Faith on Trial is where we examine the influence of law and society on people of faith. Here we will look at those cases and events that impinge on the rights of people to fully practice their faith. Faith on Trial is heard every Saturday at 2 p.m. and Sunday at 9 p.m. on the Iowa Catholic Radio Network and anytime on our podcast at : https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/.
Wednesday, December 29, 2021
Democrat Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal Pushes Bill to Legalize Abortions Up to Birth - LifeNews.com
Monday, December 27, 2021
Faith On Trial returning at new time for the New Year
Denise Harle, ADF |
defend pro-life legislation around the nation.
FOT airs on Iowa Catholic Radio every Thursday morning at
the new time of 9:30 CT on 1150 AM, and 94.5, Des Moines; and 90.9 FM in
Creston and 88.5 FM Adel. The program also streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com
where you can also listen to broadcasts you may have missed.
Join Gina and Deacon Mike every week for a discussion of
issues that affect people of faith.
Sunday, November 14, 2021
Inside the new Texas abortion law
This past week Gina, hosting Faith On Trial, interviewed Texas State Senator Brian Hughes, author and chief sponsor of the new Texas abortion law that is on its way to the U. S. Supreme Court. Some analysists think this may be the legal vehicle to end Roe v. Wade. Listen to the interview, along with guest co-host Mary Beth Beacom, which can be heard below:
Faith On Trial is heard every
Thursday on Iowa Catholic Radio.
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
This week (Oct.28) on Faith On Trial
![]() |
Michael Austin |
Faith On Trial is broadcast every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on
Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM & 94.5 FM; 90.9 FM Creston; 88.5 Adel, and
streaming on IowaCathlicRadio.com.
Monday, October 25, 2021
A Dishonest Judge And The Fight For Life
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The
Wanderer) – In 2013 the
investigative journalist David Daleiden, and his firm, Center for Medical
Progress, went undercover to expose the illegal activities of the abortion
industry. During the following 30 months, he documented the sale and purchase
of aborted baby parts. He was able to document that oftentimes these baby parts
were purchased with tax dollars for research purposes.
He also found that some organs
would fetch a higher price if the abortion was performed in a manner that might
cause a higher risk to the mother seeking the abortion. His report also
indicated that some of the fetal parts sold were from babies that were actually
born alive.
In 2015 he began to release
the undercover videos he had recorded. They confirmed evidence of illegal
partial-birth abortions, of infants born alive and vivisected for their organs,
as well as a spate of other financial and ethical violations relating to the
illegal trafficking of aborted baby parts.
Congress, in response, conducted an investigation that led many states to defund Planned Parenthood. But it also brought multiple suits against Daleiden, including a criminal claim brought by then California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
During the pendency of one of the suits, Daleiden’s defense team became aware
of several connections that the federal judge hearing the case, William Orrick,
had with the abortion industry. They immediately requested that the judge
recuse himself from the case, which the judge refused to do. When Daleiden
persisted, another judge was named to resolve the issue who then found that
Orrick was fine because the financial involvements were all in his wife’s name.
That case resulted in a $16
million verdict in favor of Planned Parenthood against Daleiden and the Center
for Medical Progress. But even before the case ended, Judge Orrick issued a gag
order preventing Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress from releasing
any of the videos to the public and suppressed them at trial. Some of those
videos showed how abortion clinic employees callously and flippantly negotiated
the price of baby hearts, lungs, livers, and brains.
Daleiden’s legal team appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in its petition noted Judge Orrick’s conflicts of interest. Recently, The Wall Street Journal included Orrick in a list of judges who broke judicial ethics, and perhaps the law, by hearing cases in which they might have a financial interest and who ruled in favor of their interests.
In the report it found that Orrick had founded a Planned Parenthood clinic that
fed pregnant patients into “fetus-harvesting” programs. And before becoming a
federal judge, he worked as the board secretary and legal counsel for an entity
called the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, which partnered with Planned
Parenthood. While Orrick was working there, it set up a PP facility on site.
So how will this new
information affect the case on appeal?
“This may turn out to be
determinative,” Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More
Society, which represents Daleiden, told my Iowa Catholic Radio audience.
“This is something [the judge]
should have told us, but didn’t,” Brejcha said, noting that the defense team
didn’t find out about the judge’s prejudices until the trial was underway. He
noted that they had tried to appeal the recusal matter after the second judge
ruled against them, but interlocutory appeals during trial are normally
disfavored. Now that the case is over, at least on the trial level, we have a
better appellate case.
“We believe we have a good
case on appeal on this issue and many others,” he said. “His [Orrick’s] view of
the law was so jaundiced — negative to our side; much of our evidence and
expert witnesses were barred.”
He added, “It was a one-sided
adjudication before Judge Orrick. The Planned Parenthood connection was evident
in his slanted instructions he gave to the jury.”
Noting that Daleiden was not
trying to make a profit on his reporting, but to shine a light on the abortion
industry’s actions, Brejcha said, “You never had a sense in his courtroom that
David was only trying to affect public policy.”
Federal law requires judges to
recuse themselves from cases in which they or a family member have a financial
interest, or the “ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small.”
This Orrick not only did not do, but resisted attempts to have him removed from
the case.
The Judicial Administrative
Office had responded that the original reports were “troubling” and that the
office is carefully reviewing the matter. “That may be something the Ninth
Circuit will look at; his ties to Planned Parenthood should have disqualified
him from hearing the case,” Brejcha said.
The appellate case is being
briefed now, he said, and repeated that he believes they have a good case for
reversal; if not, they are prepared to go to the Supreme Court.
Voris And Free Speech Rights
There’s another case that is
being appealed to the Second Circuit that you might want to follow. It involves
a traditional Catholic ministry that wants to hold a prayer rally in Baltimore
near where the bishops are meeting next month.
The case is St. Michael’s Media, Inc. v. The Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore and it involves a well-known Catholic media
personality, Michael Voris, whose daily “Vortex” episodes are distributed under
the program name “Church Militant.”
Voris, as you might know, has
been very critical of many of the bishops, especially over the sexual abuse
scandal and his claim that the bishops are collectively not taking a strong
enough stand against pro-abortion Catholic politicians who still present
themselves — unworthily, he suggests — for Communion.
As a result he rented an
outdoor city pavilion near the hotel where the bishops will be meeting in
November, as he has done several times in the past. The idea is not only to
pray for the bishops’ correction, but to be in a place where they can see the
gathered crowd. The title for this year’s activity is called: “Bishops: Enough
is Enough Prayer Rally.”
To make a long story short,
Voris and the entity that controls the pavilion entered into a rental
arrangement last summer to coincide with the bishops’ meeting. The city later
canceled the agreement, citing reports that Voris and crowd were violent and
had connections with the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Voris then brought suit in
federal court claiming that the cancellation violated St. Michael’s Media’s
First Amendment rights. A hearing was held before U.S. District Court Judge
Ellen Hollander, a Clinton appointee, who, in an 86-page Memorandum Opinion,
sided with Voris, finding no evidence to support the claims that the prayer
rally would become violent or a public safety concern (“The City cannot conjure
up hypothetical hecklers and then grant them veto power.”), and carefully took
apart the constitutional argument that the city had proposed that its action
would not violate anyone’s free speech rights (“The First Amendment to the
Constitution is at the heart of this case.”).
“Viewpoint discrimination,”
the judge found. But when Voris went to check on arrangements, the city —
ignoring the court order — shooed him away. As it turned out, the next morning
the city was filing an appeal with the court of appeals which may be calculated
to drag the legal proceedings out long enough for the bishops to conclude their
meeting while things are pending.
This will be a classic First
Amendment case. The court of appeals reaction will be interesting, especially
if it acts immediately so as to allow the prayer rally should it decide to
affirm Judge Hollander’s decision.
(You can reach Mike at:
DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On
Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Thursday, October 21, 2021
Court rules against Baltimore city -- Again
BALTIMORE (ChurchMilitant.com) - In yet another blow to the city of
Baltimore, a federal judge has once again ruled in Church Militant's favor.
Judge Ellen Hollander of the U.S. District Court of
Maryland issued an order Wednesday morning rejecting the city's
request to continue blocking St. Michael's plans for the "Bishops:
Enough Is Enough" prayer rally and protest.
"It comes to me as no surprise that the Court denied
this," said St. Michael's Attorney Marc Randazza in response to the court
decision. "It does come to me as a surprise that the City's attorneys are
representing SMG, too — yet they sought an injunction against their
own client."
SMG manages the MECU Pavilion on Baltimore's Inner Harbor,
where St. Michael's had originally scheduled the Nov. 16 rally. The city claims
SMG is an independent, private third party, even as city
attorneys serve as their legal representatives in this litigation and appear to
be acting against SMG's interests.
"Further, it seems that Judge Hollander is seeing how
unreasonable the City is behaving," Randazza continued. "When
St. Michael's offered terms that would fully protect and insulate SMG, why is
the City still interfering?"
City attorneys Renita
Collins and Hannah
Marie Sheehan had previously argued that if the judge did not grant
their request to block SMG and St. Michael's from continuing with their
contract, the city would suffer "irreparable harm," while St.
Michael's would encounter only minor inconveniences by being forced to
wait several weeks to continue plans for the rally.
The court disagreed.
Defendants could run out the clock by obtaining a stay.GabTweet
"[D]efendants could run out the clock by obtaining a
stay, with no decision by the Fourth Circuit in time for the rally,"
Hollander wrote, adding:
And, November 16, 2021, is less than one month away. A stay
pending a ruling by the Fourth Circuit — on some unknown date — could easily
mean that the rally could not go forward, even if plaintiff were to prevail. A
decision favorable to plaintiff could come too late to undo the stay.
She continued, "As described to the Court, the rally
is a complicated undertaking, with many moving pieces, participants and
costs."
"I cannot agree with defendants that the injury to St.
Michael's from a stay would be as minor as they suggest," the judge noted.
"To the contrary, it appears to me that the continuing burden to St.
Michael's from not yet having a signed contract with SMG is substantial and
increasing with each passing day."
Underscoring the point, she added, "There is a
pronounced risk that, if the signing of a contract is pushed to the last
minute, the ability of St. Michael's to host its rally will be seriously
harmed."
Wednesday's decision is the second time the court has ruled
in St. Michael's favor. Judge Hollander granted this apostolate's motion for
preliminary injunction on Oct. 12, issuing an 86-page memorandum finding the city had violated St.
Michael's First Amendment right to free speech.
A separate lawsuit filed by St. Michael's against the city
remains ongoing in the district court.
Conflict of Interest
Unresolved issues remain, including not only the precise
status of the Nov. 16 rally, but also the glaring conflict of interest
mentioned above involving the city's representation of SMG
while apparently working against SMG's interests, trying to prevent SMG from
continuing talks with St. Michael's.
"The Plaintiff has argued, ad nauseum, that this is a
conflict," Randazza noted in his Oct. 18 motion opposing the city.
Judge Hollander acknowledged in Wednesday's order she has
not formally decided the matter: "To be clear, the Court has
made no such ruling on this issue."
Baltimore City Solicitor James Shea
Other apparent conflicts also exist between City Solicitor
James Shea's close ties to the U.S. bishops and Shea's decision to
quash a rally critical of the bishops' corruption.
Not only are the U.S. bishops, the Maryland Catholic
Conference and the archdiocese of Baltimore clients of Venable law firm,
where Shea is chairman emeritus and a managing partner, thus technically making
them his clients, Shea used his public office as city solicitor to okay $2.3
million to the archdiocese and the bishops, via Catholic Charities.
His law firm also argued on behalf of Maryland's bishops against a 2019
bill proposed by lawmakers to make it easier for sex abuse victims to sue the
Church.
Shea donates to the archdiocese of Baltimore, and was
a bronze
sponsor of the 2017 Baltimore archdiocese gala. A partner at his law firm
also sits on the archdiocesan school board.
Faith On Trial, Iowa Catholic Radio|10/21/2021
![]() |
David Kallman |
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously upheld a
lower court’s injunction against Western Michigan University which allows
sixteen athletes who refused the Covid-19 vaccine for religious reasons to
continue to play intercollegiate sports. The Great Lakes Justice Center filed
the suit on behalf of the students claiming that the university had unlawfully
denied their request for a religious accommodation from the school’s vaccine
mandate to participate in sports.
Guest: David Kallman, Kaliman Legal Group & Senior
Counsel Great Lakes Justice Center
https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/22f79f79/religious-rights-vs-vaccination-102121
Faith On Trial is broadcast every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on
Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM & 94.5 FM; 90.9 FM Creston; 88.5 Adel, and
streaming on IowaCathlicRadio.com.
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
This week – October 21 – on Faith On Trial
![]() |
David Kallman |
This Thursday David A. Kallman, of the Kallman Legal Group
and chief counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center will be our guest. He’s a
graduate from the Thomas M. Cooley Law School where he was an adjunct professor
and has served as commissioner for the State Bar of Michigan. He has had a
successful litigation practice in many areas, including: homeschooling,
education law, family law, criminal law, administrative law as well as church/state
and constitutional law.
Monday, October 18, 2021
Has Mr. Biden Finally Poked The Bear?
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The
Wanderer) – I don’t think you need to know much about wild life to
know that one place you never want to be is between a mama bear and her cub.
Everyone knows that, except, apparently, Joe Biden.
During the past nine months we have suffered through an
amazing display of arrogance, lies, incompetence, and stupidity on behalf of
the president; but no matter how deep the crisis du jour, the border,
Afghanistan, vaccination mandates, out of control crime, Mr. Biden, even with
dwindling poll numbers, continues to say he is following the moderate policies
on which he claims to have campaigned.
And, for the most part, his obedient shills in the media and
the Progressive Left of his party have done their best to keep his flaws under
wraps so as not to unnecessarily stir up the average low information voter. But
this month he may have gone too far in trying to crack down on issues in which
the president normally doesn’t have any interest: school masks and history
curriculum.
And, for the mother bears among us, Mr. Biden has not only
gotten between mama and her cub, but he has poked mama with a stick. This he
will live to regret.
During the past two years as we have tried to deal with the
COVID pandemic, two issues have come to the surface, both courtesy of the
teachers’ unions. In an effort to keep schools closed as long as possible, the
unions have worked with the new administration to erect barriers to reopening
schools which have created hardships for parents who had depended on schools as
a much needed care facility for their children allowing them to return to work.
The hardship of the closings and the collateral damage that
was done to many children was regularly ignored by the politicians and
pooh-poohed by the press. Yet even when the schools opened, too many, without
any real medical logic, required students to wear masks in class, and some even
required masks during recess. That set off another round of collateral damage
that only the parents seemed to appreciate.
But school administrators and the unions soon came up with
the idea of online classrooms, claiming that it was just as good as in-person
instruction. That satisfied some, especially parents who were able to monitor
the kiddies’ classes. And what they found was oft-times not teaching but
indoctrination, especially in the area of race relations taught under the guise
of Critical Race Theory or the 1619 Project.
Both, of course, had been complained of, but again this too
was pooh-poohed and simply called teaching true history to include marginal
groups. Of course that was false and the parents who actually saw the lessons
delivered over the Internet were outraged. Throw in a student mask requirement
and a fire was lit under mama bear.
She was finally awakened to the dangers presented to her
cubs. Mama bear was none too happy. Mama bear then did something she normally
would not do; she attended a school board meeting and with other moms who were
pricked by school policies, once the bleeding started it did not stop.
Everything from pornographic library books to sexual fluidity to cultural
Marxism came pouring out and the fire that was already lit exploded.
Angry parents stormed their school board meetings with
complaints and arrogant local officials turned a deaf ear to them shutting off
their microphones, sometimes only for improperly wearing their masks, then
finally adjourning meetings or shutting off public comment periods in a manner
that seemed to challenge the mama bears.
Then the debate started: Who is primarily responsible for
the education of your kids, you or school officials? And, how much input should
parents be allowed?
School officials cried foul and using their political
connections raised an alarm with the administration. Claiming that these uppity
parents were a threat to the proper administration of the schools by “threats
or actual acts of violence” against school leaders and teachers and that they
have “incited chaos” during school board meetings, they have asked Mr. Biden
for help. Send in the FBI, they said, arguing these parents may be domestic
terrorists.
“As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against
public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous
actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate
crime,” they said in a letter to the administration, urging it to use such laws
as the Patriot Act and to employ the Postal Service to “filter threatening
letters,” all to curb these unruly parents.
Now instead of simply replying that the local police are
perfectly capable of handling any violent confrontation at a public meeting,
Mr. Biden did what the local school officials wanted. He turned the matter over
to the Justice Department where the obedient Merrick Garland, masquerading as a
competent arbiter of justice, ordered the FBI to crack down on parents who
protest against school officials over mask requirements and their
indoctrination of the curricula.
Garland, President Obama’s unsuccessful Supreme Court
nominee (glad he didn’t get that!), now Mr. Biden’s attorney general, said in
an announcement that he will “address the rise in criminal conduct directed
toward school personnel” by creating a task force of agents from the department’s
“criminal, civil rights, and national security divisions.”
Interestingly, it turns out that Mr. Garland and his family
actually have a financial “conflict of interest” when it comes to the issue of
Critical Race Theory. His daughter is married to a man who co-founded and runs
an education group that supplies Critical Race Theory materials to schools.
Got all of this, Mama Bear? You are going to be
investigated for criminal behavior, civil rights violations, and as a national
security threat if you dare raise your voice in protest. After all, you may be
a domestic terrorist because your interest in your children’s education can be
considered subversive in this the Era of Biden. You are warned, we will brook
no resistance to our enlightened decisions, after all, it takes a village and
Papa Joe and his minions are now the village.
Garland, in his announcement, claims that free-speech must
yield when they represent “efforts to intimidate individuals based on their
views.”
Sounds good, right? Except that Senators Sinema and Manchin
might not agree. But I do wonder why nobody ever thought of that when Maxine
Waters was telling her supporters how to intimidate Trump officials in public.
Maybe somebody will ask her.
In the meantime we’ll see how docile mama bear becomes when
she is threatened by the Biden Gestapo. My money is on mama; if our kids aren’t
worth fighting for, all just might be lost.
(You can reach Mike at:
DeaconMikeq.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On
Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Thursday, October 14, 2021
Rogue Catholic picked for Holy See post
By Catholic League President Bill Donohue
Several Catholic news outlets, including Catholic News
Service, have reported that Joseph Donnelly, President Biden’s nominee to be
the new U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, is a “pro-life” Democrat. They are
wrong. Worse, Donnelly is not only at odds with the Catholic Church on
abortion, he is pro-gay marriage, against religious liberty, and against school
choice.
When Donnelly served as a congressman from Indiana
(2007-2013), he was pro-life, but when he became a U.S. Senator (2013-2019), he
pivoted and joined the pro-abortion camp. Here’s the evidence.
While serving in the 111th Congress, 2009-2010, Donnelly
agreed with the positions of National Right to Life 83% of the time. When he
became a senator, his numbers dropped to 20% (2013-2014), 25% (2015-2016), and
28% (2017-2018).
NARAL, the pro-abortion giant, gave him a 0% score in 2016,
but he jumped to 84% in 2017 and 80% in 2018.
Donnelly also voted for the Affordable Care Act, or
Obamacare, in 2010, even though the bill required Catholic non-profits, such as
the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their
healthcare plans.
According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, he was
not initially in favor of the bill, but a phone call from the former president
of Notre Dame University, Father Theodore Hesburgh—done at the behest of House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi—convinced him to change his mind. It worked. Thereafter,
Donnelly never voted to repeal Obamacare.
Donnelly’s support for Obamacare pitted him against the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In 2012, Cardinal Timothy
Dolan, president of the USCCB, wrote that the Obama administration “has refused
to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic
schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that
requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing
drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.”
In 2017, when President Trump signed a bill that would deny
states the right to use Title X funds to enable abortion providers, Donnelly
voted against it.
In August 2015, Donnelly voted against funding Planned Parenthood,
but literally four months later he voted to fund it. In 2018, he once again
voted to have the taxpayers fund this abortion-clinic behemoth.
On gay marriage, Donnelly went through a similar
“evolution.” He was initially opposed to it, which is why the Human Rights
Campaign, a prominent gay organization, gave him a score of only 30% when he
was in the House. But when he got to the Senate, this homosexual entity
was so delighted with him that they gave him a score of 85%.
In 2013, the USCCB issued a statement opposing the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The bill, which was promoted as a way
to protect homosexuals from being discriminated against in the workplace, was
much more than that. “The bill does not distinguish,” the bishops said, “between
sexual inclination and sexual conduct.” The
bishops also criticized the bill for inadequate religious-liberty protections.
Donnelly voted for it.
A year later, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
“Hobby Lobby” ruling—it protected the religious rights of private business
owners—the Democrats sought to undo it. Bishop Timothy L. Doherty of the
Lafayette Diocese was none too happy with Donnelly. “Two weeks after they
pleaded with Congress to maintain our religious freedom, a majority of the Senate—including
our own Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana—voted to move forward with legislation to
take that freedom away.”
In 2015, Donnelly fought against an Indiana bill that would
safeguard religious liberty. The bill, which was modeled after the 1993
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, had already been adopted by thirty states.
More important, allegations that it would lead to discrimination against
homosexuals were unfounded. The evidence showed that these laws did not
engender a single act of discrimination against any American.
In Donnelly’s last term in the Senate, he voted against a
school choice measure that would have allowed families to use 529 account funds
to help pay for private and secondary education, including homeschooling. Thus
did he stand fast against the bishops in their support for school choice
initiatives that would assist Catholic schools.
Joe Donnelly started out as a Catholic official who was
mostly in line with the policy prescriptions of the Catholic Church. But he
ended his career in government as a foe of the Church’s moral teachings. Now he
wants to represent the U.S. at the Vatican.
There is a reason why Donnelly was co-chair of Catholics
for Biden. Like our “devout Catholic” president, he turned rogue.
This week’s Faith On Trial program
![]() |
Tom Brejcha |
Guest: Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel,
Thomas
More Society
Topic: The case of David Daleiden, the independent
journalist who exposed the Planned Parenthood aborted baby parts scandal and
has faced numerous lawsuits since; and the expanded conflicts of interest by
the federal district judge who handled one of the civil cases.
https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/34d42d18/the-case-of-david-daleiden-101421
Faith On Trial is broadcast every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on
Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM & 94.5 FM; 90.9 FM Creston; 88.5 Adel, and
streaming on IowaCathlicRadio.com.
Monday, October 11, 2021
Forced speech is "free" speech?
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The Wanderer) – Okay, how can it be
that forced speech is free speech, or even that suppressed speech is also free
speech? Well, that’s the brainchild of Judge Mary Briscoe, a Clinton appointee
to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is now being airmailed to the
United States Supreme Court.
The case
comes from Colorado and arises out of the state’s public accommodation law, the
same one that the state Civil Rights Commission used to try to punish
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips for refusing to bake a wedding cake
for a same-sex wedding. This one has similar issues except it involves wedding
promotional videos.
Lorie Smith is a web designer and graphic artist who works out of her own
studio, 303 Creative. Smith, the sole owner of 303 Creative, sincerely believes
that same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s law and as such violates her deeply
held Christian beliefs. As a result she will not offer her services to create
wedding websites to celebrate those weddings.
In
addition, she plans to publish a statement on her website explaining her religious
objections and her policy against “creating websites promoting and celebrating
ideas or messages that violate my beliefs.”
Colorado’s
law, however, prohibits discrimination in two areas of concern for Ms. Smith:
First is what is referred to as the Accommodation Clause: “It is a
discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person…to refuse, withhold from, or
deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services . . . or accommodations of a place
of public accommodation.”
And a
companion provision forbids any public notice “that indicates that the full and
equal enjoyment of goods, services…or accommodations…will be refused, withheld
or denied,” referred to as the Communication Clause.
Thus
before she went public with her plans, she filed a pre-enforcement action
against the state seeking to adjudicate her rights and to prevent the state
from enforcing either clause of the public accommodation law against her.
She lost
in the district court and on appeal the two Clinton appointed justices, Mary
Briscoe and Michael Murphy, ruled against her while the Bush-appointed Timothy
Tymkovich, serving as chief judge, penned a fiery dissent.
The
court’s majority decision starts off well enough for Smith clearly rejecting
the state’s arguments that she lacks standing or an injury; the court found
that she has a reasonable basis for concluding that if she moves ahead with her
plans she will be prosecuted.
It wrote
that while Smith’s goal may be to only discriminate against same-sex marriage,
it is actually discrimination against same-sex couples and would expose her to
liability under the state law, noting that the law, while providing some
exceptions, did not provide a religious exception.
Turning
to the question of Smith’s free speech rights, the court did recognize her
argument that the creation of wedding websites is pure speech and cited several
cases where wedding videos and invitations have been held as speech. And it
recognized that the First Amendment has protections against compelled speech
and that those protections apply to unsophisticated expressions as well as
those by professional publishers.
But then
it turned to a key question. In order to show that such a restriction is legal
and meets the constitutional test of strict scrutiny, the government must show
a compelling interest for the statute to survive constitutionally. “Here,
Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interest of
members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the
commercial marketplace.”
“The
Accommodation Clause is, however, narrowly tailored to Colorado’s interest in
ensuring ‘equal access to publicly available goods and services.’ When
regulating commercial entities, like Appellants, public accommodations laws
help ensure a free and open economy. Thus, although the commercial nature of
Appellants’ business does not diminish their speech interest, it does provide
Colorado with a state interest absent when regulating noncommercial activity .
. . recognizing the changing nature of the American economy and of the
importance, both to the individual and to society, of removing the barriers to
economic advancement and political and social integration that have
historically plagued certain disadvantaged groups.”
The court
then compared Smith’s services to a monopoly in upholding the Accommodation
Clause restrictions in the Colorado law:
“Excepting
Appellants from the Accommodation Clause would necessarily relegate LGBT
consumers to an inferior market because Appellants’ unique services are, by
definition, unavailable elsewhere…our analysis emphasizes the custom and unique
nature of Appellants’ services….LGBT consumers may be able to obtain
wedding-website design services from other businesses; yet, LGBT consumers will
never be able to obtain wedding-related services of the same quality and nature
as those that Appellants offer. Thus, there are no less intrusive means of
providing equal access to those types of services.”
Then
turning to the Communication Clause the court held that the First Amendment
does not protect the statement Smith wants to place on her website explaining
her belief in traditional marriage and the reasons why she would refuse work
for same-sex weddings.
The court
wrote, “Having concluded that the First Amendment does not protect Appellants’
proposed denial of services, we also conclude that the First Amendment does not
protect the Proposed Statement. Yet, the Proposed Statement also expresses an
intent to deny service based on sexual orientation — an activity that the
Accommodation Clause forbids and that the First Amendment does not protect.
Thus, the Proposed Statement itself is also not protected and Appellants’
challenge to the Communication Clause fails.”
The
dissent pounced: “The majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that
the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her
conscience. In doing so, the majority concludes not only that Colorado has a
compelling interest in forcing Ms. Smith to speak a government-approved message
against her religious beliefs, but also that its public-accommodation law is
the least restrictive means of accomplishing this goal. No case has ever gone
so far. . . .
“Indeed,
this case represents another chapter in the growing disconnect between the
Constitution’s endorsement of pluralism of belief on the one hand and
anti-discrimination laws’ restrictions of religious-based speech in the
marketplace.
“It seems
we have moved from ‘live and let live’ to ‘you can’t say that.’ While everyone
supports robust and vigorously enforced anti-discrimination laws, those laws
need not and should not force a citizen to make a Hobson’s choice over matters
of conscience. . . . But what Colorado cannot do is turn the tables on Ms.
Smith and single out her speech and religious beliefs for discriminatory
treatment under the aegis of anti-discrimination laws.
“The
First Amendment prohibits states from ‘abridging the freedom of speech’ or the
‘free exercise’ of religion. And the freedom to speak necessarily guarantees
the right to remain silent. So the majority ushers forth a brave new world when
it acknowledges that [the state law] compels both speech and silence — yet
finds this intrusion constitutionally permissible. [It] forces Ms. Smith to
violate her faith on pain of sanction both by prohibiting religious-based
business practices and by penalizing her if she does speak out on these matters
in ways Colorado finds ‘unwelcome’ or ‘undesirable’.”
The
appellate court made “a very disturbing decision that what Lorie does is custom
art and is speech that should be given the highest protection under our
Constitution and yet the Tenth Circuit held that Colorado can force her to
create messages that violate her beliefs,” ADF senior counsel Kate Anderson
told my radio audience.
“What
they are trying to force her to do is to violate her religious beliefs by
promoting a view of marriage that is not in accord with her beliefs then
telling her she cannot promote her view of marriage on her own website,” she
added.
Now, on
to the Supreme Court.
(You can
reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT
on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Tuesday, October 5, 2021
Louisiana Hospital Fines Employees For Having Unvaccinated Spouses
Monday, October 4, 2021
And It Doesn’t Ever Let Up
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The
Wanderer) – There is an old saying, “If at first you do not succeed,
try, try again.” That now seems to be the mantra for the crazy anti-religious
zealots who populate blue state administrative agencies.
About a year ago a Federal District Court in New York
granted a request for a preliminary injunction against the state commissioner
for the Office of Children and Families (OCFS) in favor of a Christian adoption
agency, New Hope Family Services.
New Hope’s lawsuit was provoked by a rule promulgated by
OCFS which prohibited “discrimination and harassment against applicants for
adoption services on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status,
religion, or disability.” Ultimately, OCFS sought to terminate New Hope’s
authority to serve as an adoption agency because its religious beliefs would
not allow it to place children in the homes of same-sex, unmarried, or
transgendered couples.
OCFS appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals which sided with New Hope, finding that “the adoption provider’s
arguments demonstrate that the government’s regulation may not have been
neutral and may instead have been ‘informed by hostility toward certain
religious beliefs’.”
Good for them, you might say. But hold on, the unreligious
bureaucrats who run the administrative agencies in New York have tried another
bite at the apple. Now the state Division of Human Rights is threatening New
Hope for the same thing, apparently believing that what might be unlawful for
OCFS is perfectly fine if it comes from a different agency. On behalf of New
Hope, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a new legal challenge to
the current threats, so New Hope is back rehashing the same legal ground as
before, only with a different arm of the state than the last go-around.
Not unexpectedly, New Hope’s new lawsuit sound a lot like
the pleadings that went to the Second Circuit before.
But there is something new this time. Last June, the U.S.
Supreme Court, in a case eerily similar to New Hope’s, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, ruled unanimously that the city
could not discriminate against a faith-based foster care and adoption agency.
You have to wonder if the New York power system is so
anti-religion, or just so overly stupid, to try to bully New Hope again. It
just goes to demonstrate how the new “progressive” administrative agencies can
use their powers in an attempt to just inflict damage on those with whom they
disagree.
But the anti-religion sentiment is not limited to New York.
The state of Vermont is doing the same thing.
Under state law, if a child lives in an area which is not
served by a high school, the school district is to pay tuition to a school of
the parents’ choice — even if that school is out of state. One such school
district decided it would not pay the tuition for students wishing to attend a
religious school.
Well, maybe. As it turned out the schools under
consideration were to be rated according to how religious they were. The more
so, the less likely they would be approved; thus a school religious in name
only would be approved but one that taught religious principles would not.
Confusing? Sure was, but the one thing easy to understand was that the state
was evaluating these schools by measuring their religiousness.
So there was another lawsuit and it also found its way to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which, citing numerous Supreme Court cases,
ruled against the school district. There is now a preliminary injunction
preventing the state to consider the religiousness of the schools.
So, the good guys win again? Well, not so fast. The key to
the state is that the injunction against it is “preliminary” and if only the
state waits until it expires they can try it all over again. Or so they think.
The ADF also represents the plaintiffs here and it has already filed another
suit to protect what we thought had already been protected.
There’s a time when you should know enough to throw in the
towel and give up, but religious bigots don’t use common sense, as a result
everything from the first case will need to be replayed simply to get the same
result.
Where do these guys come from?
Of course they’re all over the place. Remember Jack
Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. He was cited by the state for
violating its public accommodations laws for refusing to bake a wedding cake
for a same-sex couple. He was dragged through the state courts, losing all the
way. That is until the Supreme Court got ahold of the case and vindicated
Phillips’ religious conscience rights by refusing to bake the cake.
He’s now going through the entire process again. This time
the issue is not a wedding cake but a gender transition cake, a custom pink and
blue cake to reflect the client’s transition from one sex to another. Now,
knowing that Mr. Phillips will fight this to the bitter end again, and he’s got
a very good chance of prevailing on the merits again, why would someone pick a
fight with him again?
It’s simple, and ADF attorney Jake Warner summed it up
best:
“In this case, an activist attorney demanded that Jack
Phillips create custom cakes in order to test Jack and to ‘correct the errors’
of his thinking, and the attorney even threatened to sue Jack again if the case
is dismissed for any reason. This case and others like it represent a
disturbing trend: Activists are weaponizing the legal system to ruin those who
simply disagree with them. Someone you disagree with might be the one targeted
today, but when political winds shift, it could just as easily be you or anyone
else tomorrow.”
A similar issue is at play in Alaska, which I pointed out
before. In Anchorage, the Downtown Hope Center is a shelter for battered and
abused women who need a safe place. In 2018 an inebriated and injured man
appeared for shelter and the Hope Center referred him to a nearby hospital and
even paid for his cab fare there. The man later filed a complaint with the
city’s equal rights commission for not allowing him to sleep with homeless
women, many of whom had been abused.
The city decided to pursue the matter and ADF again filed
suit to protect the Hope Center. After a temporary order against the city, the
city agreed to drop the suit and the parties agreed to make the temporary order
permanent.
Later the city ordinance under question was amended in an
attempt to find a new way to punish the Hope Center. Now they’re all back in
court re-litigating the same issue: Should a man be able to take refuge in a
battered woman’s shelter?
And remember the Little Sisters of the Poor? How many times
were they dragged into court only to have the Supreme Court vindicate them
against the bigots who tried to destroy them?
You can’t make this stuff up. Pray! It may be the only
answer to such human hate and stupidity.
(You
can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday on Faith
On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Friday, October 1, 2021
Madness In The Schools
By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president:
The new school year is off to a wild start. Perversion, anti-Americanism, and racism are being taught in some schools, and it's happening at all levels, from K-graduate school. Those pushing this sick agenda are imbued with hate: their animus is clearly directed at Western civilization, the very home to liberty and equality they have targeted for assault.
In one Minnesota school district, a sex education class asks heterosexual students to engage in role playing, pretending they are homosexual; they are also asked to consider whether they should have sex with each other. Other students in the Richfield School District are asked to pretend that they belong to the opposite sex, and to consider whether they should have sex with a woman. In a gesture toward inclusivity, they are taught about anal sex. This begins in kindergarten.
In a more sane time, the educators would be arrested for child abuse.
Fairfax High School in Virginia was the site of a recent school board blowup. One of the parents, Stacy Langton, complained that the school library housed porn books that discussed man-boy sex; they also featured illustrations of oral sex, masturbation and "violent nudity."
She also read aloud obscene words from the books about the male sex organ and fellatio, only to be interrupted by a female school board member who was worried—now she was worried!—that children in the room might hear what was being said. Langton was not deterred and kept on talking.
In a more sane time, the school would be sued for corrupting the morals of minors.
Alexander Hamilton High School in Los Angeles started the year with a deranged teacher who took down the American flag from the classroom. Inserted in its place were a Palestinian flag, the transgender flag, a Black Lives Matter flag and "the modern PRIDE flag." Hanging from the wall were posters saying, "F*** THE POLICE" and "F*** AMERIKKKA. THIS IS NATIVE LAND."
In a more sane time, the teacher would have been terminated.
The public school system in Evanston, Illinois started the academic year with a pending lawsuit against it. The officials who run it are teaching children about the horrors of being a white person. That's just for starters. They are teaching third, fourth, and fifth graders that "it is important to disrupt the Western nuclear family dynamics as the best/proper way to have a family." They explicitly denounce as "normal" the family that consists of "mom, dad, son, daughter, and pet."
So what family form should we emulate? Dysfunctional ones? Of course, in the racist mindset of these anti-Western civilization maniacs, there is no such things as "dysfunctional" families—they are simply "alternative families."
In a more sane society, the school system would be branded as racist and the administrators would be quarantined.
It's not just in the elementary and secondary schools where insanity reigns. Columbia University has a new program where students are implored to "critically engage with whiteness." They specifically target white students who claim to be "liberal, progressive, and a champion of social justice." Looks like conservative students are written off as hopeless, and are therefore exempt from these thought control exercises.
American University and Western Washington University have decided to follow the lead of schools like Stanford University by introducing segregated housing for black students. "Black Affinity Housing" is what these dorms are being called. George Wallace must be smiling from his grave. And a professor from Virginia Tech recently told students that she was working "on a daily basis to be antiracist and confront the innate racism" within herself, which, she said, was the "reality and history of white people."
In a more sane society, the segregationists and the confessed white racist would be arrested for violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Pope Benedict XVI warned us many times about the attacks on our Judeo-Christian heritage. His only mistake was in underestimating the extent to which educational elites have literally gone off the deep end.
In a more sane society, the elites would be straightjacketed and taken to the nearest asylum. If they were lucky, that is.
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Faith On Trial, Thursday September 30, 2021
Deacon Mike and Gina Noll visit with Kate Anderson, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending
Freedom, on the case of 303 Creative LLC and Lorie Smith v. Elenis and how the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop might impact it.Faith On Trial airs every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa
Catholic Radio which can be heard locally on 1150 AM & 94.5 FM Des Moines;
90.0 FM Creston, and 88.5 FM Adel, and streams live on IowaCatholicRadio.com.
Wyoming MassResistance Activists Stop Public Library’s “Transgender Magic Show for Kids” Event Before It Starts | The Stream
Judge Who Made David Daleiden Pay Millions for Exposing Planned Parenthood Caught Breaking the Law - LifeNews.com
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
Thursday (9-30) on Faith On Trial: How far can the government go to force or suppress speech?
Kate Anderson
This week’s guest: Kate Anderson senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, where she is the director of the Center for Parental Rights. Since joining ADF in 2015, Anderson has focused on protecting the conscience rights of individuals being unjustly compelled to forfeit their beliefs under threat of government retaliation, heavy fines, or other punishment. We will discuss the case 303 Creative v. Elenis which has just been appealed to the Supreme Court to decide if the government can force a web designer to create messages that violate her core beliefs.
See post below: Friday September 24, 303 Creative v. Elenis
Join Kate, Deacon Mike and Gina this Thursday at 10 a.m. CT
on Iowa Catholic Radio: Des Moines 1150 AM; 94.5 FM; FM 88.5 Adel or 90.9
Creston, or streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com.
Mr. Biden’s Magic Elixir
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The
Wanderer) – If you are a Catholic student at the University of
Massachusetts and expect a conscience exemption to the COVID vaccine mandate,
think again. A university official has ruled that no Catholic student is
eligible for the exemption.
It seems that the vice chancellor of student affairs, Shawn
DeVeau, who has a long history in school administration, but no known
background in theology, made the ruling after a study of the Church’s
teachings. He explained his methodology thusly:
“When reviewing students’ appeals, I engage in a holistic
process: I review the student’s request, research the faith tradition on which
they are basing their request, and respond to the students based on my
research. . . . My process for reviewing appeals is to engage in an interactive
process to discuss the student’s specific circumstances and determine if the
exemption is based on a sincerely held religious belief” (emphasis mine).
In denying the student appeals, he quoted two statements
from the USCCB stating that the vaccines can be morally justified. Apparently
he forgot to check the statement of Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City,
Kans., and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities, whom we
quoted recently as stating that while it is prudent for people to get
vaccinated, some “could reasonably choose” to reject the abortion-tainted
vaccination to give “prophetic witness” against abortion; and he condemned
those who would require vaccination as a predicate for holding or keeping their
jobs.
“A society that fails to respect the rights of conscience
lacks a key element of the common good,” the archbishop wrote. “The most
charitable and just posture is to seek to accommodate the consciences of all
persons.”
Of course Mr. DeVeau might have been too busy with his
duties to have seen that. He also missed the legal point: conscience objections
are not limited to a specific religious belief but a sincerely held belief
irrespective of the religious status — or even non-status — of the individual.
But have no fear if you are a mandate proponent. The
administration will be monitoring whether those claiming to be exempt from Mr.
Biden’s mandate are “not abusing” the system.
Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said that the
administration would be keeping tabs on those businesses and workers claiming
exemptions. He told CNN’s State of the Union program that “we’ve got to be
vigilant there and make sure that people are using them in the spirit that
they’re intended and not abusing them or asking for exemptions when they don’t
apply. That’s an area that we continue to monitor in the days and weeks ahead.”
But none of this allows for any discussion of the merits of
the mandate that doesn’t seem to fit in with the “one-size-fits-all” policy of
the administration’s White House medical regime which, to date, has not even
recognized the concept of natural immunity to the virus, nor with the spade of
unexpected problems with the vaccine. And that dynamic is playing out in places
where it has worked to the disadvantage of far too many citizens.
For example, in Lowville, N.Y., the Lewis County Health
System says that since some nurses are refusing to take the vaccine, the
hospital will have to close its maternity ward. In New York all healthcare
workers are required to get the vaccine. According to the hospital
administrator, 165 of the 464 hospital employees have refused to get it and 30
have resigned over the mandate.
In Texas, the CEO of the Brownfield Regional Medical Center
said that 20 to 25 percent of his staff will leave due to Mr. Biden’s mandate
that stipulates that healthcare workers in facilities that receive Medicaid or
Medicare funds will have to get the vaccine. Losing those workers, he said,
would likely cause his hospital to shut down.
Researchers and others are reporting on many unexpected
negative implications with the vaccine. One, among many, involves the negative
impact on breastfeeding mothers and their children.
According to LifeSiteNews, the government’s Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports that a six-week-old baby died from blood
clots and “severe inflammation of [his] arteries” after the child’s
breastfeeding mother received Pfizer’s vaccine.
“The mother had received her first dose on June 4, and her
baby started experiencing a high fever shortly thereafter [and]…passed away on
July 17.” According to the VAERS report, the mother wondered if “the spike
protein could have gone through the breast milk and caused an inflammatory
response in [her] child,” as the six-week-old was healthy prior to the
injection.
But, worry not, your concerns over the vaccine can be
ameliorated if you can do just one thing: Cross our southern border. True! Just
look at this exchange between Fox News’ Peter Doocy and the White House’s chief
propaganda minister, Jen Psaki:
Doocy: “Why is it that you’re trying to require anybody
with a job or anybody who goes to school to get the COVID-19 vaccine, but
you’re not requiring that of migrants that continue walking across the southern
border into the country?”
Propaganda Minister Psaki: “Well, look, our objective is to
get as many people vaccinated across the country as humanly possible. And so
the [mandate is] an effort to empower businesses, to give businesses the tools
to protect their workforces. That’s exactly what we did. But certainly we want
everybody to get vaccinated.”
Doocy: “But it’s a requirement for people at a business
with more than 100 people, but it’s not a requirement for migrants at the
southern border.”
Propaganda Minister Psaki: “That’s correct.”
With that huge loophole in the system, why is it so
important to risk side-effects and the loss of jobs and even risk the closing
of hospitals and other businesses to try to vaccinate nearly everybody else?
Yet the administration and its allies apparently will try to do everything to
eliminate conscience and medical objections to the vaccine including attempts
to ostracize the unvaxed.
Recently, former Obama Secretary for Health and Human
Services Kathleen Sebelius was part of the pile-on, suggesting that if you are
unvaccinated you should not be able to work, roam freely, or have access to children.
She, like several other prominent pro-mandate observers, hinted that the
unvaccinated are responsible for COVID deaths.
And some courts are even jumping into the fray. In
Illinois, a judge during a routine child support hearing stripped a mother of
all parenting time when she said she had not been vaccinated. The judge later
withdrew the order but the father’s attorney is asking that it be reimposed.
In an Ohio court, getting the jab was a requirement for
probation. In Georgia some judges are making the jab a condition of reduced
sentencing, in Louisiana it will reduce community service time.
In an adjacent matter, the Federation of State Medical
Boards said that physicians who spread COVID vaccine misinformation risk
disciplinary action by state medical boards, including loss of their medical
licenses. The American Board of Emergency Medicine made a similar announcement.
Neither organization defined “misinformation,” but you can be sure it means
disagreeing with Mr. Biden.
And disagreeing with Mr. Biden’s ideas about his fix-all
elixir is apparently the touchstone for all that may follow. He says it’s not
about freedom but public health and safety. Always the argument, it’s about
safety. But, of course, if it was, they’d close the southern border, study the
effects of natural immunity and those of possible therapeutics. Since they’re
not doing that this must be about something else.
Go figure!
As Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up
essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety.”
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him
every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)