2006 Aclj Court Cases

[Aristotle]

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE

2006 is shaping up to be a pivotal one in the fight for your freedoms.

With your support, we can meet head-on the high-stakes cases before us:

We are working on preserving the federal partial-birth abortion ban, which is under fire from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. (The Supreme Court of the United States is deciding whether to hear a Nebraska case which could settle the question.)

We're involved in extensive legal battles to protect the Pledge of Allegiance with ''one nation under God'' included and our National Motto ''In God We Trust.'' (So far, activist lawyer Michael Newdow is winning. But we are headed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Pledge case and to District Court in the National Motto case - and we'll go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary!)

We're going head-to-head with the ACLU to protect the public display of the Ten Commandments, most recently in a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case out of Mercer County, Kentucky (the court stung the ACLU in a biting, unanimous rebuke).

We're working to protect your personal property rights, which were violated in the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling last term.

We're fighting to protect your conscience - by defending Illinois pharmacists who lost their jobs because they refused to sell abortion pills to customers due to their religious beliefs.

We're working to protect the rights of Christian chaplains in our U.S. military to pray in Jesus' name - after some have been pressured to stop, and official censorship of chaplains' prayers has been proposed!

We are prepared to do everything necessary to protect life and liberty - and your constitutional freedoms - this year.

That is why we need your help in a very real way. Our caseload and legislative work for 2006 could become the most challenging we have ever faced.

American Center for Law and Justice

P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555

Phone: (800) 296-4529

American Center for Law and Justice is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center´s purpose is to educate, promulgate, conciliate, and where necessary, litigate, to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

As always, let us know of threats to freedom in your area by calling (757) 226-2489. And tune in to our daily radio program, "Jay Sekulow Live!"

www.aclj.org/

[Jason]

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE

2006 is shaping up to be a pivotal one in the fight for your freedoms.

You can say that again.

We are working on preserving the federal partial-birth abortion ban, which is under fire from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. (The Supreme Court of the United States is deciding whether to hear a Nebraska case which could settle the question.)

It always amazes me that conservatives think that Abortion is wrong, except....

We're involved in extensive legal battles to protect the Pledge of Allegiance with ''one nation under God'' included and our National Motto ''In God We Trust.'' (So far, activist lawyer Michael Newdow is winning. But we are headed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Pledge case and to District Court in the National Motto case - and we'll go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary!)

Seriously, is the pledge so dang important anyway? You can't make me think it is. It was fine before it had "under god" and it would be just fine without it.

Who gives a flip?

We're going head-to-head with the ACLU to protect the public display of the Ten Commandments, most recently in a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case out of Mercer County, Kentucky (the court stung the ACLU in a biting, unanimous rebuke).

So will the Ten Commandments somehow cease to be important to Jews and Christians if they're not nailed to the wall of your local government buildings? When you pay your water bill, does it make you feel better seeing them on the wall as you write your check?

Seriously...who gives a f^@&.

We're working to protect your personal property rights, which were violated in the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling last term.

I guess that's worth while.

We're fighting to protect your conscience - by defending Illinois pharmacists who lost their jobs because they refused to sell abortion pills to customers due to their religious beliefs.

I don't believe that pharmacists have a right to deny patients the drugs proscribed by doctors. That's wacko. That's like giving individual soldiers the right to refuse to obey their superior officers when they feel it's morally wrong. Wouldn't have much of an army that way.

We're working to protect the rights of Christian chaplains in our U.S. military to pray in Jesus' name - after some have been pressured to stop, and official censorship of chaplains' prayers has been proposed!

I'd rather see a generic prayer that's all inclusive anyway. They can pray to Jesus all they want the rest of the time.

[Outshined]

I'd rather see a generic prayer that's all inclusive anyway. They can pray to Jesus all they want the rest of the time.

You mean like the old standby: "Good bread, good meat, good gosh, LET'S EAT!" ?

[Aristotle]

Hey, what took ya so long to react, Jason?!

ohhhhh this little light of miiiiiiiiiiine.................

[prisonchaplain]

It always amazes me that conservatives think that Abortion is wrong, except....

It's wrong when mother's life is in danger because she was here first, and the baby is dependent on her, while she is not dependent on the baby. Such cases represent far less than 1% of abortions, and in most of those, the baby will die if the mother does anyway.

In cases of rape or incest, most Christian leaders would probably contend that carrying the baby to term, and then giving him/her up for adoption, would be the morally superior route.

However, the sex was forced upon the woman, so the child is the product of a criminal act. Should the mother be forced against her will to bare the child of her assailant? Perhaps in a political vacuum, many would still say, "Yes. You don't kill the child for the crimes of the parent, or the revenge-motives of the victim."

In a democratic republic such as ours, most pro-lifers realize that they will never see abortion criminalize if they are not willing to allow discretion in such heinous circumstances. Keep in mind too that rape/incest/threat to mother's life are reasons for less than 5% of all abortions, if I'm not mistaken.

Seriously, is the pledge so dang important anyway? You can't make me think it is. It was fine before it had "under god" and it would be just fine without it.

Since over 90% of Americans believe there is a God, there is an infuriating sense that a very small minority is tweeking the majority with this fight.

So will the Ten Commandments somehow cease to be important to Jews and Christians if they're not nailed to the wall of your local government buildings? When you pay your water bill, does it make you feel better seeing them on the wall as you write your check?

Once again, this fight is more about the tail wagging the dog, and the dog finding it irritating.

I don't believe that pharmacists have a right to deny patients the drugs proscribed by doctors. That's wacko. That's like giving individual soldiers the right to refuse to obey their superior officers when they feel it's morally wrong. Wouldn't have much of an army that way.

A pharmacist is not a soldier, nor is s/he involved in a war. They should not have to sell contraceptives, if doing so violates their religious practices. Likewise, Catholic hospitals should not be required to offer abortions, and doctors/medical students should not be required to learn/administer them.

I'd rather see a generic prayer that's all inclusive anyway. They can pray to Jesus all they want the rest of the time.

I would tend to agree, when the service is a non-sectarian public ceremony officiated by a government employee (most chaplains are). In such cases, there is a likelihood that there may be Jews in the audience, and religious Jews cannot participate or "Amen" any prayer that includes the name of Jesus.

On the other hand, when government invites Christian clergy or representatives, or when a Christian chaplain is offering a Christian program, such a restriction is abhorrent. Faith group representatives who are invited to give invocations or benedictions ought to be expected to pray however it is they pray.

[sgallan]

Pro-life.... but only until it's born.

10 Commandments..... battle has been fought. It's a done deal now.

God in the pledge..... fine with me.... I don't care.

Christ in Academy prayers..... those idiots only have themselves to blame for that one by ostracizing, and sometimes being cruel, to those who did not believe as they did.

The pharmacy thing...... the internet, and other technologies is going to make that a non-issue. Otherwise, it's the pharmacists business who and what he sells.

[prisonchaplain]

Pro-life.... but only until it's born.

We don't have to support "cradle to grave socialism" to be considered pro-life. The former, more generous "Great Society" resulting in 5th-generation welfare families. What's so pro-life about that?

Christ in Academy prayers..... those idiots only have themselves to blame for that one by ostracizing, and sometimes being cruel, to those who did not believe as they did.

Mark this well. The Prisonchaplain agrees. We are trained to preach what we believe, but to facilitate the religious practices of all. Something was not kosher there, and the standard government overreaction was to be expected. It'll even out over time.

The pharmacy thing...... the internet, and other technologies is going to make that a non-issue. Otherwise, it's the pharmacists business who and what he sells.

I agree, but the courts don't.

[sgallan]

We don't have to support "cradle to grave socialism" to be considered pro-life.

Cradle to adulthood would be nice. That on I am pretty sure most pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

It always amazes me that conservatives think that Abortion is wrong, except....

It's wrong when mother's life is in danger because she was here first, and the baby is dependent on her, while she is not dependent on the baby. Such cases represent far less than 1% of abortions, and in most of those, the baby will die if the mother does anyway.

In cases of rape or incest, most Christian leaders would probably contend that carrying the baby to term, and then giving him/her up for adoption, would be the morally superior route.

However, the sex was forced upon the woman, so the child is the product of a criminal act. Should the mother be forced against her will to bare the child of her assailant? Perhaps in a political vacuum, many would still say, "Yes. You don't kill the child for the crimes of the parent, or the revenge-motives of the victim."

In a democratic republic such as ours, most pro-lifers realize that they will never see abortion criminalize if they are not willing to allow discretion in such heinous circumstances. Keep in mind too that rape/incest/threat to mother's life are reasons for less than 5% of all abortions, if I'm not mistaken.

Do you know how to Waltz as well?

[prisonchaplain]

Do you know how to Waltz as well?

You know, for a Deist, you sure have a fundamentalist streak to you.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

Do you know how to Waltz as well?

You know, for a Deist, you sure have a fundamentalist streak to you.

Blame it on the Independent Baptist Missionary I spoke with on Friday. For two hours, he tried to get me to buy into his "literal" interpretation of the Bible. But when faced with black and white issues like this, it's amazing how well one can "dance" around the issue.

[prisonchaplain]

Blame it on the Independent Baptist Missionary I spoke with on Friday. For two hours, he tried to get me to buy into his "literal" interpretation of the Bible. But when faced with black and white issues like this, it's amazing how well one can "dance" around the issue.

Let me see if I'm understanding your argument. Are you suggesting that to be truly "pro-life," or consistently "anti-abortion," one would have to oppose all abortions in all circumstances? if so, is your reasoning that life begins at conception, and regardless of reason, ending the life is killing?

Once I'm clear on your argument, we'll see if I'm dancing or simply walking a careful line.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

Blame it on the Independent Baptist Missionary I spoke with on Friday. For two hours, he tried to get me to buy into his "literal" interpretation of the Bible. But when faced with black and white issues like this, it's amazing how well one can "dance" around the issue.

Let me see if I'm understanding your argument. Are you suggesting that to be truly "pro-life," or consistently "anti-abortion," one would have to oppose all abortions in all circumstances? if so, is your reasoning that life begins at conception, and regardless of reason, ending the life is killing?

Once I'm clear on your argument, we'll see if I'm dancing or simply walking a careful line.

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

To many, it's not a crime to end a life which is in the first trimester of pregnancy. At what moment does abortion become wrong? Can we determine this by a time-frame? Or a developement frame unique to each fetus?

And frankly, why are we so care-free about a life which has just begun, but we've made it a felony to desecrate a dead body? How do you justify that?

[Maureen]

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

That simple? If a mother’s life is at risk due to a pregnancy how does having a mother and fetus/baby die and existing children become mother-less help the “pro-life” mentality? How can that be pro-life when 2 lives die and children are left without a mother?

M.

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

That simple? If a mother’s life is at risk due to a pregnancy how does having a mother and fetus/baby die and existing children become mother-less help the “pro-life” mentality? How can that be pro-life when 2 lives die and children are left without a mother?

M.

Each set of parents make their choices in these condition. They sometimes do not have a choice. But in cases where the parents make these choices, they consider a life and a life, not a life and a growth in the stomach.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

That simple? If a mother’s life is at risk due to a pregnancy how does having a mother and fetus/baby die and existing children become mother-less help the “pro-life” mentality? How can that be pro-life when 2 lives die and children are left without a mother?

M.

Im sorry Maureen, but Im considering other things as well. Im not here to act superior to others, and we all know that worse things happen in this world than the situation you're describing.

But I cannot advocate this type of violence for any reason. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

That simple? If a mother’s life is at risk due to a pregnancy how does having a mother and fetus/baby die and existing children become mother-less help the “pro-life” mentality? How can that be pro-life when 2 lives die and children are left without a mother?

M.

Each set of parents make their choices in these condition. They sometimes do not have a choice. But in cases where the parents make these choices, they consider a life and a life, not a life and a growth in the stomach.

For someone who claims to be as spiritual superior as you do, Im quite surprised at your last comment, calling a life a "growth".

[Guest Syble]

Each set of parents make their choices in these condition. They sometimes do not have a choice. But in cases where the parents make these choices, they consider a life and a life, not a life and a growth in the stomach.

For someone who claims to be as spiritual superior as you do, Im quite surprised at your last comment, calling a life a "growth".

Please re-read. I never called it a growth~ I was saying NOT

[Jason]

Syble,

Are you saying that fetus' are "growths" but not "life"?

[Guest Syble]

Syble,

Are you saying that fetus' are "growths" but not "life"?

NO NO NO! I made a statement that said this:

But in cases where the parents make these choices, they consider a life and a life.

NOT a life and a growth in the stomach

Those who are prochoice state that the fetus isn't really a human. They state that the mothers life is the only real life, the fetus is nothing but a growth in the stomach the mother has a right to remove without considering it murder.

Pro life... which I am! states that the baby is a life as much as the mother is a life and so there are two lives not just the mother's.

[prisonchaplain]

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

To many, it's not a crime to end a life which is in the first trimester of pregnancy. At what moment does abortion become wrong? Can we determine this by a time-frame? Or a developement frame unique to each fetus?

And frankly, why are we so care-free about a life which has just begun, but we've made it a felony to desecrate a dead body? How do you justify that?

This has the potential to be an interesting conversation. However, I'm a bit uncertain as to where you are arguing from, here. I've not sensed that you are in favor of criminalizing all abortions, but rather that your contention was "all or nothing." Am I wrong here? Do you favor criminalizing all abortions? Is your frustration with most prolifers that we are practicing "real politik" in order to get most abortions banned, but in the process losing our moral high ground? Or, are you suggesting that there can be no consensus, so mothers should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to have an abortion, unhindered by government?

Furthermore, are you one that argues that a true pro-life positions requires one to be against the death penalty as well?

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

I personally believe that life begins at conception. That's pretty simple I think.

To many, it's not a crime to end a life which is in the first trimester of pregnancy. At what moment does abortion become wrong? Can we determine this by a time-frame? Or a developement frame unique to each fetus?

And frankly, why are we so care-free about a life which has just begun, but we've made it a felony to desecrate a dead body? How do you justify that?

This has the potential to be an interesting conversation. However, I'm a bit uncertain as to where you are arguing from, here. I've not sensed that you are in favor of criminalizing all abortions, but rather that your contention was "all or nothing." Am I wrong here? Do you favor criminalizing all abortions? Is your frustration with most prolifers that we are practicing "real politik" in order to get most abortions banned, but in the process losing our moral high ground? Or, are you suggesting that there can be no consensus, so mothers should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to have an abortion, unhindered by government?

Furthermore, are you one that argues that a true pro-life positions requires one to be against the death penalty as well?

Good questions there Chaplain. I opposed the death penalty, not because some people don't "deserve" it, but because it's violence for violence. It does nothing to make the world a better place. Obviously, it's not a crime deterrent either. I've never considered the "true pro-life" position before. But I believe it makes sense, don't you?

I believe that pro-lifers lose their moral high-ground when they allow some abortions under given circumstances. That's like people who opposed the death-penalty, except in certain cases like when a child was raped and murdered or some such thing. You can't really have it both ways.

This is all situational ethics. We all know that. Normally I favor them, but in this particular case, I personally oppose all abortion. Aborting a fetus because it was conceived by a rapist serves no good to humanity.

[Maureen]

This is all situational ethics. We all know that. Normally I favor them, but in this particular case, I personally oppose all abortion...

So if a baby is conceived and in turn dies because the mother that nurtures that baby also dies, how does that proclaim life. And if that mother has a relationship with existing children, then those children's welfare is of secondary concern because the unborn baby (who needs the mother to survive) is more important?

Is that how you see it Jason?

M.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

This is all situational ethics. We all know that. Normally I favor them, but in this particular case, I personally oppose all abortion...

So if a baby is conceived and in turn dies because the mother that nurtures that baby also dies, how does that proclaim life. And if that mother has a relationship with existing children, then those children's welfare is of secondary concern because the unborn baby (who needs the mother to survive) is more important?

Is that how you see it Jason?

M.

I think I'd need more details here Maureen. Essentially (as I see it) none of the above is a problem in 21st century America. If a mother dies giving birth, the baby can be kept alive artificially. Children can be taken care of through foster care.

If you want to make an argument about the psychology about orphaning children, so be it.

[prisonchaplain]

Good questions there Chaplain. I opposed the death penalty, not because some people don't "deserve" it, but because it's violence for violence. It does nothing to make the world a better place. Obviously, it's not a crime deterrent either. I've never considered the "true pro-life" position before. But I believe it makes sense, don't you?

The best argument I have heard IN FAVOR of the death penalty is that capital punishment is pro-life. How so? The only punishment for heinous murder that recognizes the value of life is execution. The murderer willfully and viciously took a life. The only answer to that crime that fully recognizes what was taken is execution.

Frankly, I'm still uncommitted on this issue. I do not believe capital punishment violates God's standards. My own qualms are that our system of administering it is not acceptable.

I believe that pro-lifers lose their moral high-ground when they allow some abortions under given circumstances. That's like people who opposed the death-penalty, except in certain cases like when a child was raped and murdered or some such thing. You can't really have it both ways.

This is all situational ethics. We all know that. Normally I favor them, but in this particular case, I personally oppose all abortion. Aborting a fetus because it was conceived by a rapist serves no good to humanity.

To accuse an evangelical or a fundamentalist Christian of situational ethics is the equivalent of poking us in the eye! OUCH! I understand your reasoning.

Quite frankly, the common prolife position of "except danger to the mother's life, rape, incest" is partially 'realism," and partially a sincere belief that the victims of violent crime should not be required to bring to term the product of said crime. Additionally, if a mother's life is threatened by a pregnancy, then the mother would have precedence over the baby. Keep in mind that babies are not able to live outside the womb until between six and seven months. So, Maureen's example where both mother and baby dies is not unrealistic.

[Aristotle]

ARE YOU A LIBERAL? - DENNIS PRAGER

You say you are a liberal. Do you believe the following?

Question #3. Murderers should never be put to death.

Question #17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.

At one of my past meetings, I sponsored the Arizona Right To Life to speak. We watched a videotape, "The Silent Scream"...footage of a live abortion.

Is a fetus a baby? If a fetus screams as it is being torn apart limb by limb...if a tiny fetus can s*uck it's thumb...it is a baby, not a clump of tissue which can be expelled at whim.