JUDGE ORDERS PRO-LIFERS TO PROMOTE ABORTION
LIBERAL JUDGE ISSUES UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER VIOLATING FREE SPEECH
& RIGHT TO LIFE
APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH,
& RIGHT TO LIFE
APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH,
FORMER PRESIDENT
"THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE SERVED"
IF HE STEPS DOWN OR IS REPLACED
"THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE SERVED"
IF HE STEPS DOWN OR IS REPLACED
SEE:
EXCERPTS:
Wikileaks ruling:
The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented:
Defense of Marriage Act Struck Down:
In 2012, White ruled in favor of a staff attorney in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who sued to get health benefits for her spouse under California law. In his ruling he struck down the Defense of Marriage Act for failing even the most deferential rational basis test.
_______________________________________________________________
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/judge-orders-pro-lifers-to-promote-abortion/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
wnd.com
A federal judge in California has ordered pro-life and faith-based pregnancy centers to promote abortion, because “the public interest would be served.”
But the ruling from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is a long way from the end of the conflict. Several parallel cases in other jurisdictions challenge the constitutionality of the state demand that pro-life centers post a sign promoting the state’s abortion services.
The pro-life care centers sued, arguing the Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act was a blatant violation of the constitutional principle that government cannot force individuals to convey government-mandated speech.
White determined, nevertheless, that “the public interest would be served by denying the stay pending appeal and allow the development of government policies generated through legislation or regulations developed through presumptively reasoned democratic processes.”
The Trial Insider blog reported the law was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in the fall, and enforcement is set to begin Jan. 1.
Living Well Medical Clinic and others sued over the requirement to carry a government message.
Focusing on its aim of recognizing “human life from the moment of conception and to minister in the name of Jesus Christ to women and men facing unplanned pregnancies,” the care centers said the mandated state notice “is inconsistent with their religious commitments as they believe that ‘abortion is wrong and have never referred, nor would they refer, a client to have an abortion.’”
WND reported similar legislation was thrown out by the courts when it was attempted in New York. It also has failed in several other federal court jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, California advanced the idea, and now a number of cases have been brought both by the Pacific Justice Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice.
“It is imperative that we stop the government from forcing people of conscience to advocate messages to which they are morally and religiously opposed. If the government can do this, none of our First Amendment freedoms are secure,” said PJI President Brad Dacus.
Courthouse News reported White found “the disclosures do not include language endorsing or recommending such services. Rather, the mandated notice only notifies consumers of the existence of state-funded options.”
The care centers already have said they will not post the notice, which they believe violates their faith and their freedom of speech.
Other cases were argued in just the past few days, but the judge, Kimberly Mueller, has not released her opinion.
Dacus said it appears simply to be a new way of generating business for an abortion industry that is failing as fewer and fewer women choose that option.
The law, AB 775, still faces trial on its constitutionality, no matter the preliminary ruling from the judges.
“Forcing a religious pro-life charity to proclaim a pro-abortion declaration is on its face an egregious violation of both the free speech and free exercises clauses of the First Amendment,” said Dacus when the cases were announced.
“We will not rest until this government mandate is completely halted,” he said.
One complaint explains: “The content of the government message memorialized in AB 775 directly contradicts the foundational religious principles upon which A Woman’s Friend operates, as well as the message it conveys to its clients regarding abortion. As a result, A Woman’s Friend is subject to imminent adverse enforcement action against it by defendant.”
California’s Democrat attorney general, Kamala Harris, urged the legislature to adopt the bill and fine faith organizations $500 if they fail to provide the abortion information the first time. Fines thereafter would be $1,000 per incident.
The law requires faith groups to tell women: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including allocating FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at (insert the telephone number).”
It also requires that the message not only be handed out but also posted on the walls of waiting rooms on signs with specified dimensions.
WND reported the resolution to a similar case in New York.
In New York, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said the state could require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose whether they have a licensed medical provider on staff but not whether the center provides abortions or referrals, because that violates the First Amendment.
The ruling was left untouched by the Supreme Court.
Attorney Herbert W. Titus of William J. Olson, P.C., who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for decades at several universities, told WND it’s “not the government’s business to force anybody to carry the message of anyone else.”
“That is certainly what’s being done here,” he said.
Thomas Jefferson, he noted, described that very action as “sinful and tyrannical.”
“It’s fairly typical of California, [which is] always on the cutting edge of making us more and more like a fascist country, in which the state determines what we can say and what we can’t say,” Titus told WND.
Titus also has served as a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney with the Department of Justice. He holds degrees from Harvard and the University of Oregon and for several years had his own daily radio program. He has testified on constitutional issues before Congress and state legislatures.
