"By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,...We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.” The Green family has been fighting for their right to operate their family company, Hobby Lobby, according to their religious beliefs. After the healthcare takeover became law, the Health and Human Services Department used their new-found power to order all companies to purchase insurance plans that would cover abortion inducing drugs. The Green family, as Christians, objected, citing the fact that abortion ends the life of a developing child and is therefore murder. They sued the Health and Human Services Department for their right to operate their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. If Hobby Lobby loses this case, they will be forced to either violate their religious beliefs or pay 1.2 million dollars in fines per day. On November 1st the 10th Circuit Court ruled that Hobby Lobby has a right to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. The Obama Administration appealed, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. “It is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured, Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles. The conflict for me is that our family is being forced to choose between following the laws of the country that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and have supported our family and thousands of our employees and their families.”
0 Comments
Major Committee Hearings |
| | |
Must read Articles of the Week
Major Legislation
Freedom
Despite a promised Veto, the House of Repersentatives passed a bill to amend ObamaCare which would allow people to keep their plan. Michigan Repersentative Fred Upton introduced the HR 3350. Thirty-six Democrats joined the Republicans to pass the legislation.
Other News
Family
A St. Louis Abortion Clinic has 14 pages of violations. This Planned Parenthood Clinic has been found in violation for failing to properly clean medical equipment among other things.
Must Read Articles
It's been a week since the Virginia elections. We lost, but even in that loss, there were victories. And the loss isn't complete -- just one battle in the war for the soul of our nation.
Ken Cuccinelli lost the Governor's race, primarily due to a third party Libertarian candidate in the race (a Democrat-funded vote-splitter who supports Obamacare expansion) who received 6%+ of the vote, which would have swung the election easily (Ken Cuccinelli lost by 2%). The Republican National Committee also refused to give Cuccinelli the funds he needed, resulting in his being outspent by 10-1 in the last week (and much higher figures leading up to that week). The RNC spent $3 million in Cuccinelli's race, while funneling $40 million in Chris Christie's campaign in New Jersey (where Christie was expected to win by a landslide). The Republican for Lt. Governor, E.W. Jackson, also lost.
That may look pretty bleak. But being on the ground in Virginia for a Generation Joshua Student Action team, I got to see a bright side that many will never think about.
Pending a recount, conservative Mark Obenshain won the Attorney General's race by a few hundred votes. Generation Joshua teams were the deciding factors in several races for the Virginia House of Delegates, holding a 67-seat super-majority for the GOP in that house.
More than anything else, we know that all things work together for good, to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. God has a plan in everything, and the Virginia race is no exception.
Ken Cuccinelli lost the Governor's race, primarily due to a third party Libertarian candidate in the race (a Democrat-funded vote-splitter who supports Obamacare expansion) who received 6%+ of the vote, which would have swung the election easily (Ken Cuccinelli lost by 2%). The Republican National Committee also refused to give Cuccinelli the funds he needed, resulting in his being outspent by 10-1 in the last week (and much higher figures leading up to that week). The RNC spent $3 million in Cuccinelli's race, while funneling $40 million in Chris Christie's campaign in New Jersey (where Christie was expected to win by a landslide). The Republican for Lt. Governor, E.W. Jackson, also lost.
That may look pretty bleak. But being on the ground in Virginia for a Generation Joshua Student Action team, I got to see a bright side that many will never think about.
Pending a recount, conservative Mark Obenshain won the Attorney General's race by a few hundred votes. Generation Joshua teams were the deciding factors in several races for the Virginia House of Delegates, holding a 67-seat super-majority for the GOP in that house.
More than anything else, we know that all things work together for good, to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. God has a plan in everything, and the Virginia race is no exception.
Major Committee Hearings
Family
The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) was taken up in the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee. Out of eight witnesses two opposed, five supported, and one was neutral.
Threatens America's Sovergnity, and Parental Rights, and could enshrine abortion into American law. Micheal Farris Ph.D, J.D., L.A.A. spoke in opposition to the treaty on these grounds. During the question and answer part of the hearing proponants of the treaty attacked him personally and misrepersented his arguments, but he perservered, offering sound legal reasoning, and showing the end result of the logic of his opponants. See his full testamony here. Watch the hearing here, and read the treaty here.
Dr. Farris is a Constitutional Lawyer who has argued Cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. He has both a degree in American Law and a degree in international law. He is the chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches Government, and Law. He has also coached 7 national championship moot court teams.
Threatens America's Sovergnity, and Parental Rights, and could enshrine abortion into American law. Micheal Farris Ph.D, J.D., L.A.A. spoke in opposition to the treaty on these grounds. During the question and answer part of the hearing proponants of the treaty attacked him personally and misrepersented his arguments, but he perservered, offering sound legal reasoning, and showing the end result of the logic of his opponants. See his full testamony here. Watch the hearing here, and read the treaty here.
Dr. Farris is a Constitutional Lawyer who has argued Cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. He has both a degree in American Law and a degree in international law. He is the chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches Government, and Law. He has also coached 7 national championship moot court teams.
Major Court Cases
Faith
Alliance Defending Freedom petitons the Supreme Court to hear Elane Photography v. Willock.
Elane Photography is a business in New Mexico that refused be the photographer at a same-sex ceremony. The same-sex couple took the case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission that which ordered the photography shop to pay a fine for opperating according to the belief that marriage is between one man and one women. The owners promptly sued. Several months latter the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, "There is a price to pay" in order to believe Christianity. Read More Here.
Oral Arguments regarding Prayer were heard this week at the Supreme Court. In Greece vs. Galloway a city in upstate New York was sued for opening their coucil meetings with prayer. Read the arguments here. Read More about the Case here.
Elane Photography is a business in New Mexico that refused be the photographer at a same-sex ceremony. The same-sex couple took the case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission that which ordered the photography shop to pay a fine for opperating according to the belief that marriage is between one man and one women. The owners promptly sued. Several months latter the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, "There is a price to pay" in order to believe Christianity. Read More Here.
Oral Arguments regarding Prayer were heard this week at the Supreme Court. In Greece vs. Galloway a city in upstate New York was sued for opening their coucil meetings with prayer. Read the arguments here. Read More about the Case here.
Freedom
The Supreme Court heard a case this week involving the question, 'How far does a United Nations treaty go?' Read more about that here.
The Supreme Court heard a case this week involving the question, 'How far does a United Nations treaty go?' Read more about that here.
Election News
VA: Conservative Cuccinelli lost, although with much slimmer margins than excpected as the ObamaCare website continues to be a disaster. McAffliee took 46%, Cuccinelli took 43.5% and the Libertaritan canidate took 6.6%
MUST READ ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
Faith
Will the Court Strike a Blow for Religious Liberty?
Family
Successful Pro-Life Conversations
Freedom
Supreme Court can Stop Federal Overreach
MUST READ ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
Faith
Will the Court Strike a Blow for Religious Liberty?
Family
Successful Pro-Life Conversations
Freedom
Supreme Court can Stop Federal Overreach
Liberty is an interesting thing. It often can be sacrificed on the alter of security and human rights. Even the founding fathers noted this, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Noted Benjamin Franklin.
In the recent months we have seen liberty sacrificed to provide safety. We learned that the National Security Agency is spying on every American, through telephone calls and emails. No longer do we have the liberty to have a completely private conversation, using modern devises, someone somewhere will know. Our founders warned us against such measures, they warned us that we might give up liberty in order to maintain our safety, as has been done today.
Liberty is also often sacrificed on the alter of human rights. We find this today as well. One of the major political parties has decided that people deserve a certain amount of Health Care Insurance, therefore they took away the liberty of people to select certain Health Care plans. On the surface it seems good that everyone would have a certain level of coverage, but to achieve this we took away the liberty of people.
In the recent months we have seen an attack on two ideas. The first is that people can use the capitalistic system to choose health insurance that they believe best fits their need. Secondly, we have seen an attack on the idea that religious people can use the capitalistic system to buy health insurance that fits with their moral beliefs. I have heard people say that individuals and employers should not have this liberty. This argument is counter intuitive.
Economically speaking taking away this liberty could have detrimental effects on the economy. ObamaCare requires that each company that employs over fifty full time workers must buy insurance. This takes away the liberty for an employer to look at their budget and decide what they can afford; suddenly they are forced to buy a certain amount of insurance for each employee. This breach of liberty means that if a company cannot afford insurance they will either cut back employees hours or lay off workers. Business must cover their costs. Destroying the liberty of business owners can have a detrimental impact on their employees.
There is no indication that health insurance is a right that supersedes the right to liberty. Indeed is there even a right to health insurance? Health Insurance is a human invention, invented in a Capitalistic market, it does not naturally exist. Health insurance comes about when people decided to join together in order to spread the risk of accident or a major medical problem. It seems counter intuitive to say that people must be forced to join such a group. After all people have a right to take risks. It may be a good idea to purchase health insurance, but there cannot be a legitimate law forbidding stupidity or requiring things that are good for you. As Justice Scalia aptly noted, under this logic eating broccoli should be mandatory. The right to health insurance does not exist.
Before rushing out and demanding a law that requires people to do something, we must ask ourselves if it is a legitimate infringement on freedom. All laws will in some way infringe on freedom, which in some instances is good, for example laws against murder, but not all infringements are good. There must be a right that others by taking that freedom could destroy. Since health insurance is not a right, taking that liberty away from people is an illegitimate use of the Government’s power. It is not a good idea to give up our liberty for security, but it is a much more sinister idea to give up our liberty for rights that do not exist.
First appeared on Amber D's blog at aconstitutionalconservative.blogspot.com
In the recent months we have seen liberty sacrificed to provide safety. We learned that the National Security Agency is spying on every American, through telephone calls and emails. No longer do we have the liberty to have a completely private conversation, using modern devises, someone somewhere will know. Our founders warned us against such measures, they warned us that we might give up liberty in order to maintain our safety, as has been done today.
Liberty is also often sacrificed on the alter of human rights. We find this today as well. One of the major political parties has decided that people deserve a certain amount of Health Care Insurance, therefore they took away the liberty of people to select certain Health Care plans. On the surface it seems good that everyone would have a certain level of coverage, but to achieve this we took away the liberty of people.
In the recent months we have seen an attack on two ideas. The first is that people can use the capitalistic system to choose health insurance that they believe best fits their need. Secondly, we have seen an attack on the idea that religious people can use the capitalistic system to buy health insurance that fits with their moral beliefs. I have heard people say that individuals and employers should not have this liberty. This argument is counter intuitive.
Economically speaking taking away this liberty could have detrimental effects on the economy. ObamaCare requires that each company that employs over fifty full time workers must buy insurance. This takes away the liberty for an employer to look at their budget and decide what they can afford; suddenly they are forced to buy a certain amount of insurance for each employee. This breach of liberty means that if a company cannot afford insurance they will either cut back employees hours or lay off workers. Business must cover their costs. Destroying the liberty of business owners can have a detrimental impact on their employees.
There is no indication that health insurance is a right that supersedes the right to liberty. Indeed is there even a right to health insurance? Health Insurance is a human invention, invented in a Capitalistic market, it does not naturally exist. Health insurance comes about when people decided to join together in order to spread the risk of accident or a major medical problem. It seems counter intuitive to say that people must be forced to join such a group. After all people have a right to take risks. It may be a good idea to purchase health insurance, but there cannot be a legitimate law forbidding stupidity or requiring things that are good for you. As Justice Scalia aptly noted, under this logic eating broccoli should be mandatory. The right to health insurance does not exist.
Before rushing out and demanding a law that requires people to do something, we must ask ourselves if it is a legitimate infringement on freedom. All laws will in some way infringe on freedom, which in some instances is good, for example laws against murder, but not all infringements are good. There must be a right that others by taking that freedom could destroy. Since health insurance is not a right, taking that liberty away from people is an illegitimate use of the Government’s power. It is not a good idea to give up our liberty for security, but it is a much more sinister idea to give up our liberty for rights that do not exist.
First appeared on Amber D's blog at aconstitutionalconservative.blogspot.com
CRPD will be going before the Senate foreign relations committee today.
This treaty endangers the sovereignty of the United States by placing the United Nations over the USA as the final authority for laws on people with disabilities. The United Nations is comprised of not only countries like the United States, but also countries that practice human rights abuses on a daily basis. These countries have no respect for life, and therefore we should not give them any say over our laws. The United Nations is an unelected group of individuals that can potentially wield power over the will of the American people. We cannot allow that to happen.
Secondly, this treaty would enshrine abortion into American law. Under the treaty, any means necessary for a disabled person to plan the spacing and number of children must be allowed. What if someone decides to only have two children, and finds they are pregnant with a third? The only way to stop them from having a third is abortion. Thus the treaty, by requiring that quote "The rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided," enshrines abortion into the law of any nation that accepts the treaty. This sentence, innocent as it may sound, could destroy millions of lives.
Thirdly, the treaty places the government as overseers of the decisions of the parents of disabled children. Parents would be stripped of their ability to make decisions in the best interest of their child; suddenly it would be the government's job.
Because of these three issues, it is not in America's best interest, nor in the best interest of the disabled, to pass this treaty. After all, most disabled children are killed by abortion before they are born. This treaty, rather than helping the disabled, enshrines into law a way to dispose of them, a way to discriminate against them, and a way to murder the disabled.
This treaty endangers the sovereignty of the United States by placing the United Nations over the USA as the final authority for laws on people with disabilities. The United Nations is comprised of not only countries like the United States, but also countries that practice human rights abuses on a daily basis. These countries have no respect for life, and therefore we should not give them any say over our laws. The United Nations is an unelected group of individuals that can potentially wield power over the will of the American people. We cannot allow that to happen.
Secondly, this treaty would enshrine abortion into American law. Under the treaty, any means necessary for a disabled person to plan the spacing and number of children must be allowed. What if someone decides to only have two children, and finds they are pregnant with a third? The only way to stop them from having a third is abortion. Thus the treaty, by requiring that quote "The rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided," enshrines abortion into the law of any nation that accepts the treaty. This sentence, innocent as it may sound, could destroy millions of lives.
Thirdly, the treaty places the government as overseers of the decisions of the parents of disabled children. Parents would be stripped of their ability to make decisions in the best interest of their child; suddenly it would be the government's job.
Because of these three issues, it is not in America's best interest, nor in the best interest of the disabled, to pass this treaty. After all, most disabled children are killed by abortion before they are born. This treaty, rather than helping the disabled, enshrines into law a way to dispose of them, a way to discriminate against them, and a way to murder the disabled.
What you can do!
Contact the Senators of this committee and tell them to #RejectCRPD
Senators currentally in favor of CRPD
Senator John McCain: 202-224-2235
Senator Robert Menendez: 202-224-4744
Senator Barbra Boxer: 202-224-3553
Senator Ben Cardin: 202-224-4524
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: 202-224-2841
Senator Christopher Coons: 202-224-5042
Senator Dick Durbin: 202-224-2152
Senator Tom Udall: 202-224-6621
Senator Chris Murphy: 202-224-4041
Senator Tom Kaine: 202-224-4024
Senator Edward Markey: 202-224-2742
Senator Bob Corker: 202-224-3344
Senators currentally opposed who are swing votes
Senator Jeff Flake: 202-224-4521
Senator Jim Risch: 202-224-2752
Senator Ron Johnson: 202-224-5323
Strong Opponents of CRPD
Senator Marco Rubio: 202-224-3041
Senator Rand Paul: 202-224-4343
Like our RejectCRPD page on Facebook and share it with your friends.
Follow us on Twitter: @RejectCRPD and tweet using the hashtags #RejectCRPD and #CRPD
Despite a rocky start this week, Texan pro-lifers can breathe a sigh of relief. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated the parts of the Texas law that were overturned earlier this week. A panel of three women ruled that requiring that abortion doctors have admitting privileges and that RU486 be dispensed so as to meet FDA standards does not constitute an excessive burden under Roe v. Wade. The panel of judges will therefore allow much of the law to go into effect this weekend.
RU486 is a drug that under FDA protocol could only be given up the 7th week of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood routinely gives the drug much later to induce abortion, resulting even in the death of the mother.
The rest of the law, including the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, went into effect as planned on Tuesday. This part of the law was never challenged by Planned Parenthood.
Read the full opinion here
RU486 is a drug that under FDA protocol could only be given up the 7th week of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood routinely gives the drug much later to induce abortion, resulting even in the death of the mother.
The rest of the law, including the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, went into effect as planned on Tuesday. This part of the law was never challenged by Planned Parenthood.
Read the full opinion here
Categories
All
2016
Action
America
Common Core
Conservatism
Constitution
Court Watch
C. R. P. D.
Education
Elections
Homeschooling
Immigration
Israel
Marriage
Nomination
Obamacare
Parental Rights
Planned Parenthood
Religious Liberty
Second Amendment
Senate
Shutdown
Stand For Life
Supreme Court
Taxes
United Nations
Welfare
Archives
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
RSS Feed
