Category Archives: courts

UK government is not little Charlie’s mommy, or daddy ( sure you want this kind of healthcare system here in America )

Little Charlie

Anyone looking for another reason not to leave life-and-death issues to the state need look no further than the conflict between the British government and the parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard.

Governments, including the British courts and the European court of human rights have refused to allow Charlie’s parents to take him to the U.S. for what they believe is life-saving treatment. In what many will regard as a cynical decision, UK judge Nicholas Francis gave Charlie’s parents just two days to present new evidence as to why their son should receive experimental treatment. A final decision will be handed down in a hearing on Thursday.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital where Charlie is on a ventilator, his brain reportedly damaged from a rare genetic condition, argue that he should be removed from life support and allowed to die. President Trump has offered help. Pope Francis also supports the parent’s right to determine what is best for their child.

Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, believe an experimental treatment known as nucleoside therapy might work on their son. British doctors say it won’t improve the child’s “quality of life.” They want him to die. Apparently that’s OK with the state-run National Health Service (NHS), which is always looking for ways to cut costs.

The parents have raised enough money to take Charlie to America for treatment. Wouldn’t most parents do all they could for their child, especially one so young who is helpless and at the mercy of adults? I know I would for my grandson, who is also named Charlie.

( Read the rest of this spot on column by Cal Thomas. )

Proof Justice Kennedy Is Retiring?

Read the story.

President Trump wants to help a sick UK boy who parents the court has ruled don’t have the right to have the boy treated in the US

President Donald Trump offered to help a terminally ill British baby on Monday, saying on Twitter that “if we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.”

Charlie Gard suffers from a rare genetic condition and is unable to breathe unaided. Last week, his parents lost a legal battle to take him to the U.S. for trial therapy. His parents and a London children’s hospital said Friday that the 10-month-old boy will be given “more time” before life support is withdrawn.

White House spokeswoman Helen Aguirre Ferre said that members of the Trump administration have spoken to Gard’s family.

“Although the president himself has not spoken to the family, he does not want to pressure them in any way, members of the administration have spoken to
( More )

San Fran Paying $190,000 to ILLEGAL Immigrant?!’ Tucker Can’t Believe

Video

California Judge Tosses Most Charges Against CMP Journalists Over Exposing Planned Parenthood

Here is some good news in the battle for life.

You can not be a Swedish pro life midwife

Swedish midwife vows to continue her battle for the right to refuse to participate in abortion.

( Read the story. )

“Son I wish I would have killed you”

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that the parents of a child born in 2010 can sue the doctors for a wrongful birth.
The court ruled that the doctors failed to inform them,if it had been revealed would have led the mother to seek an abortion.
The 6-1 ruling by the high court is the first in the history of the state that a personal injury claim for “wrongful birth” has been recognized.
The case involves a boy from southeastern Iowa born with cerebral palsy, intellectual disability and several other impairments which require frequent doctor visits. It is also likely the boy will ever walk or talk.
The parents say they were never informed of the problems, which would have led the mother to have an abortion.
I guess this mom, and dad don’t believe all children are a gift from God.
Parents of children with special needs will tell you their children are special. A lesson I hope, and pray these parents learn. If they aren’t willing to do that perhaps they should have given up at birth.
If you like you can find out more about this story here.

Junior high Sexual offender

A junior high kid in Texas could be labeled a sex  offender. “The 14 year old is being tried for aggravated sexual assault of a child for having sex with his 12 year old girlfriend.” That is what the Houston Chronicle reported.

“He had consensual sex with his little girlfriend and he loved her. They were boyfriend-girlfriend,” the teen’s mother told the Chronicle.

Most of the time I am for bringing the hammer down on those who have sex with children. But if what I read is correct this was two kids having sex. Instead of labeling the 14 year old, or putting him on trial it might be better to teach him along with his girl friend why it is wrong for them to have a sexual relationship.
( If you like you can read more about this case by clicking here.

Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court

( Below is the Breakpoint radio commentary for today. )

Okay, so government cannot “establish religion.” We get that. But can it discriminate against religion? We’ll find out.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what David French, over at the National Review called “the most important case about recycled tires in American legal history.”

Now French was, of course, being facetious. As he made clear, while the case did involve recycled tires, the critical thing is its potential impact on religious freedom.

The basic facts of the case, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, are as follows: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, operates a licensed pre-school and day-care facility. Its facilities include the type of playground that you and I played on as kids. In other words, scrapes, bruises, broken bones, and, perhaps, a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Fortunately, or so it seemed for Trinity Lutheran, the state of Missouri has a program which provides “funds for qualifying organizations to purchase recycled tires to resurface playgrounds.”

Trinity Lutheran applied for such a grant and seemed to have easily met the qualifications. I say “seemed,” because it was then informed that such a grant would, in Trinity’s case, violate a provision in Missouri’s state constitution that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.”

The provision is one of 36 so-called “Blaine Amendments” in state constitutions. These amendments were originally aimed at Catholic schools and were born of the now-incredible belief that the public schools were a principal instrument in safeguarding America’s Protestant Christian character.

I know, ironic.

The church sued the state government, claiming that this kind of singling out of churches violated the free exercise of religion. After all, whatever else the free exercise of religion means, it should, at a minimum, mean that you can’t be denied a government benefit available to similar organizations solely on account of your religion.

Case closed, right? Well, unfortunately, no. The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus while Trinity Lutheran argued the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part, the state emphasized the “no law respecting an establishment of religion” part.

If you’re wondering how protecting kids from scrapes and broken bones constitutes “an establishment of religion,” well, welcome to the tortured world of establishment clause jurisprudence. The late justice Scalia wrote that the cases involving Christmas displays required “scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary.”

While I can only speculate what Scalia would have made of this case, it was clear from oral arguments that the majority of the court was skeptical of Missouri’s claim that protecting kids on a playground constitutes an establishment of religion.

If there was a theme to most of the questions, it was just how “extreme,” to use David French’s word, Blaine amendments like Missouri’s are. Justice Breyer asked the lawyer defending the law if, under the constitution, a city could deny fire and police to places of worship while providing it for everyone else. The reply was a hedged semi-“yes.”

While it’s always risky to predict the outcome based on oral arguments, French is right when he predicts that Trinity Lutheran will win.

Actually, it already has. Missouri’s new governor has announced a change in the policy that will permit Trinity Lutheran to apply for the grant. But Missouri’s Blaine Amendment, and three dozen similar provisions across the country, still stand.

So while the Court could declare the case moot, let’s pray that it decides the case in a way that deals a major blow to laws like Missouri’s across the country. Because the damage done by them to religious freedom is a lot worse than just skinned knees.

midwife is being forced to perform abortions ( I guess she can’t make the choice to be pro life ) 

Swedish midwife loses fight to be exempt from performing abortions