The Constitution of the United States, Kansas Pro-Life Laws, Pro-Abortion (AKA MURDER) Groups, the Federal Courts, and We, the People

I have posted on http://christiangunslinger1.blogspot.com information on the recall of Senators McCain and Flake of Arizona. Get involved! Get them out of office and replaced by social and fiscal conservatives!

—

I have posted on http://christiangunslinger7.blogspot.com information in relation to the Republican primary for the Special Senate Election for New Jersey.

—

Petition to support Texas in its effort to limit the MURDER of unborn babies and unsafe conditions for women

http://stopthegosnells.com/stand-with-texas

—

WATCH THIS VIDEO: TED CRUZ on the AMNESTY FIASCO!

http://www.grassfire.com/985/petition.asp?Ref_ID=21538&CID=7&RID=39750808
—

Petition to stop the immigration bill (AKA: Amnesty) from Texas Senator Ted Cruz!

http://www.tedcruz.org/stop-amnesty/?em621

—

Petition to Stop the “Gang of 8” Amnesty Betrayal

http://www.grassfire.com/985/petition.asp?Ref_ID=21543&CID=985&RID=39750808

—

Abandon the Government Plantation! Watch the video on the website below!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/black-democrat-abandons-party-of-slaves/

—

Petition to investigate the IRS Abuse of Power:

http://www.libertyaction.org/384/petition.asp?Ref_ID=21343&CID=384&RID=39475587

—

From: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/28/kansas-planned-parenthood-sues-to-stop-law-saying-abortion-destroys-human-life/

“Kansas Planned Parenthood Sues to Stop Law Saying Abortion Destroys Human Life
by Kathy Ostrowski | Topeka, KS | LifeNews.com | 6/28/13

In the space of two days late last week, two lawsuits were filed against Kansas’ 2013 Pro-Life Protections Act, HB 2253.

Due to go into effect July 1st, the comprehensive Pro-Life Protections Act restricts tax funding for abortion businesses, bans sex-selective abortions, and codifies ‘Woman’s Right to Know’ informed consent information prepared by the state health department since 1997.

As reported in the Kansas City Star on Thursday, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Inc. and its medical director, physician Orrin Moore, filed suit in federal court (My use of bold—my addition). They contend that section 14 of the Act compels them to approve of the government’s view of abortion, by which they mean the health information presented in the Woman’s Right to Know materials.

But a fair reading of abortion case law, especially the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey ruling, absolutely supports the right of states to provide medically accurate materials relevant to the abortion decision.

The lawsuits target three items in HB 2253:

*the information about Pain capability of the unborn child at 22 weeks gestation (LMP) which is part of the state law passed in 2011;

*the statement that ‘abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique living being‘, (which the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals specifically upheld in June 2008); and

*the requirement that every abortion clinic website include a tagline with its hyperlink to the states Right to Know information page.

The following day came the announcement that HB 2253 in its entirety is being challenged in state court by the Center for Woman’s Health, abortionists Herbert Hodes, and his daughter, Traci Nauser. This is the same clinic that initiated the ongoing lawsuit against the Kansas abortion clinic licensing law of 2011.

Everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown into this filing, including the bogus assertion that free speech rights were being violated (the Supreme Court denied that assertion in Casey and in other related rulings). Abortionists are free to denounce the information the government requires them to provide. And they do!

As an example, the Capitol Journal article cited the example of a Kansas City, Kansas, clinic whose informed consent materials currently states:

“WE MUST UNTRUTHFULLY TELL YOU (KSA 65-6709(b)(5)) – ‘The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.’ This is untruthful because the fetus is quite dependent upon, not separate from, the maternal placental oxygen and nutrient acquisition and kidney’s waste disposal. The word ‘whole’ implies ‘complete’ but the fetus is not truly completed until birth. Also, cancer is unique, human and living, yet not deserving of life (Are they seriously implying that an unborn baby is similar to cancer and therefore is also not deserving of life? What arrogant LIARS! However, this is what baby MURDERERS do! They LIE!—my addition).”

The lawsuit also seeks to overturn a provision of the law requiring abortion clinic websites to provide a link to a Kansas Department of Health and Environment page with accurate information about abortion and fetal development.

With clinics whose website information equates an unborn child with cancer, it’s no wonder they don’t want their own website’s link to state materials (something they have provided for years) to now additionally include the label that state materials are medically accurate.

LifeNews.com Note: Kathy Ostrowski is the legislative director for Kansans for Life, a statewide pro-life group.”

It is time for pro-life groups and State governmental officials, that support pro-life positions, to take the initiative on these issues.

Why are baby MURDERERS suing over issues that have already been decided by courts? It is a delaying tactic. They know that they can find some leftist lower court federal judge to issue a “temporary” injunction to delay the application of the law. They also know, that even if they lose in the lower federal court, they will be able to appeal the case. Thus, it will be several years before the law is applied if ever. Change the executive branch at the State level and they may decide to drop the case even though winning as Obama did with the Defense of Marriage Act and as the State of California did with its Proposition 8 constitutional amendment. Plus, these 2 to 3 levels of courts cost the State more money to defend the laws passed legally and properly by the people elected State legislature.

The States going along with this is nonsense, unnecessary, and a violation of the Constitution of the United States! As I’ve been saying for several years, all court cases in which a State is involved MUST begin in the United States Supreme Court! They are to NEVER begin in a federal district court.

Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2:

Article III.

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (My use of bold—my addition). In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

What does the Constitution require:

1) The constitutional procedure MUST happen in ALL cases.

2) The State MUST be a party in the case, which obviously is the situation when a State law is being challenged.

3) The case MUST begin in the U.S. Supreme Court—that is what original jurisdiction means.

So, why aren’t the federal courts following the Constitution of the United States as written? What aren’t the States demanding that all cases where they are a party begin in the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution? Why are they not upholding their oath of office? Doing so will save the State both time and money! Doing so is what the Constitution requires! If the groups in California who replaced the State government had no standing, then without question, the district federal court has no judicial standing in ANY CASE where the State is a party to the case. That is the direct requirement within the Constitution!

We MUST demand and require that the States follow the Constitution as written and required! We MUST demand and require that the federal courts follow the Constitution as written and required!