law

0 - 90

A slump like that would send even the best player to the minor leagues or coach to "spend more time with his family."  But for our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 0-90 is just a start. You see, the confused folks who mysteriously see the words "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution are once again on the war path against any clergy that dares speak up about the policy positions of candidates for office - in particular clergy who criticize candidates who share the separationist viewpoint (or any other extreme liberal position).  Today's USA Today has yet another story of Americans United urging an IRS investigation of this horrific threat to American democracy.

The "journalist" who wrote the story was kind enough to quote an Americans United spokesperson concerning the "90 claims it has filed with the IRS since 1996."  What the story doesn't mention is the results of those IRS claims.

Americans United hasn't won a single case.  None.  Notta.  Zero.  Or, zero and 90.

Why anyone takes these people seriously is a mystery.  But, for those who do, Alliance Defense Fund has a brief video that tells the truth about what pastors and church leaders are allowed to say from the pulpit when it comes to politics.  We encourage you to watch the video, and then take a gander at the U.S. Constitution.  And if you find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere let us know.

No Better Source

We're not lawyers, but here's what we think is some sound legal advice based on the recent course of action by Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring. Referring to his decision not to prosecute four former employees of Commonwealth Catholic Charities who aided and assisted an underage Guatemalan girl with an abortion by signing a form they had no authority to sign (never mind the abortionist who apparently was all too eager to perform the abortion without any verification of the signer's legal status) because he did not find "criminal intent": The next time someone is charged in the city of Richmond with a moving vehicle violation (speeding, reckless driving, running a red light) or any other charge or crime where the proof of intent cannot be proved short of Mr. Spock's Vulcan Mind Meld, simply tell the judge you had no purpose in mind and submit as evidence no better source than Mr. Herring's own quote about intent.

After all, if you hit someone's car and wreck your own, it's pretty obvious you didn't want to damage your car, much less have to pay to repair someone else's. Seems intent there is harder to prove than the conscious decision to sign a form claiming you had legal guardianship of a 16-year-old immigrant.

Of course this example is a bit absurd. But no less absurd than his decision to forsake such an obvious breech of the law.

Breaking: Fourth Circuit Court Strikes Down Virginia's Partial Birth Abortion Ban 2-1

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Virginia's partial birth ban by 2-1 decision in Richmond Medical Center v. Herring. (Read the opinion here.) This is horrible news. Hopefully, Attorney General Bob McDonnell will appeal to the full court or to the United States Supreme Court. After all, this case was heard because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld another partial birth abortion ban. Read our summary of the hearing in early November here, as well as more impressions we had after the oral arguments here. (On those threads are links to legal opinions and audio of oral arguments in other key pro-life cases which played a role in this hearing.)

The decision was somewhat expected given the dispositions of Judges Diana Motz and M. Blane Michael, whose questions toward Virginia Solicitor General William Thro were clearly antagonistic. Judge Paul Neimeyer, on the other hand, seemed through his questioning, inclined toward upholding the law. Accordingly, the former two judges voted to overturn the law and the latter voted to sustain it.

More to come, possibly today, definitely tomorrow.

Four Thoughts, One Theme: Credibility

Expectations are a funny thing. Attending the hearing by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Virginia’s partial birth infanticide law, I expected certain things. I came away with four impressions: 1. Isn’t this the same place where at least hundreds lined the streets to protest Michael Vick for killing dogs?

Killing dogs is horrible, but where’s the public outcry against a practice whereby babies almost ready for delivery get their skulls crushed and remains sucked out of a woman’s womb?

2. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, or even the venue — not even one as august as so high a court: liberal arguments are just as incoherent and their tactics just the same as during the hysteria of a protest rally — change the subject, ignore the central point, redefine established facts; heck, just make up stuff.

The pro-abortion lawyer, at one point, was so off base, intentionally mixing issues, attempting to make non-germane points link to her shaky premise, that even Judge Motts, who voted previously to strike down this law, said, “Now, you’re confusing me!” At another point, Judge Paul Neimeyer asked her a question, and the lawyer refused to answer it, instead pointing to something on the Commonwealth’s brief on page eight. Judge Neimeyer had to ask her at least three times to answer the question, his irritation increasing each time. By contrast, even when Judge Diana Motz and Judge M. Blane Michael disagreed with Solicitor General William Thro, it was on interpretation, not fact.

3. Use whatever description you want — painfully awkward, bizarre, or "Twilight Zone” come to mind . . .

But it was disturbing to listen to the solicitor general have to make the case — in order for the law to be ruled constitutional — that the law did not cover, nor would an abortionist be prosecuted in situations where he allowed a pre-viability baby born by accident (when born accidentally) to be put aside to die due to inattention. Maybe the word is sick.

4. How come individuals, politicians and organizations who claim they want abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” seem to ignore the “rare”?

I have never heard any pro-abortion advocate speak in favor of counseling for giving birth and putting the child up for adoption or any other option that involves life. It’s all-abortion-all-the-time. Exactly what qualifies as “rare” anyway? More than a million abortions a year seems a bit high for “rare.” If they are really for “choice” why not provide true counseling and information on the possible options and services available for women who carry the baby to term? Doesn’t true choice mean there’s another course of action available? Why, then, is it always straight to the abortion factory? Apparently, credibility is only a concept when defending the “right” to kill babies ready to live outside the womb.

Rehearing Babies' Deaths

The Richmond-based U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday regarding Virginia’s Partial Birth Infanticide statute. The Virginia law, originally ruled unconstitutional (on a 2-1 vote) by the same three-judge panel who presided yesterday, was revisited because of an April decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Carhart. In that case, the justices ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding a certain partial birth abortion ban. (Hear those oral arguments.)

Lost in the argument regarding whether a facial or as-applied challenge was appropriate, was the gruesome details of the procedure that Virginia seeks to ban. Even more disturbing is what the Virginia law does not ban because of the woman’s constitutional right to kill her child. We learned in the argument that a Richmond abortionist believes that it is appropriate to begin to perform an abortion, accidentally deliver, and then set the child aside to die. In fact, based on the argument yesterday, this act is not just constitutionally protected, but Virginia’s partial birth infanticide ban would not make the act illegal. A child born at 19 or 20 weeks is callously laid to the side and left to die of natural causes. Virginia’s law would ban abortionists from accidentally delivering the child and then stabbing the child in the skull.

How can it be appropriate to deliver a child and let the living breathing child die a slow death because the doctor believes him to be pre-viability? With advances in technology, infants are becoming viable at earlier ages. Why shouldn’t doctors have an obligation to try and save a living, breathing child? At the end of life, we provide comfort to those who are terminally ill and do everything we can medically to ease the pain and suffering. Yet, a baby born at 19 weeks is thrown aside like garbage.   

Oh, and by the way, the General Assembly has twice rejected Family Foundation efforts to provide anesthesia to the babies who die by partial birth abortion as well as those who die of natural causes because the “procedure” didn’t go as planned.