Voices for Life Is a blog dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues.
Our focus is to protect the sanctity of all human life from conception until natural death. This includes protecting babies from abortion, fetal tissue experimentation, and embryonic research; and the general population from euthanasia, cloning, population control and human genetic engineering.
During questioning today by pro-abortion Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, Judge Brett Kavanaugh defended his decision in a key case ruling against the Obama HHS mandate that forced Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor and other Christian-run businesses and organizations to fund abortion drugs in their employee health care plans.
Priests for Life, a pro-life organization, was one of many that filed suit against the mandate and Kavanaugh ultimately sided with Priests for Life in its case against the HHS abortion mandate.The appeals court judge indicated the mandate was a substantial burden against the pro-life group’s religious views because it would have fined the pro-life group thousands upon thousands of dollars for failing to pay for abortion drugs.
“When the Government forces someone to take an action contrary to his or her sincere religious belief (here, submitting the form) or else suffer a financial penalty (which here is huge), the Government has substantially burdened the individual’s exercise of religion. So it is in this case,” Kavanaugh wrote.
During her questioning, Sen. Hirono complained that his ruling put Kavanaugh in the position of elevating religions rights ahead of the so-called unlimited right to an abortion.
Doesn’t the ruling assert that “the freedom of religion clause supersedes other rights?” Hirono asked.
“I made it clear in the decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has a two-part test,” he said about how the Obama HHS mandate violated federal laws protecting religious liberty.
Kavanaugh added, “I concluded that penalizing someone thousands and thousands of dollars for failing to fill out a form because of their religious beliefs was wrong.”
During previous questioning, Kavanaugh made it clear that the pro-life businesses and groups in question were opposed to being forced to pay for “abortion-inducing drugs.”
Kavanaugh replied to pro-life Senator Ted Cruz: “In that case, they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”
Observers of the hearing on Twitter noticed the exchange:
Hirono: Because Kavanaugh followed religious liberty precedent on a contraception case (Priests for Life) and ruled that there's no right for an illegal alien to get a taxpayer funded abortion, he just wants to "restrict women's reproductive rights."
Does Sen. Hirono have any serious questions? “Reproductive rights” are not real rights. That’s code for forcing others to pay for a woman's abortion and contraception.
Father Frank Pavone, National Director; Janet Morana, Executive Director, and Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.), full-time director of Civil Rights for the Unborn for Priests for Life, were named plaintiffs in the case. All of them informed LifeNews after his nomination that they support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
“Judge Kavanaugh understands the importance of religious liberty to all Americans,” Father Pavone said in comments to Lifenews. “That was clear in his dissenting opinion in our case, Priests for Life vs. HHS, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court. He’s exactly the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court at this point in time.”
From big cases before the Supreme Court centering on free speech and religious liberty claims of a Christian baker to the ongoing investigations into transactions between abortion providers and biotech firms over fetal body parts harvested during abortion procedures, 2018 is already shaping up to be a significant year for religiously observant Americans and the unborn.
Here are five legal matters carrying significant implications that are expected to develop even more this year.
Decision to Be Handed Down in the Case of Christian Baker Jack Phillips at the Supreme Court
Expand | Collapse
(PHOTO: REUTERS/AARON P. BERNSTEIN) Baker Jack Phillips speaks with the media following oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., December 5, 2017. In what is considered a landmark religious liberty case before the High Court this year, in December the Court's nine justices heard arguments in the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips whom the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sued for declining to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012.
Phillips maintains that his rights were violated to conduct his business according to the dictates of his faith and that to be forced to lend his creative abilities to an event with which he disagrees is state-coerced expression, also known as compelled speech. This, his lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom say, violates his free speech and religious freedom rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.
As it has in years past when it comes to touchy cases — such as Hobby Lobby v. Burwell in 2014 — the Court is likely to hand down this decision on the last day of the session in late June.
The current Supreme Court bench is comprised of four conservatives, four liberals, and Anthony Kennedy, long regarded as the "swing vote" on controversial cases. Reports indicated that Kennedy appeared to favor Phillips' position during oral arguments, suggesting during questioning that the state showed disrespect for Phillips' faith and that true tolerance is a two-way street.
US Ambassador for Religious Freedom Nomination of Sam Brownback Nomination Stalled; Will He Be Renominated?
Expand | Collapse
PHOTO: REUTERS/MARK KAUZLARICHRepublican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback speaks to supporters after winning re-election in the U.S. midterm elections in Topeka, Kansas, on November 4, 2014.President Donald Trump nominated Kansas Governor Sam Brownback in July to be the U.S. ambassador for Religious Freedom, a move that delighted religious freedom activists and social conservatives.
His appointment, however, has been delayed and has not yet been installed because Senate Democrats have blocked a confirmation vote due to concerns about Brownback's rescinding of a state executive pertaining to discrimination and LGBT government employees.
Because his nomination never got to the floor for a vote, Trump will have to either resubmit it in the new year or nominate someone else and it is at present unknown what will happen. CBN reported that unless Brownback is reappointed and confirmed before Jan. 9 the Kansas governor will have to give the State address to the Kansas state legislature despite having delivered a farewell address last month in anticipation of being confirmed to his ambassadorship. Congress returns to work on Jan. 3.
The particular ambassadorship for which Brownback was nominated is a critical post within the Department of State that focuses mainly on promoting religious freedom around the world, and calling out oppressive governments and non-state entities that oppress and persecute people on the basis of their faith.
Trump is considered to be one of the more friendly Republican presidents regarding LGBT issues. An early version of a federal executive order last year outlining religious liberty protections was reportedly scuttled because of the influence of Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, a White House adviser, due to their concerns over LGBT rights. Trump ultimately signed a revised religious liberty executive order that was met with mixed reception on May 4.
Last month, the Trump administration renominated Chai Feldblum, a lesbian activist who joined the agency in 2010 under President Obama, to her post at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The move shocked and displeased social conservatives who have consistently supported the president.
Department of Justice Investigates Planned Parenthood
Expand | Collapse
(PHOTO: REUTERS)In December, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood, as a result of findings from a Congressional investigation into its financial dealings with biotech firms over fetal body parts procured during abortion procedures.
Despite undercover videos from a 2015 investigation by the Center for Medical Progress suggesting otherwise, Planned Parenthood insisted that it followed the law and made no money from fetal tissue donated during abortions and that any financial reimbursements it received were for transport expenses and handling costs.
Pro-life advocacy groups have long contended that the abortion giant, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants each year, be defunded. The closest Congress ever came to doing so was as part of a provision in the attempted repeal of Obamacare last summer, an effort which ultimately failed due to the Senate's failure to secure sufficient Republican votes.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley said in December 2016 that enough evidence was discovered showing how abortion providers had transferred the fetal body parts from aborted fetuses for research by charging amounts higher than they actually cost, according to Fox News.
"The report documents the failure of the Department of Justice, across multiple administrations, to enforce the law that bans the buying and selling of human fetal tissue," Grassley wrote in a letter, arguing the Justice Department and FBI should investigate.
"It also documents substantial evidence suggesting that the specific entities involved in the recent controversy, and/or individuals employed by those entities, may have violated that law."
David Daleiden Continues With Lawsuit Against Him in California; Biotech Tech Companies Settling Out of Court
Although the federal government is now investigating the abortion giant and the biotech firms in question, David Daleiden is facing charges at the state level. The attorney general of California has filed a lawsuit against him and his colleague, Sandra Merritt, alleging criminal wrongdoing. Yet the judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who is presiding over the case, Judge William Orrick III, has extrajudicial connections to the abortion group and Daleiden's attorneys recently filed a motion to disqualify him, arguing that he cannot be trusted to hear the case impartially.
Whether Judge Orrick will be removed from the case remains to be seen but the momentum does appear to be shifting away from Planned Parenthood and the biotechnology companies that did business with them in procuring fetal body parts for research purposes.
In a Dec. 14 editorial in The Hill, Daleiden recounted how an Orange County district attorney recently settled with two Southern California sister companies, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, in which they were ordered to close down operations, banned from ever doing business in the state, and forced to admit liability for violating state and federal laws.
"For over two years, Planned Parenthood has breathlessly asserted to anyone who would listen that their programs to allegedly sell aborted fetal organs and tissues were completely above reproach, arguing that they only receive legal reimbursements and follow all patient consent rules," he wrote.
"But the guilty plea by the DaVinci companies, which worked with a major Planned Parenthood abortion center in southern California, blows Planned Parenthood's dubious assertions of innocence completely out of the water."
Little Sisters of the Poor Face Court Battles in States Despite Favor in Federal Government
Expand | Collapse
(PHOTO: REUTERS/CARLOS BARRIA)U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with a nun of the Little Sisters of The Poor during a National Day of Prayer event at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington D.C., U.S., May 4, 2017. The Denver-based Roman Catholic nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor that the Obama administration sued over their moral objections to offering contraception as part of their insurance plans as was required through Obamacare have had some recent victories at the federal level. But they continue to face challenges in Democratic-leaning states.
In early October, the Trump administration issued a rule broadening the religious exemption for them and other groups but a Pennsylvania judge blocked it, arguing that the rule would do "serious and irreparable harm" to the state were it to be left in place. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro sued the nuns, attempting to remove the exemption. Such has also been the approach and posture of Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the state of California, who took the Sisters to court on Dec. 12.
Becket, the religious liberty firm that represent the sisters, have said that the attorneys general are trying to score political points.
"These men may think their campaign donors want them to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree," said Mark Rienzi, Becket's senior counsel, the Kaplan Herald reported Sunday.
"No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administration's divisive and unnecessary culture war."
President Donald Trump is expected to sign a religious liberty executive order as soon as Thursday. The order would protect Christian organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor from being forced to pay for abortions.
The expected religious liberty order will cover a number of issues but is of particular concern to pro-life advocates. Although the language of the order hasn’t been finalized, Thursday is the National Day of Prayer and the White House is planning to celebrate the occasion with Christian leaders and the executive order would be a nice compliment to that.
During the campaign, both President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence promised pro-life advocates that their religious liberties would be protected in the wake of the Obama Administration forcing businesses like Hobby Lobby and groups like Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortions for their employees.
President Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long-awaited—and highly controversial—executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.
Two senior administration officials confirmed the plan, though one cautioned that it hasn’t yet been finalized, and noted that lawyers are currently reviewing and fine-tuning the draft language.
Pence and a small team of conservative allies quickly began working behind the scenes to revise the language, and in recent weeks have ratcheted up the pressure on Trump to sign it. The new draft is being tightly held, but one influential conservative who saw the text said it hasn’t been dialed back much—if at all—since the February leak. “The language is very, very strong,” the source said.
Since taking office just over 100 days ago, President Donald Trump and his administration have provided the pro-life movement with several major victories.
Disappointed that regulation will not expand exemption, only modifies ‘accommodation’ Extending ‘accommodation’ to exempted businesses reduces religious freedom More thorough study and detailed comments to come
From United States Catholic Conference of Bishops WASHINGTON–Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it is issuing an additional set of interim final rules to implement its requirement that health plans, including employer-sponsored plans, provide for sterilization, contraception, and drugs that can cause an abortion. In response, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), provided the following statement:
“The Administration is once again revising its regulations on the HHS mandate. We will study the regulations carefully and will provide more detailed comments at a later date. In keeping with our practice, we will evaluate the regulations according to the principles set forth in ‘United for Religious Freedom,’ a March 2012 statement of the USCCB Administrative Committee that was later affirmed unanimously by the body of bishops at the General Assembly of June 2012.
“On initial review of the government’s summary of the regulations, we note with disappointment that the regulations would not broaden the “religious employer” exemption to encompass all employers with sincerely held religious objections to the mandate. Instead, the regulations would only modify the “accommodation,” under which the mandate still applies and still requires provision of the objectionable coverage. Also, by proposing to extend the “accommodation” to the closely held for-profit employers that were wholly exempted by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hobby Lobby, the proposed regulations would effectively reduce, rather than expand, the scope of religious freedom.” http://www.usccb.org
