Life Is A Sacred Gift


Individual States of the American Union are pushing back against the godless SCOTUS decision of 1973 in Roe v. Wade which legalized baby-killing for any reason. Justin Smith elaborates on this sanctity of human life usurped by Leftist Court decisions.

 

JRH 5/19/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Life Is A Sacred Gift

The Unborn Child’s Right to Life

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  5/18/2019 7:18 PM

 

Intellectual dishonesty is the only condition that allows so many Americans to call the murder of unborn children “a right to privacy”. It allows the sacred union between men and women and their joining in love to be diminished and made so casual to the point that any product of sex can simply be tossed in the garbage, like so much refuse. It has become a cover for denying one’s own responsibility and the consequences for any ‘mistake’, as far too many deny their own irresponsible behavior, and instead, they relax comfortably in their ignoble position that destroys the sanctity of life and kills a baby that has a soul, without a valid reason sanctioned by God, an act tantamount to infanticide.

 

Recently, after chaos broke out during a debate over a proposed abortion bill in Alabama’s state Senate, Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth said, “It is important that we pass this statewide abortion ban legislation and begin a long overdue effort to directly challenge Roe v. Wade”.

 

Not long afterwards on May 14th 2019, Alabama Governor Kaye Ivey signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, without exceptions for rape and incest, that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the legislature. The Governor noted: “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamian’s deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

 

This is the issue nationwide. Far too many Americans are not willing to acknowledge the fact that sex between a man and a woman is a sacred matter ordained by God. They are not willing to admit that the product of such unions — a little vulnerable innocent live baby — cannot and must not be taken away on a whim, due to the inconvenience it may cause them.

 

Abby Johnson, one of the youngest ever to head a Planned Parenthood clinic, had her come to Jesus moment at a time in her life, when she had already facilitated nearly 22,000 abortions. One day in October 2009, she was asked to assist in an abortion at the clinic in Texas. Here is her emotional testimony: “Ultimately I left [Planned Parenthood] after witnessing a live … procedure where I saw a thirteen week old baby fight and struggle for his life against the abortion instruments only to lose his life, and I knew there was humanity in the womb. I knew that for all these years I had essentially put the rights of the woman above the rights of the unborn child, and it became very clear to me in that moment that our rights should be equal — that one shouldn’t supersede the other.”

 

It is accurate to state that a newly created human being is human because it has its own very specific and unique DNA. Life begins at fertilization and any action that puts an end to human life is indisputably a homicide, not matter how cute, obtuse or disingenuous one wants to be on the topic. Unborn children are not property or parasites to be discarded at will.

 

It’s important to note here that Roe v. Wade is a 1973 lawless ruling by the Supreme Court that has been foisted upon a majority of states in stark contravention of actual laws that they passed. There is not one actual law in existence that states a woman has a right to an abortion, and nowhere does any such thing exist within the constitution, something the Supreme Court conceded in the Roe decision itself. The Court uncertainly concluded that any guarantee of personal privacy only extended to areas such as procreation, contraception and childrearing.

 

Shortly after Roe was delivered by the Court, John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion and a Harvard Law School professor, wrote: “Roe is bad … because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

 

Justice Blackmun offered no sound logic in support of his decision, and in the forty-six years since the Roe v. Wade ruling shoved its way into American society, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms and merit.

 

Before Roe v. Wade this issue fell to each respective state to determine democratically through the duly elected representatives. The Supreme Court’s dictate was erroneous on its face, and this judicial tyranny resulted in the circumvention of the will of the people at the time and the deprivation of the states’ authority and rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments, every bit as bad as if a despot had been in control of America.

 

Much of the precedence for our legal system emanates from English Common Law, and as such, we would be negligent if we didn’t note that many early U.S. lawyers such as Louis Brandeis and Sam Warren drew heavily on English Common Law in 1890, when they wrote the Right to Privacy. They revealed that William Blackstone, an English legal scholar whose words shaped our Declaration of Independence, declared specific rights for the unborn child writing: “Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit.”

 

Currently, there are nearly twenty other states poised to act more stridently to ban abortion, and with recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, any challenges have a good chance to be struck down. It also appears that some states are purposefully crafting these laws precisely to see Roe v. Wade rescinded in the affirmative support for the life of the unborn child. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are probably the most certain pro-life Justices; in February of this year, Thomas wrote that Roe was among the Court’s “most notoriously incorrect decisions“, and he gave the 1857 decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford as another equally bad decision that said black slaves were property and not citizens.

 

People just don’t understand the Constitution, if they agree to submit to unconstitutional rulings, especially in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has admitted to being wrong over 300 times by reversing their own rulings. And more importantly, Americans no longer seem to understand their own divine nature having been created in the image of God.

 

I grew up understanding that all souls were known to God long before He gave Us our human form, by way of my dear Grandmother’s constant reminder as she recited Jeremiah 1:5 from the Old Testament: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Just as God knows and loves each of Us long before we are born, Americans, people everywhere, must learn to love the Unborn Child while he or she is still in the womb.

 

Americans must fight for the right of all human life to exist, despite the sad truth that a generation and a half have lived in America seeing legality as a basis for their morality, no matter how wrong or heinous the act. Abortion must be revealed for the morally reprehensible act it truly is, an act that has reduced medicine to tearing limbs from feeling beautiful unborn babies, while we also move American society towards ending the federal legality of abortion and returning the issue to the states.  Americans must stop killing babies for fear of poverty and any other rationalized false justification. We must protect our children in the streets and in the womb and stop this insane acceptance of infanticide, or surely one day face the wrath of God.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Beyond a Sad Day In America


Justin Smith addresses the immorality of various States passing abortion laws allowing the murder of full term babies. God have mercy on America.

 

JRH 2/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

Beyond a Sad Day In America

The Monstrous Abortion Laws 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/2/2019 8:00 PM

 

Deuteronomy 30:19 ~ I have set before you Life and Death and Cursing; therefore Choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

 

It is beyond a sad day in America, when we witness illegitimate “laws” and infanticide, that allow a full term baby capable of living outside the womb to be murdered on its way through the birth canal, if a woman so chooses for any reason. We’re witnessing a deliberative body of several state legislatures, swayed by radical, demonic abortionists in the Democratic Party, from New York to Virginia and Rhode Island to Vermont, among many others, make conscious, premeditated decisions to legalize murder, and, as a rule, they prefer to sign a baby’s death warrant rather than seek alternatives that protect both the unborn child and the woman, the mother to be.

 

The Democratic Party and its followers seem to have taken a page from the writings of Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Josef Mengele, Margaret Sanger and the March 1st 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, that I noted on March 12th 2012 in ‘Choose Freedom … Choose Life’. Abortion has long been used to destroy family units to ensure government power and control, and today we are seeing Malthusian eugenics make a resurgence, along with the monstrous suggestion that a child, any child, does not have a moral right to life AFTER its birth.

 

Thankfully, Virginia’s infanticide bill failed, and in the course of events, a video of delegate Kathy Tran explaining  how her bill would allow abortion, as the expectant mother was in the middle of contractions, ignited fiery controversy. Tran later acknowledged that her law would have run afoul of existing anti-infanticide laws.

 

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, further inflamed America with his comments days after New York Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act that allows late term abortion “at any time” to “protect a patient’s life or health”. The RHA also repealed protections for born babies that survive failed abortions, and other states, like Rhode Island are following suit and introducing bills that would repeal bans on partial-birth abortion.

 

Yes. Don’t let a little thing like the baby actually exiting the mother’s womb stop anyone from murdering it.

 

On January 30th, Governor Northam spoke with DC’s WTOP Radio, in reference to failed abortions. According to Northam, the baby is out of the womb, the umbilical cord cut, and lying on a table next to the woman’s bed, and after a discussion between the doctors and the woman, the baby could be killed in the same manner a full-term baby is killed in a partial birth abortion. The baby’s brains are sucked out through a vacuum until her head collapses, even though just moments earlier she was crying, instinctively longing to be held and fed.

 

Medical experts such as Dr. Omar Hamada recently stated, “There’s absolutely no reason to kill a baby before delivery in the third trimester”.

 

It is a shame that the majority of abortionists don’t have the same epiphany as Dr. Anthony Levatino had years ago. His testimony on May 17th 2012, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) should be required reading for all high school youths. He spoke of the Sopher clamp with its ragged rows of jagged teeth made for clamping and crushing tissue and of the white fluid that leaves the woman’s cervix after the baby’s brain has been crushed — a procedure he had performed over 1200 times between 1981 and 1985. And then, he tells how his adopted daughter, Heather, was hit by a car and killed on June 23rd 1984, which prompted him to reject doing any more abortions.

 

Dr. Levatino, encouraged by a Catholic bishop, now tells everyone: “When you lose a child, life is different. Everything changes … the idea of a person’s life becomes very real. It is not an embryology course anymore … it’s your child buried … I couldn’t even think about a D&E abortion anymore.”

 

Continuing his Congressional testimony, he gives one example of saving a woman’s life by “terminating her pregnancy” through a Cesarean section; mother and baby did well afterwards. And he ends his testimony noting: “During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.

 

Leftist abortionists can tout baby murder as in the interest of women’s health all they wish, but the facts and their own contradictions belie their assertions. These new laws, like New York’s, allow non-physicians to perform abortions; they dismiss research that reveal the physical and psychological damage women incur from abortions; they refuse to inform young women about the risks associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of adoption. These abortionists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of “choice”.

 

No question exists that a partially delivered baby is a human being, although some will argue that it’s not so cut and dried early on in the pregnancy. At forty weeks, there is absolutely no reason to prevent the UnBorn Child from claiming his or her God-given right to life, which supersedes the woman’s vacuous right to privacy.

 

The Leftist position is morally repugnant, and goes against the grain and most Americans’ belief in protecting innocent life. They believe baby murder to be perfectly acceptable in their defense of abortion rights, and even so, they try to pretend they hold the moral high ground. Surely a viable baby is innocent, too.

 

These latest laws are atrocious to human beings, and they are nothing short of eugenics, nothing less than infanticide manifested in evil human selfishness in the ugliest way imaginable, and a fundamental shift in America’s conscience. The red radical Democratic Party makes a big show of empathy for the weak and marginalized, and yet, few if any shed a tear for the slaughter of millions of UnBorn Children, the most vulnerable among us. And this is the most tragic and complete denigration of America’s founding spirit of righteousness.

 

Roe v Wade is only an activist ruling made by the Supreme Court. It is not “the law of the land” as many Leftists suggest, and it is certainly not settled “law”.

 

On the federal level, Americans must stop allowing any majority of activist Black Robes to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by finding “new rights” within the Constitution that require a flight of fancy to discover. Only Congress can actually make law, and Congress needs to restrain the Court to its proper role and ignore Roe v Wade and also move to make abortion illegal across the country, except, in the most rare of circumstances, when a young mother’s life is truly endangered by the pregnancy, and she already has small children.

 

“There are times which we attempt to compromise in order to bring two opposing sides together for the benefit of all concerned.

 

There are other times when we are presented with a clear and distinct watershed. The opposition has as its only purpose to impose their will on all without compromise, without apology, and without recourse to the opposed.

 

It is at these times we must be courageous, stand firm, and fight. That time is now!” ~ Francis Schaeffer / ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Baby Murder Act


Abortion is a horrendous act of murder perpetrated on an unborn life PRIMARILY for the purpose preventing unwanted pregnancies from promiscuous consensual sex.

The only potential caveat for an acceptable abortion is to save the life of the mother for whatever the legitimate medical reason in existence. There are other caveats that are a matter controversy among Pro-Lifers related to rape, incest, physical/mental disabilities and/or other unborn maladies I can’t think of. BUT those controversial matters for abortion are miniscule compared to the downright genocidal taking of unborn life for the sake of unwanted pregnancy due to promiscuous copulation (92% in the USA).

 

Pro-Life Biblical Perspective:

 

 

 

 

With this in mind, Justin Smith addresses New York State’s full term genocidal unborn baby-murder act.

 

JRH 1/28/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

*********************

The Baby Murder Act

New York Mandates a Culture of Death

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/27/2019 8:13 PM

 

Abortion is nothing less than the murder of Unborn Children, Babies, and on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, January 22nd 1973, the Empire State of New York has just passed its abominable Baby Murder Act, the “Reproductive Health Act“, that attempts to give legitimacy to this abominable, heinous and horrific practice, by calling abortion a “fundamental right”. This act stands in direct contravention of the virtues and principles, that built America, often referenced as a “shining City on the Hill”, and there are consequences for these actions, which are unacceptable under any set of circumstances. We must protect the lives of the Unborn Children.

 

New York was already doing a fine job of slaughtering the innocent Unborn, under its “archaic abortion law, as described by the secular Leftist media, as it aborted twice the number of babies as the national average — one baby aborted for every two that were born with more black babies murdered in the womb than brought to birth. Only a blood lust could demand such a heinous law be expanded.

 

Shortly after passage, Sarah [née] Ragle Weddington, an attorney who represented Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey in the original case, excitedly exclaimed, “To see New York pass a bill so that right is protected is just a dream come true.” Curiously and ironically, one never hears the Leftstream media mention that Norma McCorvey became Pro-Life in 1995 and dedicated her life to opposing Roe v Wade.

 

In celebration of their demonic act and their hate for life, that allows a baby to be murdered the very day up to its birth, a full 9 months, Governor Andrew Cuomo and his fellow Democrats lit the One World Trade Center in a bright neon pink light, as they delighted and cheered along with their mainstream media tools.

 

One World Trade Ctr lit pink to honor NY Abortion Law (flickr-governorandrewcuomo – Fox News)

 

Must I state the obvious. Taking the lives of a babies right up until the day they could be delivered alive IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. IT IS PURE EVIL.

 

Charlie Daniels tweeted: “The NY legislature has created a new Auschwitz dedicated to the execution of a whole segment of defenseless citizens. Satan is smiling.”

 

As Lifesite noted: “Declaring abortion a ‘fundamental right’ opens the door to invalidating ‘any limits on abortion’ and ‘mandating’ that everyone take part in the culture of death … and [having] the effect of ‘authorizing infanticide’ …”.

 

Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of the Albany Diocese observed that the law appears to be a step toward criminalizing anyone who does not subscribe to the Democratic Party’s Anti-Life platform. How will this illegitimate “law” affect Pro-Life nurses and doctors and health facilities and maternity services? The Good Bishop offered: “If abortion is deemed a fundamental right … I shudder to think of the consequences this law will wreak … Will being pro-life one day be a hate-crime in the State of New York?”

 

Although all abortions are wrong, I and many other Americans would offer this caveat. Young women surviving rape and mothers with young children at home and truly endangered by their pregnancy can be forgiven, for choosing this path. I would hope and pray that in the former case, a woman might be strong enough to want her baby, or at least let the baby live and place it for adoption.

 

The moral bankruptcy of New York’s new law is fully exposed in the last phrase of this sentence: “An abortion may be performed by a licensed … practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

 

Does this mean that any woman can now have an abortion if the day before delivery of her baby she feels that she can’t handle the stress of raising a child?

 

In New York, it was already the law that doctors and nurse practitioners could abort babies through nine months to save a mother’s life. “Health” has been added to this act only to ensure that women have a greater access to abortion, should they desire one for any reason. Based on political jargon, the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with “reproductive health” and it fundamentally devalues the life of any Unborn Child.

 

It’s the child’s mere existence, not the pregnancy, that poses the alleged health risk. The pregnancy can be concluded by delivering the baby alive, rather than murdering him or her. One should be able to see the glaring sophistry in the argument for abortion.

 

Lifesite expands the discussion with this explanation: “The bill is also part of a broader trend of left-wing states codifying a ‘right’ to abortion in anticipation of a future Supreme Court ruling that could reverse Roe, restoring states’ ability to ban abortion themselves and automatically banning it in the handful of states with pre-Roe bans still on the books.”

 

If You’ve never heard any former abortionists speak on the topic, the baby is injected with a poison directly into his little skull or body, and his developed nervous system allows him to feel and suffer through an agonizing and painful death. After writhing and suffering in agony, sometimes it is discovered at the next day ultrasound that the baby hasn’t died, and he is injected again. He’s soon delivered dead by the woman who has no claim to the word “mother”. [Blog Editor: Various graphic methods of abortion]

 

Abortion has never been about “reproductive health”, rights or freedom. It is about self-centered feminist women who want to walk away “clean” from an unwanted pregnancy just as some worthless men can physically walk away. However, the women are the ones left to deal with the physical and mental trauma of miscarriage and abortion, and even though many women think abortion is crucial to their cause, they and their children are the ones most hurt by atrociously immoral bills, like New York’s.

 

America must not allow loosely constructed laws that contain “health” undefined to deceptively use a multitude of reasons, like mental and emotional stability, age and family situation as factors in any abortion. If such is now the case, a depressed woman who loses her job and her boyfriend or husband at nine months pregnant can now easily get an abortion in New York, if she so desires. No problem. This cannot stand.

 

The One World Trade Center should have been lit up Blood Red.

 

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Heads up: Justin submits posts at numerous websites & blogs with suggested titles for Editors to choose from. There is an excellent chance you will run into the same post with a different title or editing format.

 

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text embraced brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

 

Well-Well. It looks like five Justices of the Supreme Court still adhere to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time it is evident there are four Justices that take to the fallacy of a Living Constitution, meaning activist Judges can interpret the Constitution according Leftist ideology rather than the Original Intent of the letter of the law.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules Pro-Life facilities cannot be forced to share information of State options to kill unborn babies.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules that the Office of President has the Constitutional ability to limit travel from nations that a National Security issue is apparent.

 

Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 vote.

 

Below are two Fox News stories with the details.

 

JRH 6/26/18

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

By Adam Shaw

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that counsel pregnant women to make choices other than abortion, invalidating a California law requiring them to prominently post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion.

 

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said the state law likely violates the First Amendment. The court also cast doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.

 

The state regulations, targeting centers that provide counseling-related services with the goal of helping women make choices other than abortion, demanded such centers prominently post information on how to obtain abortion and contraception.

 

The law also required unlicensed, non-medical facilities to inform clients that they are not licensed medical providers. If pregnancy centers fail to comply with the law, they’re fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense, according to the law.

 

Pro-life groups had challenged the regulations, arguing that they violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Supporters of the law said that it was necessary since many women were unaware of the options available to them.

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and upheld the law — arguing that the state could regulate professional free speech and the law protects public health interests. The Supreme Court reversed that judgement.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion, “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” He also called the regulations for unlicensed facilities “unjustified and unduly burdensome.”

 

Thomas was joined by fellow conservative justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Dissenting were liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Breyer, in his dissent, said among the reasons the law should be upheld is that the high court has previously upheld state laws requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions about adoption services. “After all, the law must be evenhanded,” Breyer said.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the ruling “unfortunate.”

 

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said in a statement.

 

“Today’s Court ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their healthcare options will continue.”

 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Madeline Farber and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News. He can be reached here.

 

++++++++++

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

By Bill Mears

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

 

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

 

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.” As critics continued to decry the policy as “xenophobic,” Trump described the court decision as “a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

 

 

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

 

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

 

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

 

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

 

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

 

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

 

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential authority, especially within the immigration context.

 

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

 

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

 

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

 

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

 

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

 

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

 

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

 

It reads in part: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

 

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

 

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

 

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

 

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

 

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

 

“This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

 

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

 

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

______________________

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

____________________

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

And

 

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask permission to share the Fox News posts. If requested I will remove them.]

 

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE


Facebook is using censorship to block the publicity of the Pro-Life movie exposing the nefarious behind the scenes lies and manipulation that was behind the Supreme Court making unborn baby-murder (abortion) on demand legal via Roe v. Wade in 1973. The flick is called ROE v. WADE the Movie.

 

VIDEO: ROE v. WADE The Movie INDIEGOGO CAMPAIGN

 

Posted by Roe v. Wade The Movie

Published on Jan 8, 2018

 

Indiegogo Campaign for “Roe v. Wade” Launches January 10, 2018.

[Blog Editor: You can donate to the cause with this link:] https://tinyurl.com/yaz6zehk

 

I’m running with the WND story on Facebook censorship, but should note that Breitbart claims Facebook is backing off on the censorship if “crowdfunding” for the movie. However, the Breitbart story shows how Facebook took crowdfunding page down, then restored the page and then took it down again. Ergo, as of this post, who knows how many times Facebook will remove and restore.

 

JRH 1/13/18

Please Support NCCR

****************

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE

Theatrical drama to tell ‘true story’ of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood

 

By ART MOORE

January 12, 2018

WND

 

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

 

A crowdfunding site for a theatrical drama in production that promises to tell the “true story” of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a “right” to abortion has been blocked by Facebook.

 

The movie’s producer, Nick Loeb, told WND the content of the pro-life movie, which exposes Planned Parenthood’s roots in the eugenics movement, clearly is the reason for the censorship.

 

Actor and producer Nick Loeb

“They have even blocked people sharing the ads I paid for,” Loeb said.

 

“This is stealing or fraud.”

 

Facebook has not responded to requests for an explanation.

Loeb told WND he and his colleagues are looking for a lawyer to take on the case.

 

Learn the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

 

The executive producer of the movie is Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and the head of the group Civil Rights for the Unborn.

 

The film features Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight as a Supreme Court justice.

 

On the film’s Indiegogo crowdfunding page, the makers describe it as “the real untold story of how people lied; how the media lied; and how the courts were manipulated to pass a law that has since killed over 60 million Americans.”

 

“Many documentaries have been made, but no one has had the courage to make an actual feature film, a theatrical movie about the true story.”

 

The producers, calling it the “most important pro-life movie in history,” say Hollywood “only wants you to hear their version of the story,” noting there are three movies in development that take a pro-abortion stance.

 

“But you shouldn’t be surprised. Hollywood has always had an agenda to influence Americans to accept abortion, even if they have to re-write history to do it.”

The movie opens with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, speaking about her “Negro project” initiative aimed at reducing the growth of African-American population in the United States.

 

It continues as abortionist Bernard Nathanson joins with famed feminist-activist Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood to recruit for a legal case “a broke girl with a 10th grade education named Norma McCorvey,” who became known as “Jane Roe.”

 

The opposition to the activists seeking to legalize abortion is led by the film’s protagonist, Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, who believed “that she became a doctor to protect life, not destroy it.”

 

Later, Nathanson, through the help of new sonogram technology, “realizes he is killing babies, confesses to all the lies and becomes a leading activist in the pro-life movement,” and McCorvey, realizing she had been manipulated, also joins the pro-life cause.

 

Internet freedom

 

WND reported last month censorship of Christian and conservative speech online by tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple is the target of an initiative called Internet Freedom Watch, launched by the National Religious Broadcasters.

 

The initiative has established a website, InternetFreedomWatch.org, to document cases, including Twitter’s removal of an ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., in October and Facebook’s removal of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s post supporting Chick-fil-A in 2012.

 

NRB, which has published a chart with more than 30 instances of Internet censorship, said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a former Federal Communications Commission commissioner have endorsed the effort.

 

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has accused Twitter and other tech companies of being disingenuous by arguing for a free and open Internet while they “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.”

 

NRB also wants Congress to hold hearings on the “severe problem of viewpoint censorship on the Internet.”

 

In a recent case noted by Internet Freedom Watch, PJ Media D.C. editor Bridget Johnson was suspended from Twitter with no warning or explanation.

 

WND reported in August that days after the launch of a book arguing fascism and Nazism are ideological spawns of the left, author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and his promotion team were locked out of his Facebook page by hackers.

____________________

DONATE TO WND

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

New Abolitionism and Baby-Killing


John R. Houk

© September 8, 2017

 

Do you know the history behind the term “Abolitionism”? I am guessing if you are a product of America’s current Leftist education system and the Left’s penchant to revise history, you might be a little clueless.

 

In American history Abolition was a movement to free African-Americans from the bonds of slavery. By the time Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the Southern Slave States were concerned Lincoln’s election would mean interference in the slave economy and thus rebelled against the Northern Free States. The irony about Southern slave concerns is that President Lincoln never acted on slavery until 1863 (Lincoln and Emancipation Proclamation), two years into the roughly four year Civil War that ended in 1865.

 

So, what has me reminiscing about American history and the Abolitionist Movement? I ran into a Tim Brown post at the Freedom Outpost with this title: “Why Abolitionism is Replacing the Pro-Life Movement”.

 

After seeing the title, I had to ask myself, “What in the world does the Abolitionist Movement that led to freeing the slaves have to do with the Pro-Life Movement?”

 

Well, it turns out that a movement is being initiated in Oklahoma that believes the tactics of the Pro-Life Movement have been ineffectual in reversing the curse of killing babies as a method of birth control. The movement being initiated in Oklahoma is called Abolitionism. Here’s an excerpt from the Freedom Outpost article (which I will be cross posting below my thoughts):

 

While the pro-life movement may mean well, it has the wrong concept of dealing with the murder of the unborn.  The pro-life movement, like its progressive counterparts, want to incrementally push their agenda.

 

The problem is that they are always allowing space and reason for the murder of the unborn.

 

Abolitionism in the modern context reasons that Pro-Life has been too tepid on why there is a Pro-Life Movement; viz., to radically inject the Christian Faith and vocally proclaim the Word of God and the moral ramification in Christ on killing babies. Especially looking at sexual promiscuity of unwed people causing a pregnancy.

 

The centrality is to know wrong is wrong and right is right. Thus, any concept of incrementalism to end abortion is nearly as bad or wrong or sinful as the abortion itself.

 

WHOA! That’s some good preaching!

 

But there is a concern that needs to be measured in this new Abolitionism to end pre-born baby-killing. My concern is that some idiot Christian will believe God has called him to act seditiously against the rule of law to the point of even killing pro-abortion advocates or doctors performing the baby-killing procedure.

 

Pre-Civil War abolitionists were also a God-fearing Christian lot that correctly believed slavery was morally reprehensible. As long as the Abolitionist activist civil disobedience was limited to helping escaped slaves to freedom by some kind of underground railroad so-to-speak, then I believe that was awesome. The modern era’s Martin Luther King is a classic American example of proper civil disobedience to cause social-cultural change.

 

The Abolitionists of Abraham Lincoln’s day practiced proper civil disobedience to free slaves. The Southern Plantation elitists hated Abolitionist civil disobedience because it messed with the culture they grew up in and believed should be maintained – at the very least to protect the family business.

 

Abolitionists were a bit more radical than President Lincoln. They wanted to end slavery yesterday, while Lincoln was willing to work compromises for the sake of the Southern economy. Southerners who had become rich from slave operated plantations wanted nothing to do with Abolition immediacy or Lincoln gradual slave elimination.

 

Some abolitionists were so extreme that they were willing to use violent terrorist tactics against Slave States to make a point. Such Abolitionist thinking did more to harden the Southern populace to support the wealthy plantation elites than to abolish slavery. Right or wrong, Americans don’t like to be told what to do. Fear tactics merely drove hostile public opinion against the Free State in the Southern States.

 

Abolitionists were peaceful protestors for the most part often active in aiding runaway slaves to escape to Canada. The most famous or infamous violent Abolitionist was John Brown who believe it was his duty to God to incite violence which he thought would embolden slaves to rise up against their masters and end slavery. Even many Northerners condemned Brown’s violent tactics, but in the end after he was hung for murder, John Brown became a rally cry legend of the Northern States and Union Army to take the fight to the Confederate Army.

 

The reality was though, John Brown was a seditious rabble rouser who killed innocent people. He began his violent campaign in the then Kansas Territory and it ended with his capture in Harper’s Ferry Virginia in 1859. After which he was tried, convicted and hung for murder.

 

VIDEO: Randall Fuller On John Brown’s Raid

 

Posted by The Road to Now

Published on Aug 12, 2017

 

Our guest on the Road to Now for Monday, Aug. 14, Randall Fuller author of, “The Book that Changed America,” discusses John Brown’s infamous raid on Harper’s Ferry.

 

The irony of John Brown terrorism even in my grade school days in the 60s, the portrait of heroism of old Hollywood still made him the patriotic hero. Check this brief clip which I spotted Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland showing sympathy for John Brown as he was led to the gallows:

 

VIDEO: The hanging of the abolitionist John Brown, Virginia, 1859

 

Posted by Rick Davi

Published on Nov 8, 2016

 

Clip from “Santa Fe Trail” (1940; 110 min)

 

Santa Fe Trail is a 1940 American western film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Raymond Massey and Ronald Reagan. Written by Robert Buckner, the film is about the abolitionist John Brown and his fanatical attacks on slavery as a prelude to the American Civil War. Subthemes include J.E.B. Stuart and George Armstrong Custer as they duel for the hand of Kit Carson Holliday.

 

The film was one of the top-grossing films of the year, and the seventh Flynn–de Havilland collaboration.

 

Some of the speech the actor portraying John Brown was actually spoken by the real Brown at his hanging which would later add to his legend as an Abolitionist hero.

 

And here is a song that Union troops actually sang about John Brown adapted from the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

 

VIDEO: Pete Seeger John Brown s body

 

Posted by Kálmán Tóth

Published on Oct 11, 2010

 

Very inspirational to a grade school kid.

 

But face it, John Brown went beyond civil disobedience escalating toward terrorism that cost the lives of people who disagreed with him. My concern there is a person listening to the new message of 21st century abolitionism that my sense God has called him to seditious murder to bring attention that abortion is murder.

 

That person will not only face the same result as John Brown, but in this day of lying Leftists, laws aimed at all Christian morality will bring persecution to the Bible Believing Christians that may not have been seen since before Rome became a government ordained Christian empire.

 

Tim Brown’s (fairly certain no relation to John Brown) article promoting the new Abolitionism to save pre-born babies from murder centers around a couple of Okies joining the Freedom Outpost team: Dan Fisher and T. Russell Hunter. Brown focuses on Hunter’s five tenets of the new Abolitionism that should be more activist oriented than the current Pro-Life Movement. The radical key of the new Abolitionism is ending the concept of “incrementalism”.

 

Here is the Brown article that culminates with a Hunter video preaching the new Abolitionism five tenets.

 

JRH 9/8/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Why Abolitionism is Replacing the Pro-Life Movement

 

By TIM BROWN

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

I am excited to announce that very soon we will be having a few contributors from the state of Oklahoma.  Among those contributors, we are hoping to welcome gubernatorial candidate Dan Fisher.  However, to give you a taste of a man who has works that demonstrate his faith, I’d like to introduce you to T. Russell Hunter.

 

Mr. Hunter took time to speak with me over the weekend and we are excited about a new video that is set to rock Oklahoma politics on Wednesday and quite possibly the entire nation.

 

In preparation of that release, I thought it appropriate to point you to a short talk that Hunter did on why abolitionism is replacing the pro-life movement.

 

While the pro-life movement may mean well, it has the wrong concept of dealing with the murder of the unborn.  The pro-life movement, like its progressive counterparts, want to incrementally push their agenda.

 

The problem is that they are always allowing space and reason for the murder of the unborn.

 

Abolitionists do not allow for that at all.

 

Plus, abolitionists think like then presidential candidate Donald Trump when he stated that a mother who engages in the murder of her unborn baby is not a victim, but a criminal and should be treated as such, along with the abortionist and anyone having a hand in the murder.

 

With that stated, Hunter lays out the five tenets of abolition and why the pro-life movement must be abandoned if people are serious about ending the murder of the unborn.

 

Watch the video, listen to his presentation and see if you do not agree that those who believe in the sanctity of human life must become abolitionists and not simply be content with the scraps that pro-life representatives are throwing to us in order to maintain the status quo and bow the knee to the state and Molech.

 

VIDEO: Why Abolitionism is Replacing the Pro-Life Movement

 

Posted by AbolishHumanAbortion

Published on Mar 28, 2017

 

Abolitionist Russell Hunter on the five tenets of abolitionism and why the pro-life movement must be abandoned and those who seek an end to child sacrifice should become abolitionists.

 

www.AbolishAbortionWi.com

_____________

New Abolitionism and Baby-Killing

John R. Houk

© September 8, 2017

______________

Why Abolitionism is Replacing the Pro-Life Movement

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF


Troy Newman & Judge William Orrick

 

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

 

On July 14, 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released its first undercover Planned Parenthood video, blowing the whistle on the abortion industry’s practice of illegally harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies.

 

Just 17 days later, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a lawsuit against CMP and ultimately secured a preliminary injunction against lead investigator and CMP founder David Daleiden. The injunction prohibited him from releasing any footage obtained during NAF conferences and meetings, which David had attended undercover with the goal of exposing illegal activity by the abortion industry.

 

Fast forward almost two years—and the lawsuit is still ongoing. Meanwhile, Daleiden’s footage from the NAF conference remains under lock and key, leaving some to wonder what secrets NAF is trying to hide. (Abortion Industry’s Interests Should Never Outweigh Public Concerns or First Amendment Rights; By Marissa Mayer; Alliance Defending Freedom; 4/21/17)

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick violated the First Amendment Rights of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) by gagging all undercover videos exposing the murderous intent by National Abortion Federation (NAF) in trafficking aborted and live birth baby parts for profit. Planned Parenthood was stung the same way. Leftists in law enforcement are doing their best to cover-up these nefarious murders and felonious activities with baby part trafficking.

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who granted the preliminary injunction in favor of the National Abortion Federation to halt the release of the videos, ordered any links to the video to be removed after it was published by the Center for Medical Progress on Thursday.

 

Judge Orrick also ordered CMP lead investigator David Daleiden and his attorneys to appear in court June 14, The Associated Press reported, for a hearing where he will consider holding them in contempt for releasing the footage.

 

Mr. Daleiden has been charged with 15 felonies in California stemming from his undercover investigation into the abortion giant. His attorneys have called it a “witch hunt” that flies in the face of the First Amendment.

 

YouTube has not responded to a request for comment.

 

The three-minute video showed top Planned Parenthood executives joking about severed fetus heads, admitting to altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal organs and conceding that clinics have a financial incentive to sell the human remains from abortions. (YouTube removes latest Planned Parenthood video on judge’s order; By Bradford Richardson; Washington Times; 5/26/17)

 

Judge Orrick took advantage of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court’s unfavorable ruling to make that gag order.

 

The abortion industry has desperately tried to suppress and delegitimize the work of CMP, including through the use of litigation. We represent former CMP board member Troy Newman – who is also the President of Operation Rescue – in lawsuits filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates, and we recently filed briefs in both cases.

 

In the NAF case, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the defendants from publishing videos or materials relating to NAF conferences, or sharing such information with anyone, including state Attorneys General or local law enforcement officers, while the case moves forward. The defendants have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and we recently filed a reply brief (under seal by court order) that emphasizes that government investigators, and the general public, have a compelling interest in being able to review the videos and materials themselves.

 

In the PPFA case, we recently filed a reply brief supporting our motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Our brief explains that all of the claims – such as wire fraud, racketeering, and breach of contract – are meritless, so the case should be dismissed. (Two Briefs Filed in Fight to Expose Illegal Abortion Practices; By ACLJ.org; 7/2016)

 

One of the founders of CMP, Troy Newman, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to win back the First Amendment Right to expose the crimes of Planned Parenthood.

 

Here is the Press Release that I first received in my Inbox from Operation Rescue; however, I’m cross posting the PR from ChristianNewsWire.com.

 

JRH 8/5/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

PRESS RELEASE

August 4, 2017

ChristianNewsWire.com

 

Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-683-6790 ext. 111; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President , 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue,  info.operationrescue@gmail.com   

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and a founding member of the Center for Medical Progress, filed a petition yesterday to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of a preliminary injunction that prohibits the release of undercover videos recorded at National Abortion Federation (NAF) meetings – even to law enforcement when they contain evidence of crimes.

 

The petition, captioned Newman v. National Abortion Federation, states:

 

This Petition stems from an injunction forbidding the voluntary disclosure to law enforcement agencies, other governmental bodies, and the general public of recordings and other information that the enjoined individuals and entities-as well as Congressional investigators-believe are evidence of widespread criminal, illegal, and unethical conduct, including felonies.

 

Newman is represented by Jay Sekulow, who leads Newman’s team of attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

 

During Newman’s tenure on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress, the NAF, and later Planned Parenthood, filed suits in a San Francisco Federal Court against Newman and others in an effort to prevent the release of further undercover videos that exposed the illegal trade in aborted baby body parts.

 

And it is little wonder that the NAF would not want the videos released.

 

Newman’s Supreme Court Petition notes that Congressional investigations conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives referred members of the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

Newman argues that the enjoined recordings corroborate the determination of the two Congressional investigations, which found evidence that NAF members (including several Planned Parenthood organizations) were engaged in the following criminal conduct:

 

  • Profiting from the sale of fetal organs;

 

  • Altering abortion procedures for financial gain;

 

  • Performing illegal partial-birth abortions;

 

  • Killing newborns who survived attempted abortions;

 

  • Failing to obtain informed consent for fetal tissue donations;

 

  • Violating federal regulations regarding Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and

 

  • Fraudulent overbilling practices.

 

Newman’s petition further states:

 

It has long been a tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence that individuals who believe that they have information concerning criminal or illegal activities should be permitted, and encouraged, to voluntarily provide such information to government authorities. Similarly, investigative journalism concerning matters of public concern, including the uncovering of illegal, unethical, or troubling activities, is a constitutionally protected, venerable undertaking.

 

Newman’s unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit was joined by state 14 Attorneys General, led by Arizona, who are seeking to review the evidence contained in the recordings.

 

As the most important abortion case currently under litigation, Newman v. NAF could have profound implications on the future use of undercover investigative techniques and the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence in criminal investigations.

 

Read the Petition in Newman v. NAF

 

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America.  Click here to support Operation Rescue.

____________________

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

__________________

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

About Operation Rescue

 

Who We Are

 

History

 

Endorsements

 

What Others Say About Us


Contact

 

© Christian Newswire 2017. All Rights Reserved. | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW – Washington – DC – 20006 | 202-546-0054 

 

Christian Newswire Services:

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.   Click to see our client list. 

 

How much does it cost?

 

$75 is what we charge to transmit your 400-words-or-less(‡) news release to our exclusive national media list.  Our competitors charge from $295 to $395, yet they do not have the direct contact with reporters and news producers that we have.

 

You do not need to use a credit card.  We will send you a bill.  It is that easy.  Just email us your news release, or use the form on this website and tell us to send it out.  No membership fee. You are not required to purchase any additional services.

 

Want to know more about where your news release will go and who will see it?

 

National list of over 2500 reporters and news producers whose beat is “conservative & family issues” ($75 for up to 400 words‡)  These are TV, radio, wire-service, and print reporters/producers that cover family and conservative issues, that READ THE REST