Mexico’s Supreme Court rejects move to legalize abortion

Mexico City, Mexico, Sep 28, 2011 / 03:33 pm (CNA).- The members of Mexico’s Supreme Court on Sept. 28 rejected a decision that would have legalized abortion in the country.

By a 7 to 4 margin, the judges struck down a proposal by Supreme Justice Fernando Franco, which declared that the states’ legal shields against abortion were unconstitutional, and that abortion should be legal nationwide—up to the ninth month of pregnancy.

Read more

Supreme Court: University of Wisconsin to pay $500,000 in damages to Catholic group.

The lawsuit began after UW-Madison withheld a portion of the $253,000 reimbursement requested by Badger Catholic, then known as the Roman Catholic Foundation.

In 2010, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the university violated the group’s First Amendment right to free speech.

The UW-Madison System Board of Regents asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling, arguing that a public university should not be required to provide funds specifically for religious worship activities, but the request was denied.

Link

Many American Catholics, priests, and pro-lifers cite to how the Orthodox Jews are pro-life. But that is just not true.

The UOJC has something called an Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) and the IPA formulates the issues for involvement in American politics by the Orthodox Jews.

A quick review of the IPA’s website reveals a number of links in support of embryonic stem cell research and cloning of human beings. For instance, the first link is to an article by Dr. Daniel Eisenberg dated January 8, 2001 and entitled “Stem Cell Research in Jewish Law.”

The article provides the justification under Judaism for killing innocent human beings during the course of embryonic stem cell research: Dr. Eisenberg writes “If the pre-embryo may be destroyed, it certainly may be used for research purpose and other life-saving work.”[xxi]

Dr. Eisenberg undertakes a long and convoluted analysis under Jewish law to arrive at this conclusion, and of great note is this comment: “While the practical aspects of the Jewish approach to abortion are relatively agreed upon, the exact source and nature of the prohibition [to taking of pre-born life] is not. Depending on the origin of the prohibition, the application to the pre-embryo will differ.”[xxii] In other words, the Jews cannot find the authority for giving life to the unborn, and the tenets of Judaism are up for debate – a not unlikely result given that the Jews reject Christ, the Logos, and with Him, the Advocate.

What can be given in one argument based on interpretation of arcane documents can be taken in another argument based on a different interpretation. The practical result (and, according to Dr. Eisbenberg the Jews agree on certain practical approaches) is support for embryonic stem cell research and the creation and support of an entire industry engaged in the slaughter.

Read more

The “right” to abortion remains constitutionally shaky.

“What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded … a protection more stringent, I think it is fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment.

What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interests that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe … is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years.

At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

Read more

Supreme Court rejects challenge to “under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

June 14, 2011 – Flag Day

(NEW HAVEN, CONN.) – The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, thus ending a seven year battle involving two separate cases, one originating in California and the other in New Hampshire. The Knights of Columbus, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, played a key role in defending the Pledge as a “defendant intervenor” in both cases.

“The Knights of Columbus is proud to have played a major role in successfully defending the constitutionality of the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance,” Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said. “We were instrumental in persuading Congress to add those words to the Pledge in 1954, and they express a fundamental belief that we have held as a nation since our founding, that we ‘are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.’ The notion that this somehow violates the First Amendment has now been soundly rejected by both the First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court has now allowed both decisions to stand. It is a victory for common sense.”

The Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge in March 2010 and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the California case in March 2011. The First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge in November 2011 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case yesterday, June 13, 2011.

Abortion: An abomination that mocks 200 years of American history.

What women have is not a right but a license to rid them of any of their unborn off-spring.

It is a privilege that was granted to them by seven men, ultimately for the benefit of men and to the detriment of women.

You don’t believe me?

Just ask Hugh Hefner, one of the most consistent supporters of a woman’s right to choose, both financially and ideologically.

The next big push on our freedoms and out civilization of freedom is ObamaCare.  This virtual take-over of one sixth of our economy is designed to force Americans to buy a product that we might not want.

Like Brown if this does eventually pass Court muster, the government can force us to buy or maybe even sell anything they feel might not be good for the general welfare.

Read more

Justice Scalia: “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words.”

RICHMOND, Virginia, November 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed the modern U.S. judiciary and the high court for using the idea of a “living constitution” to invent new rules and meanings that have led to a “right” to abortion and decriminalized homosexual conduct.

Scalia made his remarks last Friday during a University of Richmond luncheon lecture entitled “Do Words Matter?” The event was covered both by the Associated Press.

“The Constitution says what it says and it doesn’t say anything more,” said Scalia to an audience of 250 people, most of them legal professionals and academics.

Link

Annual Red Mass in Wasington DC: Supreme Court is told human law should reflect God’s law.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices have been told at the annual Red Mass for the legal profession that they’re subject to a higher law.

On the eve of their new term, Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer sat in the front row of St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, along with Vice President Joseph Biden.

In the homily, Vatican Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia indirectly denounced abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. He said laws should reflect divine principles, including what he called “the inviolability of innocent life from conception to natural death” and “the sanctity of marriage.”

He said the legal profession is charged with protecting rights that come from God, not from government.

Link

Church continues counter-attack on Mexican Supreme Court for allowing same-sex ‘marriages,’ adoptions by homosexuals; cardinal sued for his remarks

Mexico City, Mexico, Aug 18, 2010 (CNA) — The Archdiocese of Mexico City has ripped the country’s Supreme Court for ruling to allow adoption by same-sex couples and warned that its members have become “accomplices of the psycho-emotional and moral tragedies that in the future may fall upon innocent children who are victims of this kind of adoption.”

In a statement signed by spokesman Fr. Hugo Valdemar, the archdiocese also noted that countless Christian families lament “the reckless, irresponsible and unjust decision” of the court, which issued its ruling on Monday “ignoring the international scientific studies against the adoption of children by same-sex couples.”

He said that some members of the court have gone to the extreme of acting against the natural law and against children. “All those responsible for their unfortunate decision which has now become law will have to answer to the Supreme Court of God, to their families and to history itself,” the priest warned.

Read more

Randall Terry takes the pro-life movement to the woodshed


Telling the Truth:

We are Losing

As the record shows, I have begun discussing certain “pro-life groups,” pro-life “leaders,” and pro-life “talkers” who use words and deeds – and more often, who fail to use certain words and deeds – that have resulted in the slow, steady defeat of the pro-life cause, and the brutal murder of millions more children.

In the battle to keep Kagan off the Supreme Court we have seen – with chilling transparency – that most pro-life groups and “leaders” did little or nothing to try and stop her. They raised money; they whined; they talked; but they did little or nothing to stop her. And now she and the child killers are victorious in this battle.

To make matters worse, false analysts declare – at this very moment of shame and defeat – that we are “winning”. What follows is an example.

Link

Corruption in high places: Kagan confirmed without a fight.

When the Gang of 14 Democrats and Republicans agreed to clear the path for some Bush Administration nominees, that arrogant group’s presumption was that a president is entitled to his pick unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

If Elena Kagan’s malfeasance does not fit “exceptional circumstances,” the term has no meaning. The GOP senators’ mild, gentlemanly resistance brings to mind Michael Dukakis’s fatally reserved response back in 1988 to the presidential debate question about how he’d feel if someone raped and murdered his wife. Uh, not good. Probably. Let me get back to you on that. (I’m paraphrasing quite loosely here.)

Ms. Kagan has a long list of questionable activities, including contempt for the law and the United States armed forces while dean of Harvard Law School. But the one that stands out is this: She falsified a physicians’ group’s document on partial-birth abortion to reflect her own view instead of theirs – and it was submitted to the Supreme Court as evidence. This is fraud, plain and simple.

Link

The Dearth of Mothers on today’s Supreme Court


A recent NYT article by David Leonhardt  (“A Labor Market Punishing to Mothers“) points out:

The last three men nominated to the Supreme Court have all been married and, among them, have seven children. The last three women — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Harriet Miers (who withdrew) — have all been single and without children.

This little pattern makes the court a good symbol of the American job market.

The article continues with one of my favorite arguments, that that the ‘glass ceilings’ that persist in the American job market have more to do with the demands of parenthood (borne predominately by women) than gender discrimination.   And, as Leonhardt points out:

The fact that the job market has evolved in this way is no accident. It’s a result of policy choices. As Jane Waldfogel, a Columbia University professor who studies families and work, says, “American feminists made a conscious choice to emphasize equal rights and equal opportunities, but not to talk about policies that would address family responsibilities.”

Read more

Surgeon General Koop Urges No Vote on Kagan Based on Abortion Manipulation

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written an extensive letter to members of the Senate calling for a no vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. The letter focuses attention on the Clinton administration memos Kagan authored showing her attempting to manipulate abortion opinion.

Specifically, Koop refers to the ways in which Kagan influenced the language of a 1997 statement by American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists on partial-birth abortions.

Whereas ACOG found no occasion in which the three-day-long abortion procedure is medically necessary for women, Kagan pressured ACOG to include language saying there may be instances where it is and the Supreme Court eventually relied on that language to overturn state bans on the abortion procedure.

That eventually kept partial-birth abortions legal for several years longer until the Supreme Court reversed itself when considering a national ban Congress approved with medical findings that partial-birth abortions are medically unnecessary.

In his letter, Koop calls “unethical” and “disgraceful” Kagan’s effort to persuade the medical group to change its expert opinion to conform to her political demands.

“She was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data,” writes Koop.
“Kagan’s political language, a direct result of the amendment she made to ACOG’s Policy Statement, made its way into American jurisprudence and misled federal courts for the next decade,” he said.

Read more

Some Highlights of Elena Kagan’s Record as Dean at Harvard Law School, 2003-2009

  • Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger university community.
  • Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a “Justice Kagan” on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists — when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?
  • Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP member) William Rubenstein to teach “queer” legal theory. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as the taking up of “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, gender[f**k]).” as well as involving “polygamy, S&M [sadomasochism], the sexuality of minors.”
  • Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney, both of whom she recruited. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by her calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (currently Obama’s regulatory czar) who has written in support of polygamy and other free-for-all marriage relationships.
  • Kagan engaged in ongoing, radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.
  • Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them — deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.
  • Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.
  • Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations — within a month of meeting with a Harvard GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.
  • Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment that was becoming so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign during her tenure to make the campus “trans inclusive” — using Harvard’s “gender identity” nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Read: allow men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)
  • As a likely result of Kagan’s activism, Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatment” for transsexuals – either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are.  Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today?

Link

Supreme Court Nominee Kagan and the Abandonment of Natural Law

Natural law theory is the conceptual backbone of the Western legal tradition. It guided the framers of the American Constitution. Despite what some imagine, it isn’t a doctrine of the Catholic Church, though Catholic thinkers were largely responsible for its elaboration for centuries. A thumbnail sketch of it might be along these lines:

Human rights and duties arise from human nature. The conceptualization of this body of principles expressing fundamental conditions for individual and communal human fulfillment (not instant gratification but longterm happiness) is called natural law. Manmade laws don’t create these rights and duties but are meant to express and defend them. When manmade law fails to do that-when rights and duties are products only of the ideological preferences of lawmakers-society is ruled by a curious mix of relativism and power politics.

Natural law theory began to pass out of favor well over a century ago under the influence, among others, of that eminent relativist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935). Now, practically speaking, in elite law schools and generally on federal courts peopled by their alumni, it is as dead as the proverbial dodo.

Read more

The twisted “logic” behind Roe v. Wade and abortion “rights”

An understanding of the deeply flawed thinking that created this travesty, I think, is essential for pro-life Americans to convince a majority of their brothers and sisters of the incoherence of supporting abortion as well as its innate injustice. The “right” to legal abortion was advocated behind the smokescreen of a “right to privacy.” Yet one of the most striking things about the “right to privacy” is that no one has a clear idea of what it is. Is this “right” absolute? Surely it cannot be. It would be unreasonable to assert that immoral acts—especially murder—should be legally permitted, or even advocated, so long as they are done in private.

Read more

Pro-Life Strength Grows in Congress and Coming Election

WASHINGTON — The voices of those taking part in the March for Life may finally be getting heard by those in the buildings they march past year after year in Washington, D.C.

In particular, their tenacity seems to be paying off in the Capitol and the Senate and House office buildings that stand near the Supreme Court, where Roe v. Wade was decided 37 years ago today.

Pro-life Republican and Democratic members of Congress believe the increasingly pro-life views of the public have finally gained traction in Congress, despite the pro-abortion views of many Democratic leaders in Congress and the administration. And abortion may be a critical issue in the mid-term elections this November.

The growing strength of the pro-life position in Congress became apparent last November when a group of 64 Democrats joined most Republicans in the House of Representatives to add an amendment to the health-care overhaul bill that barred the use of federal taxpayer funds for abortions. The vote “shocked” pro-abortion Democratic leaders in Congress, according to the namesake of the pro-life amendment.

Read more

Justice Scalia: “If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are.”

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently spoke at a conference sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law. There, he said activists who back the use of international law in the U.S. legal system are selective when they want to use it.

Scalia oppose the use of international law and decisions by foreign courts to interpret the Constitution.

“If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are,” he said, according to the Jackson Free Press newspaper.

“I dare say that few of us here would want our life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian criminal justice—not because those systems are unjust, but because we think ours is better,” the pro-life jurist added.

But Scalia says those who advocate using foreign law do so selectively and ignore how many foreign laws oppose abortion and foreign courts have issued decisions allowing pro-life laws and abortion restrictions.

“I will become a believer in the ingenuousness, though never the propriety, of the Court’s newfound respect for the wisdom of foreign minds when it applies that wisdom in the abortion cases,” Scalia said, according to the Free Press.

The issue of international law and its usage in American courts was one that came up during the Senate consideration of recent Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Read more

Anthropogenic Global Warming, Eugenics, Racism Provide False Justification for Denial of Human Rights

Policies based on “scientific fact” have a history of being more than just problematic, as with the veneer of absolute truth behind them they have oftentimes been downright irrational. This historic record should act as a guide to our current political occupation with anthropogenic global warming.

Arguably, scientific fact changes more rapidly than religious dogma. What was undeniable truth one day might be discovered to be quackery the next. The most glaring example of this in the 20th century is the science of eugenics.

The science of eugenics insisted that the human gene pool was being polluted by various undesirable races and threatened to lead to the degeneration of the human species into a collection of feeble minded individuals. So popular was this science that it spawned no less than three Global conferences with attendees included scientific and political heavyweights of the time.

When eugenics took the form of government policy, it did so in a frightening way. Take for example the case of the Racial Integrity Act (RIA). In the name of fighting off the inevitability of human degeneracy that would occur if people were left to breed uncontrolled, the state of Virginia passed the RIA in 1924. This law allowed the state powers that today would cause us to recoil in horror. These powers included forced sterilizations, and the banning of intermarriage between minorities and whites.

Read more

Hard Hitting Article Explains Why the U.S. Government Promotes Abortion and Why After 40 Years the Pro-Life Movement Has Yet To Turn the Tide

ama

Although Judaism has no central authority, and its congregations are organized into three branches, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed, often differing in interpretation of Jewish tradition, its position on the beginnings of human life contrasts sharply with Catholic theology.

The three branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed) all promote abortion on demand in one form or another and they have heavily influenced every stage of the 40-year debacle.

The Catholic response to the pro-abortion forces has also been severely compromised in recent years. Some of the leading figures, who on the surface appear to be waging a worthy battle, have in reality been bowing to political and financial pressures and have become useful idiots for a system that is corrupt at its core.

Read the whole article (PDF format)