Wednesday, June 27, 2018


President Donald Trump IMPORTANT Press Conference after VICTORY at the Supreme Court 

Winning! Supreme Court Gives Trump His Full Immigration Ban!!!

Supreme Court Sides With Calif. Pregnancy Centers Challenging Law Requiring Provision of Info on Govt. Abortion Programs

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that a California law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information to clients regarding how they can take part in government programs that would allow them to obtain an abortion at little or no cost “likely violates the First Amendment.”
The court ruled that the State of California has ample avenues to disseminate its desired message without having to force pro-life pregnancy centers to essentially advertise for abortion services against their convictions.
“California could inform low-income women about its services ‘without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,'” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas on behalf of the majority. “Most obviously, it could inform the women itself with a public information campaign. California could even post the information on public property near crisis pregnancy centers.”
“California argues that it has already tried an advertising campaign, and that many women who are eligible for publicly-funded healthcare have not enrolled. But California has identified no evidence to that effect. And regardless, a ‘tepid response’ does not prove that an advertising campaign is not a sufficient alternative,” he said. “… [I]ndividuals might not have enrolled in California’s services because they do not want them, or because California spent insufficient resources on the advertising campaign.”
Thomas said that whatever the case may be, “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it. ‘[T]he First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.'”
A separate concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy condemned California’s Reproductive FACT Act requirements even more sternly.
“It does appear that viewpoint discrimination is inherent in the design and structure of this Act. This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression,” he wrote.
“For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these,” Kennedy declared.
“… Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”
The court sent the case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s conclusion.
Read the ruling in full here. In addition to Thomas and Kennedy, Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch sided with the pregnancy centers. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan comprised the dissent.
As previously reported, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Reproductive FACT Act into law in Oct. 2015, a measure that was dubbed the “bully bill” by pro-life groups in the state. The bill was authored by Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who outlined in the measure that he takes issue with pregnancy centers that don’t provide abortion referrals to women.
“The author contends that, unfortunately, there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in California whose goal is to interfere with women’s ability to be fully informed and exercise their reproductive rights, and that CPCs pose as full-service women’s health clinics, but aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions,” it read.
The legislation therefore required that licensed pregnancy care centers provide the following message to clients in print, whether posted on the wall or distributed in a flyer: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at (telephone number).”
Violators could be fined $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for each infringement afterward.
Unlicensed pregnancy care centers were similarly required to post a notice advising that they have not been licensed by the State to provide medical services. As stated above, there are both licensed and unlicensed pro-life pregnancy centers in California, depending on what services are offered.
According to reports, NARAL Pro-Choice California was a major sponsor of the law, as it contended that pregnancy centers “mislead” mothers in trying to dissuade them from killing their unborn children. Abortion “rights” groups characterize pregnancy centers as “fake clinics,” although they provide free ultrasounds and pregnancy tests, and are often staffed with nurses and ultrasound techs, in addition to other volunteers.
“There has been an explosion of these fake health clinics that mislead women in ways that are very troubling and in some cases dangerous to their health,” claimed Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, to NPR. “If these fake medical centers had on their front doors, ‘We’re pro-life centers. We’re here to help you decide to continue your pregnancy,’ there’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s fine. But what they’re trying to do instead is lure women in on false pretenses.”
NIFLA disagrees that licensed locations cannot be considered clinics, nor do they believe that the facilities are being deceptive as they do not suggest that they perform abortion procedures. See the ruling out of Maryland surrounding Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc.
“Pregnancy centers that provide ultrasound services (and other medical services such as STI testing and treatment) under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician are, in fact, medical clinics and should be acknowledged as such,” NIFLA explained in an article on its website in 2013.
“… In addition to the medical director, they also utilize the services of RNs, physicians assistants, registered diagnostic medical sonographers (RDMS) and other licensed health care providers.”
Several faith-based pregnancy centers filed suit to challenge the Reproductive FACT Act following its passage, including the aforementioned National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, the Pregnancy Care Clinic and the Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center. However, both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant an injunction, finding that the requirement served a significant government interest.
“California has a substantial interest in the health of its citizens, including ensuring that its citizens have access to and adequate information about constitutionally-protected medical services like abortion,” wrote Judge Dorothy Nelson, appointed to the bench by then President Jimmy Carter, for the Ninth Circuit last October. Nelson identifies as an adherent to the Baha’i religion.
“And given that many of the choices facing pregnant women are time sensitive, such as a woman’s right to have an abortion before viability, we find convincing the AG’s argument that because the licensed notice is disseminated directly to patients whenever they enter a clinic, it is an effective means of informing women about publicly-funded pregnancy services,” she said.
The centers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed in November to hear the case. Numerous amicus briefs were filed in support of the pregnancy centers, including a coalition of 22 states, 41 family policy organizations, 23 legal scholars, and numerous pregnancy centers and pro-life groups nationwide.
“No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion,” ADF President Michael Farris, who argued on behalf of NIFLA before the Supreme Court earlier this year, said in a statement on Tuesday. “In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion. The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that, and that it must respect pro-life beliefs.”

US Supreme Court Asks Washington Supreme Court to Revisit Florist Judgment in Light of 

Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Washington State Supreme Court to revisit a ruling against a florist who was found guilty of discrimination for providing referrals to a regular customer who wanted her to furnish his same-sex ceremony, directing the court to review the matter in light of the high court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, which found that hostility toward religion unfairly influenced the legal judgment.
The Washington Supreme Court will now need to examine whether or not Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers received a fair trial by the state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled earlier this month in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that decision-makers must be neutral toward religion in contemplating whether or not a violation of the law was committed, not being prejudiced against it.
“As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of the 7-2 majority on June 4.
“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision-maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided,” he said.
The court did not reach, however, whether or not business owners may decline to fulfill orders surrounding same-sex events, but said, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
The ruling was therefore characterized as “narrow,” which confused some Americans who thought the outcome was a great victory, being 7-2. “Narrow” referred to the scope of the ruling—that the justices did not provide answers to a number of questions surrounding the matter—but only remarked that hostility toward religion can’t cloud legal decisions, and that the issue would have to play out more in the courts.
As previously reported, the Arlene’s Florist case began in 2012 when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson leveled Stutzman with a lawsuit as he claimed that she violated the law by not fulfilling an order for a same-sex event.
Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the floral arrangements for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt Freed.
“We had gone to Arlene’s for many years and enjoyed her service. She did a great job for us, so it was just natural for us to go there to have her do our flowers,” Freed told KUOW radio.
Stutzman stated that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event, but referred him to three other florists that could be of assistance.
“I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told reporters.
But after Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue—both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments.
“It blew way out of proportion,” Stutzman explained. “I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.”
Weeks later, Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued Stutzman a letter advising that she must accommodate homosexual ceremonies or be subject to a lawsuit and heavy fines. He included with his letter a form that offered Stutzman the opportunity to recant and agree to comply with the law. She refused, and was subsequently met with a discrimination suit.
But the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) contended that Ferguson’s actions were inappropriate since he never received a complaint, but rather filed on his own volition. It also filed a motion asking that Ferguson and the ACLU—which filed a separate suit—be prohibited from attacking Stutzman on a personal level.
In January 2015, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Eckstrom—while throwing out a charge that accused Stutzman of directing her business to violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws—ruled that the florist may be held personally responsible for the incident.
A month later, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. The court also ordered Stutzman to provide full service to same-sex ceremonies, which includes not only accepting the order, but also delivering to the homosexual celebration, and assisting with the specific arrangements and decoration on-site.
She appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which unanimously upheld the lower court ruling in February 2017. Stutzman consequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully asked the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider Barronelle’s case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision,” Kristen Waggoner with ADF remarked in a statement on Monday. “In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denounced government hostility toward the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals like Jack and Barronelle. The state of Washington, acting through its attorney general, has shown similar hostility here.”
“Barronelle, like Jack, serves all customers but declines to create custom art that expresses messages or celebrates events in conflict with her deeply held religious beliefs. The Washington attorney general’s efforts to punish her because he dislikes her beliefs about marriage are as impermissible as Colorado’s attempt to punish Jack,” she said.
Stutzman also reiterated both in a statement and in video form that Ingersoll was her friend, and she has served him many times—including on Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day and for birthdays and anniversaries—and would serve him again.
“Rob was my customer and friend for over nine years,” she said. “I knew he was gay, and it was never an issue. I serve everyone. He enjoyed my custom floral designs, and I loved creating them for him. I would gladly serve Rob if he were to come back to my shop today. The attorney general has always ignored that part of my case, choosing to vilify me and my faith instead of respecting my religious beliefs about marriage.”