HARRIS’ DISMAL POLLING WITH CATHOLICS MAY SINK HER

Experts warn that Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ chances of winning the White House next month may be undermined by her projected poor performance among Catholic voters. “Kamala’s definitely been impacted negatively by a lack of support from Catholic voters,” said Catholic political strategist Ryan Girdusky. “They are the largest single church in America, the Catholic vote will help decide the presidency.” READ

FSSP gets apostolic visitation from the Vatican

The FSSP is an international community of priests which celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass. Pope Francis’ reign has been marked by a series of disciplinary actions against conservative clergy, and by restrictions of the Latin Mass.

 (LifeSiteNews) — The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) has been informed that it will receive an apostolic visitation from the Vatican.

The FSSP is an international community of priests, under the authority of the Holy See, which celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass in churches around the world.

Pope Francis’ reign has been marked by a series of disciplinary actions against traditional and conservative clergy, and by introducing significant restrictions of the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.

In November 2023 Bishop Joseph Strickland was personally removed from his diocese by Pope Francis following an apostolic visitation. Shortly afterwards Strickland revealed that one of the reasons for his removal was his refusal to cancel the Latin Mass in the diocese of Tyler, Texas.

In a communique published earlier this week the FSSP announced the news of their visitation, adding that they have been informed by Vatican authorities that “this visit does not originate in any problems of the Fraternity.”

The visitation will be conducted by the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which has been in charge of the FSSP and similar priestly institutes for the past three years.

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) has recently been informed by the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life of the opening of an apostolic visitation of the Fraternity. As the Prefect of this Dicastery himself made clear to the Superior General and his assistants during a meeting in Rome, this visit does not originate in any problems of the Fraternity, but is intended to enable the Dicastery to know who we are, how we are doing and how we live, so as to provide us with any help we may need.

The last ordinary apostolic visit of the Fraternity was undertaken in 2014 by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. As the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has been in charge of the FSSP and other former Eccelsia Dei institutes for the past three years, it now the competency of this Dicastery to look after the FSSP.

Did Pope Francis Say ALL Religions are EQUAL?

Doctors Say Kamala Harris is Wrong: Pro-Life Laws Didn’t Kill Women, Abortions Did

 "A young mother from Georgia should be alive today, raising her son and pursuing her dream of attending nursing school. This is exactly what we feared when Roe v. Wade was struck down. In more than 20 states, Trump Abortion Bans prevent doctors from providing basic medical care,” the vice president claimed, blaming former President Donald Trump for the spate of pro-life laws that have sprung up across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

She continued, “Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying.” Harris concluded, “We must pass a law to restore reproductive freedom. When I am President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law. Lives depend on it.”

Mainstream media outlets quickly repeated Harris’s narrative. MSNBC declared, “Georgia’s ‘pro-life’ abortion ban literally killed a woman — and she won’t be the last,” adding, “If the Christian right had not had its way at the Supreme Court, Amber Nicole Thurman would be alive today. She would have been able to get the medical care she needed in 2022.” The news outlet continued, “Instead, the 28-year-old died a completely avoidable death in a Georgia hospital because the doctors treating her were terrified of committing a felony under the state’s abortion ban.”

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Citing a report by the left-wing Pro Publica journal, MSNBC explained that Thurman scheduled an appointment at an out-of-state abortion facility in order to circumvent Georgia’s pro-life laws and, when she missed the appointment, took abortion pills to end the lives of the twins she was carrying. She developed sepsis as a result, even though MSNBC noted that such cases “are exceedingly rare.” Candi Miller also took abortion pills and, incorrectly believing that Georgia’s pro-life protections outlawed treatment of the sepsis she developed, did not seek medical care.

In response to Harris’s claims, Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG), called out the vice president’s pro-abortion assertions. “I agree with the Vice President that their deaths were 100% preventable,” Francis began, referring to Thurman and Miller. She continued, “However, their deaths were not the result of Georgia’s abortion law. No pro-life law in the country prevents OB/GYNs like me from intervening when a woman is facing a potentially life-threatening complication of her pregnancy. They do not have to be knocking on death’s door before we can intervene.” Francis added, “Madam Vice President: Stop lying to my patients! Your lies are harming women and they’re harming physicians!”

On Thursday, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Harris repeated her pro-abortion claims, saying that pro-life laws “criminalize health care providers.” Responding to a question about exceptions to save the life of a mother, Harris asked, “Is she on death’s door before you actually decide to give her help? … Like, literally a doctor or a nurse has to say, ‘She might die any minute, better give her now [sic] care, because otherwise I might go to prison, for life in some cases.’”

Francis rebutted, “Dangerous lies about abortion drugs and state abortion laws are killing women.” She continued, “There’s not a single state law in this country that prosecutes women who have had abortions, and there’s not a single state law in the entire country that prevents doctors like me from intervening to manage complications, especially complications that we see routinely after women take abortion drugs.” Francis noted, “Candi and Amber … both suffered severe complications from abortion drugs that potentially led to their death. It’s important for women to understand that these drugs carry inherent risks and the way they’re being dispensed online now, because of the FDA’s reckless actions in removing medical supervision, is especially dangerous.” The pro-life OB/GYN reiterated, “It’s time for these lies to stop. Stop putting a political agenda ahead of women’s health!”

Another OB/GYN, Dr. Greg Marchand, also called out Harris for lying. “I’m an OBGYN,” he said. “There are no states where a woman must be on death’s door. In all 50 states an OBGYN can terminate a pregnancy whenever THEY deem a woman’s health is in danger. This is just a lie.”

“No law protecting unborn children in this country prevents physicians from taking action to save the life of that child’s mother,” said Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, in comments to The Washington Stand. “Kamala Harris is right to grieve the loss of the lives of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, but in spreading the lie that pro-life laws caused their death, Kamala Harris is ensuring that more women will die.” She went on to note that Harris “is ensuring that physicians are confused as to whether or not they can treat a woman who is septic after an abortion and needs a D&C — after all, the Vice President of the United States has said that the law prevents them from caring for those women.”

“She is ensuring that moms who are in need of treatment are wondering whether or not they can get it. And she is lying. Kamala Harris has to stop. Her lies are hurting mothers who are in pain and desperately need actual health care so that they can live,” Szoch continued. “These women are not political pawns to be used to win an election or score points in a debate — their lives matter, and Kamala Harris has to stop endangering them. Pro-lifers must continue to educate those around us that no law protecting an unborn child endangers or does not allow care for that child’s mother.”

This week on Faith On Trial

Podcast up now: https://faith-on-trial.simplecast.com/ 

America First Legal Sues Colorado School District for Illegally Retaliating Against School Leader After He Expressed His Views on Race During a Mandatory Diversity Training Session

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, America First Legal (AFL) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Cherry Creek School District and its senior administrative officials for violating the First Amendment by retaliating against an employee by eliminating his position after he expressed his personal views on race during a mandatory diversity training session. 

AFL’s client is a seasoned educator who served as the Dean of Students at Campus Middle School in Cherry Creek School District in Colorado from 2021 to 2024. This year, the school district pressured him to embrace race-based ideologies and punished him when he refused to comply. 

In January, AFL’s client participated in a district-mandated training program on race and equity run by Pacific Educational Group (PEG) called “Courageous Conversations.” 

AFL previously released documents obtained through separate litigation in Pennsylvania in 2022 that showed that “Courageous Conversations” sought to implement critical race theory to transform school leadership and force white staff members to recognize the problem of their “whiteness.” These documents included slides used in “Courageous Conversations” training that centered around race-based concepts from “What is Whiteness?” to “What does it mean to be white?” and “Understanding whiteness in a white context.” 

At the beginning of the “Courageous Conversations” training that AFL’s client attended this year, program facilitators assured participants that all comments would remain confidential and would not impact employment status. During a training breakout session, participants were asked to discuss questions such as “What does it mean to be white?” and “How do you identify?” AFL’s client responded by stating he identifies as an American and believes the United States is the greatest country in the world. 

Immediately following the training, the district’s Equity Director reported AFL’s client’s comments to the school’s principal as having “racist undertones.” 

Despite assurances from the school’s principal that his statements would not result in adverse employment actions, the district informed AFL’s client in March that his position was being eliminated. 

The district cited “budgetary reasons” for eliminating his position—a justification contradictory to its records, which show an increase in staffing allocations for the 2024-2025 school year. Further, when AFL’s client spoke to district officials and expressed that he did not believe their justification for eliminating his position, they placed him on administrative leave for “unprofessional conduct.” 

AFL is committed to protecting the right of every American to speak freely, without fear of retaliation, and combating the divisive, race-based indoctrination in our nation’s education systems. 

Statement from Ian Prior, America First Legal Senior Advisor: 

“As alleged in the complaint, Cherry Creek School District blatantly violated the First Amendment rights of our client when they terminated him because his pride in the United States of America did not align with the district’s political ideology that America is a systemically racist nation. Like other school districts across the country, Cherry Creek has replaced the Bill of Rights with the ‘DEI Manifesto,’ and teachers, students, and parents are being silenced for standing up for the values that make America great. We are proud to stand up for all teachers across America who are being unfairly persecuted for daring to challenge a government-sponsored orthodoxy that teaches hatred of America and seeks to marginalize people based on their viewpoints and the color of their skin, ” said Ian Prior. 

The parties named in this lawsuit are the Cherry Creek School District, the Cherry Creek School District Board of Education, President of Cherry Creek School District Board of Education Angela Garland, Superintendent of Cherry Creek School District Christopher Smith, Director of Middle Schools for Cherry Creek School District Angie Zehner, Director of Human Resources for Cherry Creek School District Courtney Smith, Principal of Campus Middle School Lissa Staal, and Executive Director of Equity, Culture, and Community Engagement for Cherry Creek School District Ronald Garcia y Ortiz. 

Read the complaint here. 

Follow us on social media for the latest updates on America First Legal’s fight to protect your constitutional rights!

Federal Judge Blocks NY Attorney General Letitia James from Censoring Pregnancy Help Ministries

Court Rules Two New York Pregnancy Help Organizations are Free to Promote Abortion Pill Reversal

  

Buffalo, New York – On September 24, 2024, a federal judge ruled that two New York pregnancy help organizations are free to continue sharing information about Abortion Pill Reversal and issued a preliminary injunction blocking New York Attorney General Letitia James from silencing the constitutionally protected speech of these pro-life ministries while their lawsuit moves forward.

 

In August 2024, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against Attorney General James on behalf of Summit Life Outreach Center and The Evergreen Association, outlining how James’ threats, prosecution, and intimidation of New York’s pregnancy help organizations violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit argued that James’ targeting of pregnancy help organizations with threats and prosecution unconstitutionally chills their speech about the safety and efficacy of Abortion Pill Reversal.

The preliminary injunction order was agreed to by the attorney general’s office based on the district court’s ruling in a related case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James. The court order protects Summit and Evergreen in their sharing of information about Abortion Pill Reversal—a protocol that can reverse the effects of the first abortion pill if a woman changes her mind. In a separate but related New York state court case, Thomas More Society is representing Heartbeat International and a collective of New York pro-life pregnancy help organizations that have been sued by James for promoting Abortion Pill Reversal.

Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation, stated: “This injunction marks a critical victory for New York’s pregnancy help organizations and another blow to Letitia James’ unconstitutional witch-hunt against pro-life ministries. These small nonprofits, which exist to compassionately serve women and offer them alternatives to abortion, deserve to have their speech elevated—not chilled. This court order makes clear Ms. James cannot censor pro-life speech purely because she dislikes it. We are hopeful that this injunction will buttress our case in New York state court, where we proudly continue to defend the host of pregnancy help organizations unjustly targeted and sued by Ms. James as part of her unconstitutional campaign to silence pro-life ministries. These pro-life ministries have a constitutional right to share information about Abortion Pill Reversal, and their message is saving thousands of lives.”

Barbara Bidak, Executive Director of Summit Life Outreach Center & Thomas More Society client, reacted: “Our staff and volunteers at Summit Life Outreach Center work tirelessly to provide life-affirming options for women in need. We're incredibly pleased a federal judge has now made clear that Attorney General Letitia James’ legal attacks on our state's pro-life ministries unconstitutionally chills our First Amendment right to share the lifesaving message of Abortion Pill Reversal—which gives pregnant moms in the middle of a chemical abortion a second chance to choose life. We are grateful to Thomas More Society for stepping in to defend our rights and pressing this case in federal court.”

Read the Order Staying Consolidated Case with Preliminary Injunction, issued September 24, 2024, in Summit Life Outreach Center, et al. v. Letitia James, by U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, here.

 

Read background on Summit Life Outreach Center, et al. v. Letitia James on the Thomas More Society case page, here.

 

About Thomas More Society

Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and freedom. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices across the country, Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, please visit thomasm

Between the Rock and No Place | The Rock Church

School Forces Transgender Book on Kids

Punished for serving everyone, regardless of faith: Nuns battle NY’s abo...

Leading tool company nixes ‘woke’ policies

Tool giant Stanley Black and Decker has become the latest American company to end its “woke” policies. Conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck posted the news to his X account, stating that the company changed course after he notified them that he was planning on exposing their progressive policies. READ

Religious Freedom Victory for Iowa Church

MARION, IA – An Iowa administrative law judge recently rejected a “frivolous” petition from a group of Iowa taxpayers to revoke the tax-exempt status on two properties owned by Calvary Chapel Iowa, which included a home provided to the church’s pastor. Liberty Counsel, in partnership with the Kirkwood Institute, defended Calvary Chapel Iowa securing the judge’s dismissal of the petition that keeps the church’s tax exemptions in place. The judge said Iowa’s recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protected the church from having to prove its tax exemption entitlements to individuals not involved in enforcing state tax law.

In October 2023, the church’s pastor spoke out publicly against the sexualization of children, held a book reading of “Jesus and My Gender” in response to drag queen story time, and endorsed school board candidates on his personal social media. Then in November, several Iowa taxpayers petitioned against the church’s tax exemptions. One of the petitioners, Dustin Brooks, of Marion, serves on a local diversity and equity committee and is committee chairman for a school board candidate the pastor did not support. Brooks essentially stated that the church getting involved in politics while not paying taxes had “lit [his] fire a little bit.”

The retaliatory and baseless petition sought to revoke two property tax exemptions for which Calvary Chapel Iowa is the owner of record – a recently constructed home where the pastor and his wife and three children reside, and a portion of the church’s campus in Cedar Rapids, Iowa used for a Christian daycare and school. The petitioners argued these properties were not being use “solely” for religious purposes because the pastor’s family are “non-ecclesiastical personnel” residing in the home and due to the daycare taking in revenue.

Liberty Counsel and the Kirkwood Institute argued in the motion to dismiss brief that these claims were “frivolous” since the state had already approved the exemptions and that the church having to defend against this type of “spurious” challenge burdens the Free Exercise of Religion. A church’s tax exemptions are not nullified because pastors have families who live with them or because Christian daycares have employees and operating costs.

The brief stated, “A complaint that the ‘parsonage exemption’ is destroyed by a pastor’s wife and children living in the home is frivolous on its face…Moreover, the Petition on its face admits that the ‘Preschool’ & Daycare is ‘educational’ as well as ‘religious,’ thus bringing the Preschool & Daycare doubly within the fold of an exemption under Iowa [law].”

The brief continued, “Calvary Chapel has a fundamental First Amendment right…to engage in protected speech…In short, [the petitioners] want the Church…to ‘sit down, and shut up,’…making their play against the Church and [its pastor] by going after property tax exemptions that were appropriately recognized by the relevant authorities.”

According to Iowa’s RFRA, the state cannot substantially burden the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest of “the highest order.” Liberty Counsel and Kirkwood Institute argued the petition “cannot survive” Iowa’s RFRA law because these challenges could potentially chill expression and hamper the church’s ability to exercise its religious functions for its members.

Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Gallagher stated “this type of litigation imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion” especially when the state’s Department of Revenue already enforces tax laws.

Judge Gallagher wrote, “To hold otherwise would be to allow the unaccountable political opponents of a church the option to use the power of the State to target and/or retaliate against the religious organization for the organization’s activities, thereby creating a chilling effect not only on that specific religious group but also all other similarly oriented religious organizations. This is precisely the type of religious interference that RFRA was designed to prevent, and until the judiciary provides different guidance on the scope of RFRA, this case must be dismissed.”

The petitioners have 30 days to appeal the judge’s decision before it becomes final.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Religious freedom laws protect churches and pastors so they can focus on their mission rather than defending against spurious challenges from those who politically disagree with them. The power to tax is not intended to empower censorship. We are pleased Judge Gallagher properly applied Iowa RFRA in dismissing this attempt to punish religious and political speech. Frivolous claims brought against a church in Iowa courts also run the risk of being financially costly to any of the petitioners for attorney’s fees and costs.”

This week on Faith On Trial: blending sexes in student accommodations; election integrity in California

 Click for podcast: https://faith-on-trial.simplecast.com/

Pro-Life Advocate Sues San Diego Over “Bubble Zone” Law Violating First Amendment

 Thomas More Society Challenges Anti-Free Speech Ordinance Enacted by San Diego 

(San Diego, California) A California man who has engaged in pro-life advocacy outside of abortion facilities for the past 15 years is suing San Diego for its newly-enacted “bubble zone” ordinance. Under the city law, speech is restricted within 100 feet of the entrance to an abortion facility, and even further restricted within an 8-foot bubble around persons within that zone. On behalf of pro-life advocate Roger Lopez, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the city on September 5, 2024. The lawsuit argues that the speech-restricting ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of pro-life individuals to offer information on life-affirming alternatives, as well as the rights of the women entering an abortion facility to hear it.

 

The lawsuit alleges that San Diego amplifies favored pro-abortion speech and silences disfavored pro-life speech, despite the San Diego City Council’s past declaration that “it is vital to our democracy to allow free speech for all, even those with whom we vehemently agree.” The ordinance imposes a noise limitation within the 100-foot buffer that is softer than normal conversation and prohibits any act deemed to “harass or intimidate” in a vaguely defined manner. It also imposes a requirement to obtain express authorization before entering a passerby’s 8-foot bubble.

 

According to the lawsuit, San Diego’s bubble zone ordinance is a joint effort between the city attorney’s office and abortion activists, who coordinated to draft a law restricting pro-life speech in flagrant disregard of the First Amendment’s prohibition on both content and viewpoint discrimination. City Attorney Mara Elliot, who vocally condemned the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, praised the ordinance for striking a “proper balance between free speech and public safety.” While ostensibly enacted to protect public safety, San Diego has provided no evidence to support that claim.

 

The federal lawsuit demonstrates that the city law was borne out of the close relationship between San Diego public officials and Planned Parenthood—as evidenced by the operator of the downtown facility’s donation of tens of thousands of dollars to the political campaigns of San Diego’s city attorney, council members, and mayor. Moreover, until the passage of the speech-restricting ordinance, the San Diego city attorney’s office had maintained for over a quarter century that bubble zones are unconstitutional, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s lead in Schenk v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York. On behalf of Roger Lopez, Thomas More Society attorneys are asking the court to uphold the First Amendment rights of pro-life advocates, as well as every abortion-minded woman—who has the right to hear their right to hear their “message of hope.”

 

Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation, stated: “San Diego’s bubble zone ordinance is a coordinated attempt to silence and shut down pro-life speech where it matters most: on the public sidewalk outside abortion businesses. The right to freedom of speech is at its highest on the public sidewalk, so attempts like San Diego’s to silence pro-life speech outside abortion businesses is an especially egregious attack on our constitutional rights. We are proud to defend the First Amendment rights of sidewalk counselors, like Roger Lopez, who have dedicated their lives to sharing the pro-life message of hope and offering alternatives to abortion-bound women in need. We will not cease fighting this legal battle, and many more battles like it, until our fundamental rights are restored and respected.”

 

Paul M. Jonna, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and Partner, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, added: “Tragically, Planned Parenthood in Southern California aborts more than 24,000 unborn children every year. Pregnant women report that clinic staff often lie to them about their reproductive options, ignore their needs, and are rude and condescending. Pro-life sidewalk counselors like Roger Lopez offer these women help, compassion, support, and information. But the City of San Diego wants to deprive women of this information—leading them to mistakenly believe that abortion is their only option. In doing so, San Diego is not only harming women and their unborn children, but also unconstitutionally restricting the ability of sidewalk counselors to share the pro-life message—threatening them with ruinous fines if they exercise their First Amendment rights. We look forward to holding the City of San Diego accountable for this unconstitutional assault on free speech rights.”

 

Read the Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in Lopez v. San Diego, filed by Thomas More Society attorneys on September 5, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, here.  

 

About Thomas More Society

Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and freedom. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices across the country, Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, please visit thomasmoresociety.org.

Free Speech Win for Professor Who Questioned Gender Ideology

CINCINNATI, OH – In a victory for free speech, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a University of Louisville professor who was allegedly demoted, harassed, and ultimately fired for his personal views on gender confusion. Now, he can take his case to trial in District Court. 

A three-judge panel sided with Dr. Allan Josephson, a psychiatrist in the university’s School of Medicine, who claimed six other medical school officials “retaliated” against him for having different opinions on how to treat children with gender confusion and for expressing those opinions at a panel discussion on the topic. According to the court’s ruling, Dr. Josephson spoke at a Heritage Foundation Panel in 2017 in his own “individual capacity” and not on behalf of the university. At the panel, Dr. Josephson questioned whether a child has the capacity to make major medical decisions and then shared his views that gender confusion has the “tendency” to diminish by the end of adolescence.

Dr. Josephson also stated at the panel that “gender dysphoria is a sociocultural, psychological phenomenon that cannot be fully addressed with drugs and surgery. Thus, doctors and others should explore what causes this confusion and help the child learn how to meet this developmental challenge.”

In the months following the panel, university officials demoted him from his role as a division chief to that of a junior faculty member, required him to make disclaimers while teaching, and subjected him to other forms of hostility and harassment. In February 2019, the university did not renew his contract ending his 40-year academic career. 

The ruling upholds a lower court decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky that found Dr. Josephson’s speech was protected by the First Amendment and that university officials who fired him were not entitled to immunity. The Court noted that a “reasonable jury” could determine university officials took adverse action against Dr. Josephson for his “protected” panel remarks. Because of this, the Court stated Dr. Josephson’s First Amendment retaliation claims “should go to trial.” 

“The defendants argue that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. The district court disagreed, and so do we,” wrote Judge Andre Mathis, who authored the Court’s opinion. 

“Professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship,” continued Judge Mathis. “Put differently, Josephson’s speech stemmed from his scholarship and thus related to scholarship or teaching. As such, Josephson engaged in protected speech because it related to core academic functions.” 

Judge Mathis noted that while university officials were “worried” about Dr. Josephson getting “national attention” and putting their “reputation at risk,” they failed to prove his remarks had any disruptive effect on the medical school’s patient care, accreditation, faculty recruitment and retention, accreditation, or the school’s reputation in general.

“Absent a disruption of government operations, a public university may not retaliate against a professor for speaking on issues of social or political concern,” concluded Judge Mathis. “[T]he mere ‘fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.’”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Firing a professor over a difference of opinion is offensive to the First Amendment. No medical professional should have to risk his or her livelihood to speak out on behalf of children and how best to treat gender confusion. The evidence shows that most children grow out of it and counseling is a medically sound option. Universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas and should be held accountable when they violate the First Amendment.”

Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.