Safe

Pro-abortion folks like to say that they want abortions to be safe (for the mother, anyway). "Safe" abortions in "safe" abortion facilities: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Especially in light of Kermit Gosnell, or Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt.

Two Day, Two Decisions

The Supreme Court of the United States has made (or sustained) two anti-life decision in the last two days. The more widely publicized decision was declared on Monday, striking down the Texas laws placing restrictions of abortion mills in the state. That law would have closed most (though not all) of the mills in the state--though it would not have prevented new mills from opening which met the restriction in the law.

The second decision was made on Tuesday, and was in fact a decision to decline to hear a case. This was a case which also have direct bearing on the rights of conscience, which are at least hypothetically protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution (a document for which the Left has had no use in general of late). This is a case whose decision should have been obvious from the get-go. The State of Washington insists that all pharmacies must be made to dispense (abortifacent) morning-after and week after "contraceptive" pills; some pharmacists--and indeed, some entire pharmacies--have declined to do so, because it violates their consciences to do so. This is a religious liberty issue to the extent that many of these consciences are religiously formed. The teaching of, for example, the Catholic Church in this matter is pretty clear, especially with regard to week-after pills after which fertilization has almost certainly occurred if their is to be a pregnancy at all.

In this case, the Court did not impose a new law by judicial fiat, but rather refused to hear a case which has been wrongly decided (by the always suspect Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). There were three dissenters form this refusal: justices Alito, Thomas, and Roberts (the only three remotely objective justices left on the court). They wrote:

This case is an ominous sign. At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern…. Ralph’s has raised more than ‘slight suspicion’ that the rules challenged here reflect antipathy toward religious beliefs that do not accord with the views of those holding the levers of government power. I would grant certiorari to ensure that Washington’s novel and concededly unnecessary burden on religious objectors does not trample on fundamental rights.”

Also worth noting are the background to this case and the circumstances under which the law was passed:

Margo Thelen, Rhonda Mesler, and the Stormans family have worked in the pharmacy profession for over seventy years. When a customer requests an abortion-inducing drug, they refer the customer to one of over thirty pharmacies within five miles that willingly sell the drugs. For decades, this has been standard pharmacy practice, has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, and has been legal in all 50 states.

But in 2007, Washington adopted a new law making referrals for reasons of conscience illegal. The law was passed in a cloud of controversy, with then-Governor Christine Gregoire threatening to terminate the State Pharmacy Commission and replacing Commission members with new ones recommended by abortion-rights activists. The law leaves pharmacies free to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of reasons related to business, economics, and convenience—but not for reasons of conscience. Because of the law, Margo Thelen lost her job, Rhonda Mesler was threatened with losing hers, and the Stormans family faces the loss of its pharmacy license.

The burning times continue apace.

Unfettered Access

Unfettered access to murder: that seems to be what the Left in general, and their puppets on the Supreme Court of the United States in particular--are pushing for.

Meanwhile, across the pond, Britain has voted for the right thing, and Brexit won in referendum. People in Texas have again begun with the "Texit" talk--what we need is not so much a Texit (which would be especially bad news for every other red state) as a more limited federal government in general, and this includes the courts.

Throw in a roaming capital (rather than one anchored in and thus perpetually diverting the nation's wealth to Washington D.C.) for good measure. It would be a nice change for state and local laws to actually matter, and for decisions to be made more locally and by people who will have to live with these decisions rather than by presidential or judicial (or bureaucratic) fiat.

Today's Orwellian News

Lying doesn't pay. Even when lying for a good cause. With that said, the fact that a Gran Jury has indicted David Daleidon--the man behind the "undercover sting" videos which busted Planned Parenthood for trafficking in human organs from aborted children--of criminal charges. Specifically, the Grand Jury brought charges of organ trafficking against Mr. Daleidon--who pretended to want to buy organs--but not against Planned Parenthood, who actually tried to sell them.

A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, returned two charges on Monday afternoon against Daleiden, the activist who planned and organized the undercover sting videos. Although the grand jury allegedly investigated Planned Parenthood, no charges were brought against the nation’s largest abortion provider, whose executives were shown in multiple videos attempting to sell trafficked organs and other body parts harvested from aborted babies. One Planned Parenthood executive, while haggling over the prices of aborted baby organs, noted that she needed to get the right price because, “I want to buy a Lamborghini.”

According to a press release from the office of Harris County district attorney’s office which was provided to The Federalist, Daleiden was charged with the purchase and sale of human organs, a misdemeanor, and with tampering with a governmental record, a felony. Sandra Merritt, one of Daleiden’s associates, was also charged with tampering with a governmental record.

In his press release, Mr. Daleidon states that "buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well" and that "Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see."

In this life, and especially in these times and this place, the relatively innocent are charged as guilty, whereas the really guilty parties walk away scot free. Another point of interest: the Harris County prosecutor in this case sits on the board of directors for the Planned Parenthood affiliate which Daleidon targeted.


Ceterum censeo Planned Parenthood esse delendam

Consistency Isn't Their Strong Suit

A few days ago, I mentioned a possible silver lining to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell vs Hodges: "a fairly welcome "side-effect" of the SCOTUS Obergefell decision would be the enforcement of concealed carry reciprocity for all 50 states + DC. But, I suppose it is probably too much to ask for the Court to be consistent."

Unfortunately, consistency is not the strong suit of progressives in general--their strong suit, alas, is persistence--and consistency is also not the strong suit of this court in particular:

"[Proponents of "gay marriage"] have a history of making whatever assurance seems necessary, before discarding it in due course. It used to be that prominent supporters of gay marriage pooh-poohed the idea of a judicial imposition of their view on the country. 

In the Supreme Court’s prior pro-gay-marriage decision, just two years ago, it said that domestic relations were exclusively a matter for the states — before turning around and throwing out state marriage laws not to its liking."

I suppose it is too much to ask that we be governed by consistent laws or even ruler by consistent oligarchs. It's a sure sign of tyranny that the rulers become unfettered by established law and legal tradition and cease to act with consistency.

And So It Goes

Where it leads is this, then on to jackboots.

So it ends.

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." (Scalia's Dissent)

And so it continues.

"The Catholic faith has constantly taught, that marriage is the unique relationship between one man and one woman that needs to be promoted and strengthened. Marriage is a gift from God, rooted in nature itself. The biological realities of male and female together with the complementarity they bring to the institution of marriage allow for the natural procreation of children and the opportunity for the child to be nurtured and to learn from a mother and a father who each bring unique gifts to the family. Neither today’s United States Supreme Court decision, nor subsequent alterations to civil law, can change this truth which we profess."

And so it begins.

" just ten years ago they swore Lawrence would not lead to gay marriage, and then two years ago swore that gay marriage would not lead to you being forced to bake them a cake. 

So if a top Hillary advisor dodges the question of tax exempt status for churches who refuse to perform gay marriages -- you can take her non-answer to the bank, Bigots.... 

religious conscience is more than just what we do in the two hours a week we spend in church. Though Kennedy reassures you that for those two hours, you are free to "advocate" for your bigoted, unsupportable, and evil views. 

For now, anyway."

Saint Thomas More, pray for us.

Revolution of the Justices

A large number of probate judges in the state of Alabama have decided that they will not comply with a federal court's ruling that they should start manufacturing fiat marriages. It's nice to see that there are some judges who are actually interested in justice, which in this case means disobeying the orders of a higher court. Or, more appropriately, getting creative in their interpretation of what the higher court's orders actually are:

An attorney for the Probate Judge’s Association said that is not an accurate reading of the judge’s ruling. Probate Judges are elected in all 67 counties in Alabama and carry the responsibility of issuing and recording marriage licenses.

“Judge Granade’s ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter,” Al Agricola, attorney for the Alabama Probate Judges Association, explained. “The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner’s child. There is nothing in the judge’s order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.”

...Judge Greg Norris, President of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, hopes that misinterpretation of Friday’s ruling will not cause confusion among the general public. Probate Judges are elected in all 67 counties in Alabama and carry the responsibility of issuing and recording marriage licenses.

“As probate judges, our duty is to issue marriage licenses in accordance with Alabama law and that means we can not legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples,” said Greg Norris, President of the Alabama Probate Judges Associate. “The recent federal ruling does not change that.” Probate Judges are elected in all 67 counties in Alabama and carry the responsibility of issuing and recording marriage licenses.

Probate Judges are elected in all 67 counties in Alabama and carry the responsibility of issuing and recording marriage licenses.

Sometimes "the law" and "justice" are at odds. Sometimes,"the law" asks for the impossible, such as for people to "marry" two (or more) people of the same sex. Sorry kids, it's not a marriage, no matter what the piece of paper says. On the other hand, this seems like an awfully shaky method of making a stand, since it is here based more-or-less on the claim that no ruling has been passed (yet) which requires the state to begin issuing "marriage" licenses to homosexual partners. Of course, that particular situation can (and very likely will) change in the near future, probably about as soon as the first lawsuit is filed against the Alabama probate judges association (or perhaps if they are really stubborn, against each individual probate judge's office).

Secrets Unsealed

My co-blogger has already posted about the recent Supreme Court non-decision concerning the supposed secrecy of the confessional seal. I don't mean to pile on too much about this, but it is certainly a blow against the freedom of religion (in general), in in favor of the current kulturkampf against Catholicism in particular. Given that there is supposedly a Catholic majority on the Court, I am surprised that they declined to hear this case--perhaps they think that they are not impartial justices here, but that seems kind of irrelevant: there are no real impartial judges as concerns Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Moving forward, it seems to me that the right response by the Church is to insist upon more anonymity in the confessional. Perhaps this can be done by installing (or re-opening) more of the old confessional boxes, which had a screen between penitent and priest. The only tricks would be to disguise the voice of the penitent, and then to have the priest arrive early and stay in the box until late to avoid seeing any person's face by mistake.

Or, there is the Short Circuit approach of confessing via remote controlled proxy (or perhaps be phone?) provided that the callers information is not traceable or recoverable. Maybe a hard-wired "phone" station?

Freedom For Some Religions

The Supreme Court has decided two religious freedom cases this week. Neither one was the big case, and one is a de facto decision (for now) via refusing to hear a case, but:

1. The Court ruled that a Muslim prisoner had the right to grow a beard in accordance with his beliefs
2. The Court decided not to hear an appeal against a Louisiana court's decision that Catholic priests may be ordered to violate the seal of confession (thereby automatically excommunicating themselves).

The former case is a relatively minor decision, since Muslims don't actually have to grow beards (I've met a few who were beardless, and they weren't recent converts, and for that matter I think we have Muslims in our armed forces, which generally don't allow beards). Nevertheless, I think this is a generally correct decision, since the ban against the beard could violate this particular Muslim's interpretation of what Islam requires of him and since the ban doesn't really accomplish much in the way of maintaining control of the prison (beards must be kept short, so a to not alter appearance suddenly if cut off).

The second decision, or non-decision (it more-or-less amounts to the same thing, but without really setting any kind of lasting precedent) is clearly wrong. Priests are basically not going to be testifying about what they hear in confession, regardless of the law, and so this is just a convenient way of creating a vehicle for jailing priests. Even if priests could testify about what has been said in confessions, I doubt that such testimony would in principle be used to actually put away the "bad guys," at least not long-term. People who know that their secrets aren't the least bit safe will tend not to share those secrets. So this will mostly just cause people to stay away from confession--score one for Satan.

State Sponsored Tyranny

It's hard to say which is a greater example of state-sponsored tyranny in America: the Obama Administration's odious HHS contraceptives mandate, or the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling against Elane Photography:

Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”

This judge does not deserve the title justice, though justice will be served him some day. The compromise that he talks about is that religious faith and the rights of conscience must be sacrificed on the alter of "tolerance;" but tolerance only extends to certain favored groups, and must be exacted at the expense of others. One wonders how many actual rights will be crushed under the boots of so-called "tolerance" and how much of the fabric of civilized society must be unraveled in the name of this "glue." This judge can take his false respect and shove it: the pretense only adds insult to injury.