No Best Interests for Life of Charlie Gard

The life of UK baby Charlie Gard has been ordered by three courts to be terminated, despite all the efforts of his parents to save him.   

Should a child not be allowed to live because he or she has a rare disease? The international Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) guarantees in its language that a child has a right to life, but when that right was tested in two separate English courts and then in the International Court of Human Rights, legal protection for Charlie was denied by all.  His parents have fought the national and international judiciary and the medical community unsuccessfully to protect his life.  He is ordered to die in defiance of their wishes, and his right.  Read the National review summary of the case here.

In the United States parents and courts are legally required to protect the best interests of every child.  Charlie's parents are being denied the opportunity to do that by the very legal system that should be supporting them in that effort. 

SCOTUS Rules Playgounds Should be Safe for Kids Regardless of Religion

Kids who play on church school playgrounds can be protected too.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Missouri's taxpayer-funded playground grant which was available to nonprofit programs generally could not be denied to a church school.  FamilyRestoration posted on this matter previously – a case argued by Regent Law graduate, David Cortman, with Alliance Defending Freedom.  

In a 7-2 decision Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, "[T]he exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand."  

This ruling protects children from religious discrimination, affording them and their families 1^st Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Should Pregnancy Resource Centers be Compelled to Advertise Abortion?

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will be reviewing petitions to determine whether or not such case(s) will be accepted for argument next term, which begins October 2, 2017. One of the cases to be reviewed considers how far speech about abortion can be compelled.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) has brought a suit against the state of California in NIFLA v. Becerra.  The issue presented by this case is whether the free speech and free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.  The Ninth Circuits opinion can be found here.  To learn more see NIFLA and SCOTUS Blog. 

NIFLA represents more than 1,430 PRC's across the country.  To find a NIFLA Member Center near you, go to www.nifla.org and click on any state below.

While Roe’s Effect on Family Law  has been very harmful to women, marriage, parenting, and romance, A Christian Perspective on Gender Equality is helpful in protecting women from the destruction of abortion.  Family restoration can work to protect the lives of women and children, and pregnancy resource centers work to do just that. 

To understand how abortion has injured women see The Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights: Have Sexuality and Reproductive Freedom Forfeited Victory?  Pregnancy resource centers and the women who visit them need to have free speech rights to discuss their options to save the lives of their unborn children, as well as protect themselves from the harms of abortion.

Farmer Banned from Farmer's Market for Beliefs on Marriage

An organic farmer in Michigan who wants to sell food to anyone and everyone at a local farmer's market has been prohibited from doing so by the city that runs the farmer's market.  Last week East Lansing, Michigan, banned the farmer from participating in this year's market.  Why? Because the farmer believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  Read the full story here.

 

Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom who represent the farmer, Steve Tennes, offered this analysis: “Let’s be clear about what’s going on here: Government officials are forcing a farmer to either recant his religious views or give up an opportunity to serve the community. … City officials are thus discriminating against Tennes and his family for their religious views. But the Constitution forbids the government from fencing out people of faith simply because it doesn’t like their beliefs.”

Religious beliefs, even those on marriage in the wake of Obergefell, are protected by religious freedom.  See at page 3 why Marriage, State Domestic Relations Power, and Family Strength do not conflict, but empower a state’s citizenry.