center of a national debate about social issues.
The law could also put some doctors who perform abortions in jeopardy if it is learned that a woman told them that she chose to end her pregnancy because of gender, disabilities or other reasons limited by the law.
It's a divisive issue that's once again placed the state at the center of a national debate. And a legal challenge to the law, which takes effect in July, is already in the works. Less than half an hour after Pence signed the measure, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky said it plans to request a preliminary injunction to block the new restrictions . . . [by] working with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana in its plans to file a legal challenge.
“By enacting this legislation, we take an important step in protecting the unborn, while still providing an exception for the life of the mother. I sign this legislation with a prayer that God would continue to bless these precious children, mothers and families,” Pence said in a statement.
The controversial and potentially unconstitutional measure further restricts abortion in Indiana — already one of the most restrictive states in the nation. . . .
Social conservative groups, including Indiana Right to Life and the American Family Association of Indiana, had advocated for the new restrictions. Micah Clark, the leader of the family association, has said the measure “protects these special needs children from an intentional abortion based upon their genetics” in an email to supporters.
Republicans ushered the bill through the state legislature over the last three months despite opposition from some conservative lawmakers, including Representative Cindy Kirchhofer, who felt the measure was too restrictive.
North Dakota is the only U.S. state that prohibits abortions based on fetal anomalies. Seven states ban those based on gender, and Arizona prohibits those based on race, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that tracks abortion laws.
. . . The bill also has several other abortion-related measures, including a requirement that aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried and another requirement that abortionists who have hospital admitting privileges renew them annually. The burial/cremation requirement backs up a law passed in 2015 by Gov. Pence requiring that aborted babies’ bodies be disposed of in a humane way.
Indiana state Sen. Liz Brown, who worked with [Sen. Travis] Holdman on the measure, said previously that many families face pressure to abort from doctors or other health care professionals when their babies are diagnosed with an illness or disability in the womb. LifeNews has documented numerous cases of families saying the same thing.
“What we hear from doctors is — it would really be better off if you were not born,” Brown said. “If you are born, we will love you, and we think you have equal rights and should be a member of society. In fact, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act and have to make accommodations. But we don’t want to make the accommodation before you’re born, and in fact, it would really be easier if you were not born.”
. . . questions remain about whether the bill will have much of a practical impact on the decisions women make or on Indiana's abortion rate, which has declined 20 percent in the past five years and is below the national average.
. . . it's unclear how the law would play out in real life. The proposed ban on abortions would apply only when the sole reason for seeking the procedure is because the fetus may have a disability or is of a certain gender, race, color, national origin or ancestry.
Beth Cate, a public policy professor at Indiana University, questioned whether doctors would be left to infer a woman’s reasons for seeking an abortion based on her medical questions.
How do you know the reason a woman is seeking an abortion unless she explicitly states it — or does the doctor try to read her mind?
