Two Pro-Life Court Cases in the Federal Court System

www.prolifebook.com


www.pro-lifetube.com

A PRO-LIFE organization that I strongly support is LIFE DECISIONS INTERNATIONAL!

Its website is at: www.fightpp.org

—

http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com is 100% PRO-LIFE.

http://christiangunslinger3.blogspot.com political discussions based upon Christian values.

http://christiangunslinger5.blogspot.com deals with the immoral, sinful agenda of homosexual activists.

—

Watch this video of a yawning baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiSGpQ-A7Mw&feature=player_embedded

GOD’S creation!!!

—

Petition in opposition to the abortion (MURDER)-pill mandate:

http://aclj.org/obamacare/oppose-abortion-pill-mandate-defend-religious-liberty

—

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vnt7euRF5Pg&vq=medium

—

Watch this video from President Obama’s Jobs Council Chairman!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXYFjYLabM&feature=player_embedded#!

Watch this video from Michigan!

http://joemiller.us/2012/12/video-full-clip-of-crowder-being-assaulted-by-union-thugs/?utm_source=JoeMiller.US+List&utm_campaign=ee435e3563-12_12_1212_12_2012&utm_medium=email

Watch this video—the majority has the right to steal my money?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXd5Z2O0hnc&feature=player_embedded

—

From: Americans United for Life www.aul.org

“AUL Celebrates Big Win in Illinois Case that May Foreshadow Outcomes in Lawsuits Against HHS Mandate

And the U.S. Court of Appeals Hears Case on Life-Ending Drugs and Devices

“The Illinois decision has dramatic implications for all people of faith who object to being forced to throw aside their convictions to support an anti-life agenda,” said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest

Obamacare is back in the news this week as two efforts by Americans United for Life’s Legal Team mark a path to victory for pro-life Americans concerned with how anti-life and pro-abortion policies are intertwined with the federal healthcare law. ‘Even as the healthcare law was being written, AUL argued that constitutional problems would arise if the law attempted to force people to participate in the abortion industry’s radical agenda,’ noted AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. ‘AUL’s hard-won victory in Illinois in defense of the First Amendment conscience rights of Illinois pharmacists could foreshadow the road ahead for the HHS mandate.’

Victory in Illinois

After seven years in court, the decision by the Illinois Attorney General not to file an appeal in Morr-Fitz v. Quinn means that Illinois pharmacists and pharmacies cannot be forced to dispense life-ending drugs against their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of conscience. This freedom is protected under the ‘Illinois Health Care Rights of Conscience Act’ and the ‘Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act,’ as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Americans United for Life attorneys have been engaged in the case since 2005, defending the freedoms of pharmacists Luke Vander Bleek and Glenn Kosirog, along with several rural Illinois pharmacies owned by them.

‘This is a tremendous victory. Freedom of conscience is under assault today and this case is a rebuke to those who argue that the government can violate the First Amendment rights of Americans by forcing them to advance an anti-life agenda. This includes the abortion industry which aggressively supported the coercive mandate in Illinois and is arguing for similar measures in other states,’ said Dr. Yoest.

AUL Advisory Board member, Mark L. Rienzi, law professor at Catholic University and Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund, was lead counsel in the case since 2006.

‘We are delighted with the decision,’ said Rienzi. ‘The government should not have tried to force these pharmacists out of business for their religious objection to selling a small handful of drugs.’ To read more on Morr-Fitz and AUL’s efforts, click here.

http://www.aul.org/2012/12/aul-and-illinois-pharmacists-strike-a-blow-for-first-amendment-freedom-of-conscience/

From Illinois to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in two more cases determining whether Americans and their employers can be forced to pay for or provide insurance coverage for life-ending drugs and devices against their First Amendment Freedom of Conscience. The cases in question involve plaintiffs Belmont Abbey College and Wheaton College and will be the first of more than 40 HHS mandate cases to be argued before federal appellate courts.

AUL submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case, representing six national medical organizations including the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Catholic Medical Association that are concerned that the HHS mandate mislabels life-ending drugs as ‘contraception’ and forces individuals and businesses to pay for the drugs, often in violation of their First Amendment Freedom of Conscience.

Real Healthcare Respects Life (DUH!—my addition)

AUL attorneys have been actively fighting for life-affirming healthcare at both the federal and state levels, including creating model legislation to assist states in opting-out of offering insurance coverage for abortion in their health insurance exchanges (required to be operational by 2014). So far 10 states have opted-out of offering abortion coverage in their exchanges using AUL’s model legislation and/or with AUL assistance. There are now 18 states that have proactively acted to block this federal overreach.

To read more about life-affirming healthcare, visit AUL’s unique project: www.realhealthcarerespectslife.com.”

I’m been saying this for years, the problem with the Illinois decision is that it should not have been in the federal court system below the Supreme Court. The United States Constitution specifically requires that ALL cases in which the State is a party MUST begin in the Supreme Court—Article III, § 2, ¶ 2. The States MUST demand and require that the Constitution be followed. If a case where the State is a party does NOT begin in the Supreme Court, the State should refuse to participate. In the long run, there would be less federal interference in State matters and the States would regain more of the sovereignty they have lost over the years. And conversely, the federal government through the courts would NOT be so powerful.

The Obamacare mandate issues, of course, do belong in the federal court system since the cases deal with federal law. Eventually, the mandate should be tossed out because they are a clear violation of the First Amendment freedom of religion clause. If it will be so decided, is not certain given this court.