The following comes from a February 12 Courthouse News Service press release by Bianca Bruno:
A San Diego federal judge has refused to give abortion foes a pass in implementing California’s new women’s health information law while their fight against the law proceeds.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Pregnancy Care Center and Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center sought to duck having to comply with the Reproductive FACT Act, which took effect on January 1, claiming the law infringes on their free speech and freedom of religion rights.
The clinics asked U.S. District Judge John Houston to restrain California Attorney General Kamala Harris, San Diego County Counsel Thomas Montgomery, El Cajon City Attorney Morgan Foley and Gov. Jerry Brown from enforcing the act.
The FACT Act, which stands for Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency, was signed into law by Brown last October. It requires a licensed health center to disseminate information to women informing them of state programs that provide immediate free or low-cost family planning services, prenatal care and abortions.
Additionally, the law requires unlicensed centers to indicate they are not, in fact, licensed as medical facilities from California.
Violators will be fined $500 on the first offense and $1,000 thereafter.
Other clinics that have sued to block the law in Northern California were unsuccessful in Federal Court, and appeals to the Ninth Circuit were rejected.
Rachele Huennekens, press secretary for Attorney General Harris, said they are happy with Houston’s decision.
When ‘our’ Turkey Baster Creationist courts Force Mandatory Speech – for the purpose of killing children who have no advocates to represent them – then we have achieved the type ‘justice’ that Kamala Harris is going to ride in to the US Supreme Court as the next nominee of POTUS Barry ‘on the down low’ Soetoro…
– Whoever the guy really, is making lifetime appointments to fundamentally transform’ this land in to a true AbomiNation.
WHAT THE VOTE MEANS
https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/what-the-vote-means?mc_cid=42c93fb439&mc_eid=2379a41bd0
Two headlines coming out of the Iowa caucuses: One — the evangelical vote was 68 percent of the Republican vote.
The Catholic vote was 16 percent. The Catholic vote was what you would expect because that’s the proportion of Catholics in the state of Iowa.
The concern should not be limited to just politicians. Trust in clergy is at an all-time low at just 45 percent. That has plummeted from a high of 67 percent just 30 years ago.. And much of that is owing to the homosexual priest sex abuse scandal.
What does the vote mean? It shows a huge level of frustration — and anyone who thinks that that frustration is…
Sadly, Judge Houston was a Republican appointment (Bush ’43), showing the growing impartiality of abortion supporting jurists. His ruling here is nonsense, but that is of little matter. His real value is in not disturbing the right and might of the judiciary to be a hammer on all those who voice religious scruples about government programs that service to crush religious liberty rights.
Let’s see: homosexuals have a “privacy” right to sodomize themselves to kingdom-come — and you had better like it, or else — but religious people have no rights at all to be left alone to worship God if the government has other ideas. Isn’t that what the constitution was about in the First Amendment?
Catholics have the right to NOT abort.
I’m not clear why you think Catholics should have the right to invade other people’s bedrooms and hospital rooms.
You never will understand this because you are closed to Faith. Your willful negligence, however, does not change the vile nature of homosexual sexual acts that have abhorred mankind for thousands of years. Society is fully free, as Justice Scalia wrote, to decide to legally ban behavior that is beyond tolerable to its proper functioning. The Supreme Court, of course, in its rush to embrace the HomoFascist agenda, decided that even a vote of all the people cannot be permitted to stand — better to let nine unelected judges decide (by one vote).
Speaking of elections and judges. The Republican party has proposed the wholly unconstitutional scheme by which a President who is not up for re-election should be blocked from the nomination/advise and consent mechanism required by the Constitution. An idea which defames the very memory of Justice Scalia, whose nomination was approved during an election year. True strict constructionists would give the President’s nominations the full consideration they deserve.
Scalia on ‘Lawrence v. Texas’
https://catholiccitizens.org/views/64292/scalia-on-same-sex-marriage/
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct…
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their…