Fox News Highlights Regent Law Graduates Protecting Life

The Kelly Files, a Fox News program, hosted and highlighted the work of the Texas Center for the Defense of Life, a pro-life public interest law firm dedicated to the protection of victims of abortion.  You can view the video of Stephen Casey and Greg Terra here. 

In this situation, a judge had previously ordered a teenage girl to live in the home of a sex offender, who raped her and was coercing her to have an abortion of his child.  The young girl was not removed even after admitting abuse to the court, her teachers, and her other caregiver – a woman who was recently found dead in the home.  Texas Center for Defense of Life was the conduit for justice, and protection of this teenage girl victimized by these events.

Abortion Regs that Protect Life Foster Family Restoration

After Texas Governor Perry called for a special session to vote on HB 2, a bill to protect preborn children from pain inflicted by abortion when the child is 20 weeks gestational age, the bill was passed by a margin of 19-11, marking an unparalleled opportunity to protect innocent babies in Texas, while also protection mothers.  To find out more about the bill, the controversy over it, and the future implications of its passage see the New York Times article on it.

The bill will also increase safety standards for licensed abortion facilities, require that chemical induced (RU486) abortions are performed by FDA standards to protect women’s health, and will require physicians who perform abortions to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications after a flawed abortion by having privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. 

Advocates for both sides of the debate gathered at the Texas capitol to provide testimony and support, but few expected the level of public incivility that followed when in response to #Stand4Life advocates pro-abortion activists throughout the day shouted epithets in an effort to drown out pro-life speeches and an impromptu rendering of "Amazing Grace." It was clearly a spiritual battle as well as a political one.  CNN's Josh Rubin confirmed these events by tweeting on site: "Crowd of anti-abortion activists giving speeches while a group of people chant 'hail Satan' in the background.” 

Most Americans favor banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the poll also shows many Americans remain conflicted in their views on abortion. 

Texas’ decision to regulate the off-label use of abortion-causing drugs such as RU-486 is similar to a 2011 Oklahoma measure which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States (in a case known as  Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice).  Eight women have died from bacterial infections following an RU-486 medical abortion administered according to one of the off-label protocols, whereas no women have died from such infections following use of the FDA-approved protocol.  Thus, the Oklahoma, and now Texas, Legislatures acted to address this serious health and safety problem by requiring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the FDA's prescribed protocol, though the Oklahoma Supreme Court held--without analysis or discussion--that the Oklahoma law is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Oklahoma's request to review that decision, and asked the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to answer whether the Oklahoma law prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies.  This is an historic review, and the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in this case until they receive a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

The United States Congress will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797) which states that because there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, a compelling governmental interest exists in protecting unborn children from this stage. Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az) who has sponsored the bill stated, “Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.”  Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to Congress in April. The House approved the bill by a vote of 228-196. More information on it is available at CitizenLink. 

All of these bills are pro-woman, pro-child, pro-science, and pro-family.   Finally, the Tenth Circuit Court of the United States provided an important victory for Christian business owners against the HHS Contraception Mandate, as Hobby Lobby and its sister organization, Mardel, a Christian bookstores proprietor, were upheld in their refusal to provide coverage of drugs they believe cause abortion and, therefore, violate their religious beliefs. The Tenth Circuit held "that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.” The District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma subsequently granted the injunction.

Protecting lives of mothers and preborn children is a solid key to family restoration.  Texas made a bold step in that direction this past summer.  Congress and federal courts could follow.

Key to Child Advocacy for Malawi Juveniles is Restorative Justice

Children in several nations around the globe do not enjoy basic protections of their due process interests when accused of a crime.  Often they sit in jail waiting for an initial hearing for years.  Child advocates can make a difference for them and their families.

Abigail K. Skeans, currently a 3L at Regent Law, is pursuing research in this area of law to protect children in various African nations.  An important aspect of her work has been to determine whether a program of reform for a juvenile law system in one African nation might also work effectively in the legal framework of another African nation.

Skeans worked on such a program to protect juveniles in Uganda, and this spring worked on a feasibility study to determine if the program being implemented in Uganda would also be feasible in Malawi.  She continued her work this summer on site in Malawi. Her work carries an expectation for policy recommendations for both practical legal development programs and legislative reform.  See her presentation here.

Some practical programs and documents might be beneficial in the Malawain context, her work hopes to accomplish several objectives. Some of those include:

1) developing an electronic child information tracking system in a nation that is largely without birth certificates for most children;

2) determining whether a restorative justice component and diversion programs coupled with an emphasis on plea bargaining in formal juvenile proceedings would be of assistance;

3) social service protections; and

4) providing legal protections for children in conflict with the law.

Protecting children around the globe is an important, but extremely challenging, objective. An attitude of family restoration and restorative justice can make a tremendous difference in the lives of children in Africa.

State Confusion over Issuing Same-sex Marriage Licenses

A Pennsylvania judge last week ordered town clerks to discontinue issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Same-sex marriage is not part of the law in Pennsylvania, yet recent federal Supreme Court decisions have led to confusion in local state offices.  You can read more in a recent article by JURIST.  

This Blog discussed some of the confusion over the proper application of Windsor in previous posts. The federal government is taking steps to clarify some of the uncertainty surrounding Windsor; for instance, JURIST reports the US Department of Labor recently explained that federal employee benefit plans will be available to all legally married couples, even those domiciled in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. However, as the situation in Pennsylvania illustrates, the impact of Windsor has not yet been clearly delineated. 

JURIST is reporting that it is not yet clear how this Pennsylvania decision will affect same-sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses already in Pennsylvania:

In August lawyers for the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Governor Tom Corbett argued in a legal filing that Hanes' decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is a separation-of-powers violation that "risks causing serious and limitless harm" in Pennsylvania. In July the Pennsylvania Department of Health filed a petition in the Commonwealth Court seeking to stop Hanes from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Also in July the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit seeking same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. The Governor's Office of General Counsel wrote to the attorney general in defense of the Pennsylvania statute, arguing that Windsor does not strike down the state's marriage law, but just the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since the Windsor ruling, courts across the country have been citing the decision.

You can find a list of those situations at JURIST.  It is interesting that the Penn State Law Review requested an article on Windsor in a different context, which I researched, wrote, and published with them.  That article is available for downloading and reading at the Social Science Research Network. 

It seems that the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor has served less to strengthen marriage for all participants regardless of gender, and more to jeopardize its stability among the states.  Fostering family restoration requires strong state definitions and endorsement of marriage and the law of marriage entry. 

Although Pennsylvania law appears to have that type of regulation, it is being challenged on the most local level.

Threats and Lawsuits Challenge Faith and Marriage Definitions

Wedding cakes and marriage amendments seem to be in the crosshairs of some public sentiment across the nation regarding the definition of marriage. "At least 27 lawsuits have been filed against state marriage amendments, many of them just in the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its historic ruling on marriage earlier this summer" in Windsor v. U.S. 

"That ruling struck down Section 3 the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying the federal government overstepped its bounds when it passed that portion of the act.  The justices reasoned that the decision about marriage should be left up to each state, paving the way for a flurry of lawsuits.  States facing challenges to their marriage amendments include: Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. South Caroline is the latest to be added to that list.  There, a lesbian couple is challenging the constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006.  The complaint says that it infringes on the couple's right to due process, equal protection, and violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] because it does not recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states."  Kim Tobee, Lawsuit Challenges State Marriage Amendment, Sept. 4, 2013, CitizenLink.

Simultaneously with these challenges, personal faith concerns may become irrelevant in the public sentiment regarding marriage.  FamilyRestoration posted on the matter involving an Oregon bakery earlier. Now, those bakery owners in Oregon have been forced to close their business due to falling revenues and personal threats.  The Christian owners of "Sweet Cakes" did not take the order for a wedding cake from a lesbian couple last year, which is currently resulting in their being forced out of business and into seclusion for personal safety. 

American media outlets generally do not report a comprehensive perspective on these types of cases, but the UK Daily Mail is reporting that the owners received death threats over a period of months and dramatic boycotts of their bakery, forcing its closure.  CitizenLink also reported on these events.  

States and families across the nation are experiencing major challenges to marriage strength and family stability.  Family restoration is a critical component to strong states, yet those states and families who try to reinforce family strength with a conjugal definition of marriage (as between one man and one woman for a lifetime) appear to be targeted for that view point.  It seems that neither freedom of religion nor the democratic process are providing any assistance to those holding a conjugal definition of marriage.  

For more publications on why marriage is so essential to family restoration download the article on the proliferation of domestic partnerships and the article on why an employer would want to endorse marriage as a good business practice. 

Living it Out - One Alum's Work to Defend the Unborn

By guest blogger Elizabeth Oklevitch, Regent University Law School, Candidate for J.D., 2014.

Every year, many students arrive at Regent Law eager to earn their degrees, get out in the real world, and champion the cause of the unborn. For Regent alumnus, Noel Sterett ‘06, defending life through the practice of law is not a dream, but reality. This month he celebrated a significant victory in a strenuous battle to protect unborn children, vulnerable teenage mothers, and concerned parents in Illinois.  

Noel Sterett

The clash over Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 spanned nearly two decades. Essentially, the Act requires parents be given 48-hours notice before a minor daughter undergoes an abortion, unless a parent accompanies the daughter or provides a written waiver, there is a medical emergency, the minor claims to be the victim of abuse or neglect, or a judicial by-pass is granted. For those committed to making abortion available to anyone, anytime, anywhere, this precaution that aims to ensure the well-being of vulnerable teenagers is a no can do. Six days after the Act’s enactment in 1995, its constitutionality was challenged in court. On July 11, 2013, eighteen years later, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously upheld the law as constitutional.  (More information on the history of this Act can be found within the decision).

Reporting on the court’s decision on the day it was issued, the Christian Newswire announced: 

Despite this law's passage in 1995, the court has not allowed the law to be enforced because of repeated lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Illinois Supreme Court has now invalidated the ACLU's claims that the law violated the state constitution. Mauck & Baker filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd., v. Flores case decided today.

The Court's opinion states: We conclude, therefore, that our Parental Notice Act furthers a "constitutionally permissible end" by encouraging an unmarried, pregnant minor to seek the help and advice of a parent or other adult family member in making the very important decision whether or not to bear a child.

The decision wording echoes that of the amicus brief filed by Mauck & Baker attorneys on behalf of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Medical Association. 

The brief, authored by Richard C. Baker, Amy Parrish, and Noel Sterett, argued that Illinois' Parental Notice Act served the legitimate purpose of helping minors make mature and informed decisions about whether to abort, allow parents to assist their daughter in selecting a safe and competent abortion provider, ensure that parents have the opportunity to provide additional medical history and information to assist abortion providers, and ensures that parents have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to post-abortion complications.

Thus, in co-authoring an influential brief, Noel Sterrett’s work has impacted the landscape of constitutional law in Illinois, literally saved lives, and brought public recognition to the family as an institution providing needed protection and guidance to children. 

Students attending Regent frequently hear, “Law is more than a profession – it’s a calling.” It is encouraging to see a Regent alumnus walking out that calling, not merely holding it as a dream, but successfully fighting for the defense of the vulnerable and the restoration of the family. 

To find out more about Noel’s firm, Mauck & Baker, and their commitment to integrity, justice, and religious liberty, visit www.mauckbaker.com.   

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and Native American Families

            The third family law case which the Supreme Court ruled on at the end of June 2013 was also another 5-4 decision.  The Court was quite varied in the several opinions that make up the case.  Writing for the majority was Justice Alito, joined by Justices Kennedy and Roberts. Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas filed separate but concurring opinions. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Scalia joined in part.  Apparently the final reading is that a non-custodial parent may not block his child’s adoption, even if he is a Native American.

             Baby Girl is a case in which a mother from Oklahoma agreed to allow a South Carolina couple to adopt her newborn daughter after the baby’s biological father disclaimed any interest in raising the child, though his parental rights were never severed.  When he learned of the planned adoption, he objected.  And because he is a registered member of an Indian tribe, the lower courts ruled that a federal law protecting Native American families, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), barred the adoption.  As a result, the South Carolina Supreme Court halted the adoption and gave custody of the girl to the biological father.  

             The Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, had before it two competing interpretations of the ICWA: the more expansive version, advocated by the biological father, argued essentially that ICWA applies whenever a court is considering whether to terminate parental rights of a Native American parent; the competing interpretation, advanced by the adoptive parents, argues that ICWA’s coverage is limited to the kinds of cases that Congress most likely had in mind when it passed ICWA — namely, those in which social workers and other government officials are seeking to remove Indian children from an existing Indian family.  Megan Lindsey, Regent Law 2008, now working with the National Council for Adoption, drafted an excellent and persuasive amicus brief in support of adoption. 

            The Court took an approach based upon the latter interpretation, holding that the relevant sections of ICWA were designed to prevent the dismantling of Indian families by the removal of Indian children.  Justice Alito interpreted Congress’s design of Section 1912(f), which addresses the involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child, as excluding cases in which an Indian parent never had legal or physical custody of the child in question.  “In sum … [where] the adoption of an Indian child is voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent with sole custodial rights, the ICWA’s primary goal of preventing the unwarranted removal of Indian children and the dissolution of Indian families is not implicated.”  And Section 1912(d), like 1912(f), applies “only in cases where an Indian family’s ‘breakup’ would be precipitated by the termination of the parent’s rights.”  That section, the Court explained, is “sensible” when it is applied “to state social workers who might otherwise be too quick to remove Indian children from their Indian families.  It would, however, be unusual to apply [Section] 1912(d) in the context of an Indian parent who abandoned a child prior to birth and who never had custody of the child.”

             Consequently, the Court held that ICWA’s provisions were not designed to apply to the circumstances presented by this case.  The Court reversed the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings.  Justice Thomas concurred to emphasize that the Court’s result was compelled by constitutional avoidance.  Justice Breyer also concurred separately.  Justice Sotomayor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justice Scalia (in part) and Justices Ginsburg and Kagan in full, noting the potential for other sections of the ICWA to allow for the child’s Cherokee grandparents to object to the adoption.  The full text of the case can be found here. 

            This case can be seen as good for adoption, troubling for parental rights, and troubling for racial disparity all at once.  It is helpful for adoption in that it recognizes how adoption provides a stable, secure home for a child who needs one.  It is troubling for parental rights in that a non-custodial parent appears now to have no assertable parental rights, and it is troubling for racial disparity because the opinion seems to disregard the great harm that has been done to Native Americans by United States law in the face of a federal rule that was designed to protect those racial families from separation.  (A forum on racial profiling in the law was held at Regent University this past spring; Daryl Hayott (Regent Law 2013) presented the key substance, and for readers with a Regent ID, his presentation can be viewed here).

  

            The majority opinion in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (U.S. S.Ct. June 25, 2013) displays a troubling attitude towards unwed fathers, and even to all non-custodial parents, and toward the purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, as set out by the Family Law News Blog. More details on the case can be read in the New York Times.  While this case was being argued, Russia decided to ban adoptions of Russian children by foreign couples. 

             While an adoptive family had a child restored to them, natural parents, even those who objected to the adoption and were thought to be protected by a federal code, experienced greater family breakdown.  As for the child, she was four months when the father objected to her adoption, two years old when she was removed from their care by South Carolina to her Cherokee family, and is now almost three and a half years old being moved back to her adoptive family.  The instability for Baby Veronica is a bit alarming.  

             For a Supreme Court that has virtually no family law jurisdiction (as domestic relations law is reserved for the States), there certainly were some significant aspects of family law that were decided by the High Court in 2013, making family strengthening through restoration more challenging in the future.