Abortion Restrictions Spreading Across America

Mississippi Passes Bill to Ban Abortions If Roe v. Wade Is Overturned – National Constitution Center:

A bill designed to eventually outlaw and criminalize abortion in Mississippi got final approval from the state Legislature on Thursday and Gov. Haley Barbour is expected to sign it into law.

The measure would ban nearly all abortions in the state if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and the state bill becomes law, anyone performing an illegal abortion in Mississippi would face one to 10 years in prison.

The bill also tightens consent laws for minors and requires abortion providers to perform a sonogram and give the pregnant woman an opportunity to listen to a fetal heartbeat. It is just one of several abortion laws being considered across the country.

South Carolina lawmakers this week discussed a measure that would force a woman to view ultrasound images of the fetus before undergoing an abortion. In Oklahoma, a House committee on Tuesday approved several abortion measures, including one that would define abortion, in part, as a procedure in which a drug is injected into a fetus’ heart to cause death.

And in Kentucky, a bill being considered would require that a woman considering an abortion be informed that at 20 weeks an “unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.” The normal gestation period is 40 weeks.

If the legally shallow and incoherent Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, laws like this will be helpful in saving many lives. Even many pro-choicers believe Roe v. Wade is constitutionally invalid and a strong example of legislating from the bench. While I’d obviously love to see a ban on abortions except to save the life of the mother, it seems to me that the constitutionally correct decision on abortion is to leave it as a states rights issue. Since the Constitution is silent on this issue, the 10th Amendment devolves the power to decide laws restricting or allowing abortion to the states, with the obvious exception of interstate commerce’s impact on abortion. So, the national government could pass a law concerning crossing state lines to procure an abortion, but could not pass a law concerning a person’s access to abortion within their state of residence.

I’m glad to see that those defending the rights of the unborn are planning for the repeal of Roe v. Wade; I just their faith in its ultimate repeal will be justified.

Nice freedom of speech we used to have….

US Court Rules it’s OK to Censor the Terms ‘Natural Family,’ ‘Marriage’ and ‘Family Values’

Earlier this week, San Francisco’s United States notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the matter of Good News Employees Association v. Hicks that municipal employers can completely censor the terms “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” as hate speech.

The court concluded that municipalities have a right to literally dictate what form an employee’s speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues. Shockingly, the court concluded that the interest of Christian employees in speaking out on the issue of marriage is “vanishingly small” and that the “administrative” interests of a city are more important than speech rights.

The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland’s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech.

Last month, attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman argued the case on behalf of an African-American Christian woman who was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland claimed that references to the “natural family, marriage and family values” constituted hate speech which is scary to city workers. Mr. Lively argued that the terms “marriage,” “family values” and “natural family” could just have easily been used by gay activists in expressing their opinions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mr. Ackerman argued that the Pro-Family Law Center’s clients were entitled to the exact same free speech rights as those who had openly attacked the Bible through the city’s lines of communication with full approval of high ranking officials.

The Ninth Circuit panel of judges included Judges Fletcher, Clifton, and Ikuta. Without citing a specific author for the memorandum of decision, the Court wrote, “the district court correctly held that [the City of Oakland] had a more substantial interest in maintaining the efficient operation of their office than appellants had in their speech, appellants cannot establish a viable free speech claim.”

What’s interesting here is that phrases “natural family, marriage and family values” are considered opposed to efficient operations of the Oakland government, while attacking the Bible and Christianity is not. What exactly is the Oakland government trying to accomplish that attacking the Bible aids in efficiency?

Still more evidence that anti-Christianity is the last acceptable prejudice in America today.

Oops. My bad.

Picture this:

A pregnant woman has two ultrasounds done on her unborn child. In both cases, the doctors tell her that they saw no sign of a stomach, causing them to diagnose a defective esophagus. This leads the woman to seek an abortion. The abortion fails and the child is born alive. In the midst of trying to save the child’s life, they discover that the child was perfectly healthy.

To make matters even worse, surgery on the unborn child could have corrected the (ultimately non-existent) problem, with a 20-25% mortality risk, but that’s certainly lower than abortion’s mortality risk.

Sadly, this happened.

Always siding with Life doesn’t just make sense from a moral point of view, it reduces the chance of mistakes. Death penalty opponents frequently raise the issue of the potential of executing an innocent person; the same is true in elective abortion: even when done with the best of intentions, someone dies and maybe the justification for it is wrong.

New Jersey Judge Orders Penal Charges Against Mom for Home-Schooling

Read the whole article

Honorable Thomas Zampino of the Family Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has ordered penal charges against a home-schooling mother of seven. According to a report by Matt Bowman on the website constitutionallycorrect.com, the mother’s supposed infraction is home-schooling her children without supervision from the local school board – a right explicitly upheld in New Jersey law.

In an effort to implement “certain basic requirements and safeguards”, the judge ordered Tara to submit her home-schooling children to standardized tests supplied by the local school district despite NJ law which says, “A child educated elsewhere than at school is not required to sit for a state or district standardized test.”

The judge also ordered the local school board to file a suit against Tara in order to be able to “evaluate the instruction in the home,” a requirement only permissible if the local school board determines that there is credible evidence that the home education is below the standards of the public school.

Because of NJ’s explicit laws protecting the parental right to educate their children at home, the judge had only limited options when it came to personally implementing his philosophies of “monitoring” and “registering” home-schoolers.” The judge cautioned that, should the school board refuse to comply with his ‘suggestions’, the court would “consider, by formal opinion, a request to join those parties to action.”

The New Jersey Department of Education website states, “The provision, “to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school,” in N.J.S.A. 18A:38-25 permits parent(s)/guardian(s) to educate the child at home.” According to New Jersey law, parents desiring to home-school their children are not required to submit any type of communication of intent to a local school board. Parents are also not required to have their home-school curricula approved by a school board.

A NJ school board may only act against a home-schooling parent “If there is credible evidence that the parent, guardian or other person having custody and control of a school-age child is not causing the child either to attend school (public or nonpublic) or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school…” Under those circumstances, the school board is permitted to request the parents/guardians of a school age child provide proof, such as a letter of intent, that the child is receiving “equivalent instruction.”

The judge criticized the NJ law and lamented the fact that it upholds the rights of parents to home-school their children without interference from the government. Implying that children being educated by their parents are unsupervised, the judge stated, “This is shocking to the court. In this day and age where we seek to protect children from harm and sexual predators, so many children are left unsupervised.”

Unless, there’s more to this story than appears above, the judge is clearly operating on his biases rather than the law. The last comment is especially egregious since children are far more likely to be abused by a teacher than a parent. Both happen, of course, but it happens more in the school than in the home.

Anna Venger has blogged before on the rights of home schoolers being infringed in foreign nations. It’s starting to happen here, apparently.