Health Care Workers Appeal Against Maine’s Unconstitutional Law

BANGOR, ME – Liberty Counsel filed the notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Maine health care workers since U.S. District Court Judge Jon Levy dismissed their case as moot.

In Alicia Lowe, et al., v. Janet Mills, the case should return to the lower court for discovery in order to obtain a permanent injunction against the state’s unconstitutional law that prohibits religious accommodations for compulsory immunizations.

Liberty Counsel represents seven health care workers against Governor Janet Mills, Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services Jeanne M. Lambrew, and Director of Center for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Puthiery Va.

Governor Janet Mills previously argued the case should be dismissed as moot because the state no longer mandates the COVID-19 shot for health care employees. However, Gov. Mills has already caused illegal harm to the health care workers by unlawfully prohibiting the state’s hospitals from granting their religious exemptions from the COVID-19 shots. Governor Mills also threatened to revoke the licenses of all health care employers who failed to mandate the experimental injection to their employees. As a result, these health care workers were terminated from their positions.

In addition, the law with no provision for religious exemptions remains in effect preventing the state from guaranteeing this will not happen again in the future.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Maine cannot ignore federal law by summarily dismissing employees who have sincerely held religious objections to the experimental COVID shots. This unconstitutional law must be stopped.”

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Livers From Aborted Babies for $1,500 in New Undercover Videos

The Planned Parenthood abortions business was exposed several years ago as one of the biggest sellers of body parts from aborted babies.

Over a dozen videos chronicled, how America’s biggest abortion company kills babies in abortions and then potentially illegally sells their body parts to universities for grisly, unproven research. Eventually, Planned Parenthood officials admitted under oath to doing this.

Read more: 

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Livers From Aborted Babies for $1,500 in New Undercover Videos

As Predicted, “SAFEGUARDS” in California’s MEDICAL MURDER SYSTEM Scheduled for REMOVAL…!

From Alexandra Snyder, CEO, Life Legal Defense Foundation 

In 2016, California’s state legislature opened the statutory flood gates for what was called “assisted suicide.” Back then, we were assured that numerous “safeguards” were incorporated into this legislation, ensuring that no “abuses” could occur.  One question that was not considered was how any such flagrant dismissal of Hippocratic principles could be “abused.”

Wasn’t the legislation itself an abuse?

“Safeguards” in the original law included the following:

Targets for termination had to be 18 or older.

They had to be California residents.

They had to be terminally ill – that is, given only six months to live by their physicians.

They had to be mentally competent.

They had to make two oral requests for that deadly drug, at least 15 days apart.

They had to self-administer, by mouth, the deadly drugs which would terminate their mortal lives.

Even with these alleged “safeguards” in place, the law failed to pass through ordinary legislative procedures. Advocates were forced to smuggle it into a special session called to address budget shortfalls, then ram it through.  In response, we at Life Legal sued to have it invalidated on the grounds that it was not legally enacted.

Briefly, we succeeded.  In May 2018, Judge Daniel Ottolia of the Riverside Superior Court ruled that the “California End of Life Option Act” was unenforceable.

An appeals court reinstated the law a month later.  What did a little abuse of the legislative process matter, anyhow?  And besides, there were all those “safeguards.”

Whenever such legislation is proposed, proponents always tout their extensive “safeguards” as a selling point.  And pro-life opponents always point out, first, that the “safeguards” are inadequate and, second, that they will fall away as surely as withered maple leaves in a darkening November.

The “safeguards” started to fall off California’s medical murder tree in October 2021, when a new law reduced the waiting period for lethal drugs from 15 days to 48 hours.

The new law also required doctors who were opposed to assisted suicide to facilitate their patients’ requests for “aid in dying” drugs. Life Legal successfully sued to have that provision struck down in 2022.

And now the author of yet another bill – SB 1196 – proposes to repair the remaining pesky “safeguards” all the way out of existence. Senator Catherine Blackspear circulated a list of solutions sponsored by the Hemlock Society that resulted in the bill including:

Eliminating the terminal illness requirement.  If SB 1196 is passed, anyone with “a grievous and irremediable medical condition” will qualify for a California termination.  This phrase is taken from Canada’s assisted suicide law, which also allows active euthanasia. “Aid in dying” is now a leading cause of death in Canada. And “irremediable” only means the person’s condition can’t be “relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable.”

Eliminating the requirement that people requesting suicide be mentally competent. According to the sponsor of SB 1196, those with early- to mid-stage dementia should also be allowed to experience suicide with help!

Eliminating the requirement that the suicide cocktail be ingested. Instead, SB 1196 only provides that the drugs be “utilized,” which allows for death by intravenous injection.

Perhaps the most alarming provision of SB 1196 is this apparently technical matter.  The 2016 law required self-administration of an oral agent.  You had to take the poison yourself.  SB 1196 enables intravenous administration of lethal chemicals – as easy as the push of a button. This is the same mechanism used in Switzerland’s killing centers, which requires nothing more than a small bump or turning one’s head to start the deadly drip. And if someone else pushes the button – which would be easily possible under SB 1196 – then the patient has not committed suicide.  Like a mutt hauled into the local pound, the person has been euthanized.

Lest you think this is hyperbole, the Hemlock Society president who is also a sponsor of SB 1196 admits she was inspired by the end-of-life service provided by veterinarians.

The deletion of “safeguards” is, as you’re not supposed to remember, exactly what was predicted back in 2016.  If SB 1196 becomes law, the “safeguards” will be gone as if they had never existed. But of course, that was the original plan.

Please pray that SB 1196 will be defeated!  Medical murder in California doesn’t need to advance any further.

Please pray that, if the bill passes, our legal experts will find grounds to challenge it – as they did in 2016 and 2022 – and that this time the madness can be halted permanently!

If you attend church, encourage your clergy to provide information about the dangers of assisted suicide laws. Let us know if you need material.

If you live in California, please contact your state senator and assembly member to oppose SB 1196!

The death dealers aren’t finished with their march down this dismal road.  Let’s work together to stop them right here!

Yours for the threatened child in the womb,

Alexandra

https://lifelegaldefensefoundation.org

Washington’s Democrat governor signs law mandating LGBT history lessons in public schools

OLYMPIA, Washington (LifeSiteNews) — Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed a law on March 18 mandating that, by 2025, the state’s public schools “adopt inclusive curricula and select diverse, equitable, inclusive, age-appropriate instructional materials” that teach about “the histories, contributions, and perspectives” of “LGBTQ people.”

“Your kids will be forced to learn about Dylan Mulvaney and drag queens,” Libs of TikTok reacted on X (formerly Twitter). “Homeschool your kids.”

The new law, Senate Bill 5462, also mandates that public school curricula be screened for “biased content” as it’s reviewed. The superintendent must “[i]nclude a screening for biased content in each development or revision of a state learning standard and ensure that the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion, as those terms are defined in RCW 28A.415.443, are incorporated into each new or revised state learning standard.”

“Persons and organizations with relevant expertise” will be consulted as part of the “biased content” review and inclusion of DEI concepts, the law says.

DEI has become prominent in American public discourse in recent years.

“The best way to conceptualize DEI is as the marriage of ideology and bureaucracy, or, more specifically, as the marriage between critical race theory and affirmative action,” Christopher Rufo has summarized.

Illinois, California, New Jersey, Oregon, and Colorado already mandate the teaching of pro-LGBT curricula in public schools. Meanwhile, some red states such as Wyoming and Florida have moved to restrict left-wing indoctrination in government-run schools. Florida was famously smeared by the leftist media over its 2022 parental rights in education law, misleadingly dubbed “Don’t Say Gay,” which prohibits teaching children in kindergarten through third grade about transgenderism and other sexuality-related issues, limits discussions of sexuality for older children to “age appropriate” content, and requires parents to be informed of any changes that could affect their child’s physical, emotional, or mental well-being.

Sen. Marko Liias (D-Edmonds), who introduced SB 5462, suggested in a press release that students learning about LGBT figures will improve academic performance and create for them a “better overall quality of life.”

“The contributions of gay Washingtonians deserve recognition, and just as importantly, students deserve to see themselves in their schoolwork. That leads to better attendance, better academic achievement and better overall quality of life, ensuring success for all our students,” he said. “I’m so pleased to see this critical bill make it across the finish line and signed into law.” 

No Republicans in either chamber of the Washington legislature supported the bill, The Olympian reported.

Finnish study: ‘woke’ people are unhappy

A study from Finland found that those who adhere to “woke” attitudes and beliefs are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and an absence of happiness in life. READ

Planet Fitness says ‘discomfort’ not a reason to ban ‘transgender’ men from women’s locker rooms

(LifeSiteNews) — Popular exercise chain Planet Fitness is doubling down on its prioritization of “gender identity” over female customers’ welfare, putting in writing that “discomfort” over sharing intimate facilities with the opposite sex should not be accommodated.

Planet Fitness, which for years has allowed gender-confused men in women’s locker rooms, came back in the news this month when an Alaskan Planet Fitness member named Patricia Silva shared online a video she took of a man who “identifies” as a woman shaving in a women’s locker room. She said that at the time of the incident, a girl estimated to be 12 years old was sitting in a corner, wrapped in a towel, and “freaked out” by having an adult male in her changing area.

In accordance with the company’s woke priorities, however, instead of removing the man, Planet Fitness revoked Silva’s membership, citing her violation of a policy against photographing other gym members.

“So, I would like for you women to stand up and have a voice and stop these shenanigans,” Silva said. “You have authority! Use your authority.” 

Since the story broke, Planet Fitness’s stock price has dropped from $66.92 on March 7 to $56.46 on March 19. “The chain saw a $400 million dive in valuation from $5.3 billion to $4.9 billion,” Fox Business reported Thursday.

But the company is digging in its heels.

Chief corporate affairs officer McCall Gosselin told the Christian Post that the policy is part of the company’s vision of an “inclusive environment,” and that its “gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use the gym facilities that best align with their sincere, self-reported gender identity.” The company also said that members claiming trans status may only be asked to leave “if it is confirmed that a member is acting in bad faith” and is not sincerely gender confused.

Libs of TikTok also shared a page from Planet Fitness’s operations manual, which states that “Some members may feel uncomfortable with a transgender member using the same locker room facilities, bathrooms, showers, or other facilities/programs separated by sex,” but “this discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender members.” It calls on staff to resolve such situations by attempting to “foster a climate of understanding,” i.e., transgender accommodation. 

The company “reserves the right to terminate a person’s membership immediately for any violation of this policy,” which also requires staff (but not explicitly members) to honor preferred names and gender pronouns.

Alabama quashes DEI in public schools

Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed a bill that seeks to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices in public colleges, universities, and state-run agencies. The new state law will also prevent men from entering women’s bathrooms in Alabama’s public colleges.  READ

School housed migrants without telling parents

James Madison High School in Brooklyn, NY, “tried to pass off its decision to close school and house illegal immigrants at the expense of students [and] their families as a last-minute decision made with the community,” journalist Tony Kinnett reported Wednesday. “Newly obtained emails show that was a lie.”  READ

Rubio: GOP must confront Dems’ radical abortion stance

After Republican advisor Kellyanne Conway told Republicans to stop pointing out that Democratic politicians support abortion up to birth, Sen. Marco Rubio fired back: “Protecting life is the moral center and purpose for the pro-life movement. We should not shy away from exposing the extremism of Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates, who believe it should be legal to kill babies until the moment of birth.”  READ

Capitol police drop charges against bereaved dad

The Capitol Police late Tuesday dropped their charges against Steve Nikoui, the Gold Star father who emotionally interrupted President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address two weeks ago. When Biden claimed America is safer under him than it was under Trump, Nikoui stood up and shouted “Abbey Gate!” and “Second Battalion, First Marines!” His son was killed during the administration’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.  READ

How far does freedom of the press go?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – When she was at FOX News, Catherine Herridge was one of my favorite reporters. I was sad a few years ago when she left FOX to go to CBS, but I was happy that a mainstream news outlet recognized her talents and abilities. I couldn’t help but to feel sorry for her when it was announced that she and a slew of others had been let go by CBS.

          Yet I felt even worse when I found that a D. C. district court had fined her $800 a day for refusing to disclose a confidential source in a lawsuit against the government by an academic who had apparently been under FBI investigation.

          When she was reporting for FOX, Ms. Herridge reported on a story involving Dr. Yanping Chen, a Chinese-American who was president and professor at the University of Management and Technology in Arlington, Va.

          Dr. Chen, Ms. Herridge found, had been investigated by the FBI over ties Dr. Chen had with the Chinese military and whether she had lied on her immigration documents. The FBI investigation ended without any charges being filed. About a year later Ms. Herridge reported that Dr. Chen had been a target of the investigation.

          Dr. Chen sued the government for leaking the information to the press in violation of the federal Privacy Act which protects individuals’ private information that has been collected by the government.

          Dr. Chen subpoenaed Ms. Herridge and asked her to name the confidential informant who told her about the investigation. Ms. Herridge refused to name her source. Chen’s attorneys than asked for a court order directing Ms. Herridge to answer the question and name her source. U. S. District Judge Christopher Cooper granted the request and ordered that the information be given to Dr. Chen.

          When she refused, Ms. Herridge was held in contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine of $800 a day until she complied.  He did, however, suspend the order for 30 days to give Ms. Herridge time to file an appeal. That, according to the latest press reports, is where the matter stands at this writing: the judge insists, Herridge refuses, and Chen awaits.

          An interesting side-twist to the story involves Herridge and  CBS. After CBS laid Ms. Herridge off it seized her laptop, phone, and all her notes, thus CBS now has the information Dr. Chen wanted. CBS is mum on the why or what of the seizure but it appears that the network’s lawyers are prepared to make the argument that the materials belong to CBS. SAG-AFTRA, a group of broadcast journalist, has now entered the fray demanding that CBS return the materials to Herridge.

          This leaves an interesting question: if the disclosure materials are now in the possession of CBS, will the network become more entangled in the Chen-Herridge conflict, and, if so, will Chen’s lawyers seek the information from CBS? If the network complies what will happen with Ms. Herridge and her fines? Of course if complicit in the turn-over of materials, what is the future of investigative journalism at the network?

          The issue, however, is broader than one poor reporter and a litigant who needs the corroboration that apparently only Herridge (and CBS) can give to her claim that the leaked information came from government sources. It has to do with how far the First Amendment goes to protect press freedom when the information gathered was done so by a whistleblower who revealed the information only after he was assured that his name would not be revealed.

          The question is one of qualified privilege. It means that a reporter who has obtained information through a promise of confidentiality can claim that privilege against revealing that informant in any legal proceeding including grand juries.

          So where do these journalist stand under the law? Well that depends on whether a state court or federal court is involved. State courts tend to be more favorable to the claim of qualified privilege than the federal courts. That is because most states have statutory, constitutional, or common law protections for reporters. In these jurisdictions the courts basically weigh the balance between the rights of the public to know the information that came from the reporter – which might never have been obtained without a promise of confidentiality – and the right of the state to acquire information that it needs to pursue a governmental interest.

          Federal courts, on the other hand, have been more reluctant to protect the journalist from divulging the information. There is not federal statutory shield law as is found in many states. But while federal courts are less likely to protect the reporter it has been done in some exigent circumstances. But what we often see is the reporter’s claim denied and the journalist is found in contempt and jailed until such time as he divulges the information or the case or grand jury ends. Many might remember the case of New York Times reporter Judith Miller who was jailed for 85 days for violating a court order to testify.

          Interestingly, before he became vice president, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) authored a bill to protect journalists in federal courts. Several such bills have been proposed but failed to pass. Another such bill, HR 4250, the PRESS Act (Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying) did pass the House without objection in January and is currently being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would bar federal courts and executive agencies from forcing reporters to identify confidential sources or disclose sensitive newsgathering material, except in very limited circumstances.

          According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the act includes only two exceptions: to prevent or identify the perpetrator of an act of terrorism, or to prevent a threat of imminent violence, significant bodily harm or death, including specified offenses against a minor. 

          As an old reporter who’s been in the trenches, I support the act. The free-flow of information is more important to the general public than governmental reasons to prevent disclosure in the vast majority of cases, Ms. Herridge’s included.

##

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Pope Francis denounces ‘anti-vaxxers,’ calls COVID jab refusal an ‘almost suicidal act of denial’

 Pope Francis has once again touted the abortion-tainted COVID vaccines, reissuing his condemnation of those who refused to take the shot.

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis has issued fresh condemnation of critics of the abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections, saying that opposition to the shots “distressed” him since “being against the antidote is an almost suicidal act of denial.”

Speaking as part of his newly released memoirs, in a series of interviews conducted by journalist Fabio Marchese Ragona, Pope Francis highlighted his thoughts and responses to the COVID-19 era, including the abortion-tainted COVID jabs and his warm welcome of them.

The Pontiff rebuked those who did not receive an injection, or who voiced opposition to them publicly, saying:

Deciding whether to get vaccinated is always an ethical choice, but I know that many people signed up to movements opposed to the administration of the medication. This distressed me because in my view, being against the antidote is an almost suicidal act of denial.

Francis also made a thinly-veiled condemnation of Cardinal Raymond Burke, who voiced strong opposition to the injections and who was also hospitalized with COVID-19 and serious health issues. 

“There were even a few anti-vaxxers among the bishops: some came close to death,” stated Francis, echoing a veiled dig he made at the American cardinal in 2021.

Referring to the COVID-related lockdowns as a “grim scenario,” Francis stated that “[t]his grim scenario began to change with the arrival of the first vaccines,” failing to mention the multitude of side effects linked to the rollout of the experimental jabs, including upticks in heart, brain and blood diseases, among others issues.

The Pontiff, who has remained an outspoken promoter of the injections from the start, opined that “a generalized fear was created when superficial explanations of how the vaccines worked spoke of injections of the virus into the body. There were also claims there was nothing but water in the vials; some people even stated publicly that microchips were being implanted in people.” 

“All this,” he said, “created confusion and panic.”

Particularly during the height of COVID-19 related restrictions, Francis regularly pushed the “moral obligation” of taking an abortion-tainted jab as being an “act of love.” As early as late summer 2020, he suggested that “everyone” must take the COVID-19 vaccine. “I believe that, ethically, everyone should take the vaccine,” he said. The pope added “it must be done.”

In January 2021, Francis and Pope Benedict XVI were among the first to receive the abortion-tainted injections, with Pfizer supplying the Holy See with its injections. Both men subsequently received boosters of the injection in the months following. 

Commenting on this, Francis told Ragona: “When the first supplies arrived at the Vatican, I scheduled my vaccination immediately; later I got the boosters as well, and, thanks be to God, I lave not caught the virus.” 

The pope noted with pleasure the initiative which he undertook with papal almoner, Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, to invite the financially needy along with “transgender” individuals to receive their injections at the Vatican. 

Pfizer’s production of abortion pills, along with its production of a COVID-19 injection involving tests using the HEK 293 cell line, is derived from kidney tissue taken from a healthy baby who was aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s. Seemingly undeterred by the ethical question, Francis secretly met twice with Pfizer CEO Francis Bourla during 2021, with Bourla also speaking at a Vatican-hosted health conference. 

The Vatican also mandated COVID jabs for Vatican employees and visitors, removing the option to test “negative” for the virus, and allowing only proof of recovery from the virus as an alternative to the injection. An additional mandate resulted in three Swiss Guards losing their jobs in 2021 after refusing to take the abortion-tainted injection.

COVID injections mandates finally ended in June 2022, though it was extended for the Swiss Guards. As late as January 2023, COVID shots were still required for reporters wishing to join the Pope on papal journeys – a mandate which expired by that April.

Highlighting the intimate link to abortion which the injections have, Cardinal Burke stated in May 2020 that “[i]t is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses” and that the thought of it being injected into one’s body is “rightly abhorrent.” He noted also that vaccination may not be imposed “in a totalitarian manner” on citizens.

Similar vocal criticism of the injections has also been repeatedly issued by prelates such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Indeed, in a seminal intervention of December 12, 2020, Bishop Athanasius Schneider – along with co-signers Cardinal Janis Pujats, Bishop Joseph Strickland, and Archbishops Tomash Peta and Jan Pawel Lenga – expressed their strong conviction that any use of a vaccine tainted with the “unspeakable crime” of abortion, under any circumstances, “cannot be acceptable for Catholics.”

Since that time, numerous studies and many thousands of scientists and leading health professionals, including Nobel Prize winners, and medics have testified to the unprecedented level of injuries and deaths, following and resulting from the COVID injections. The latest conservative estimate is that over 17 million worldwide died from receiving the injections making this the worst man-caused medical catastrophe in history.

As of February 23, 2024, the U.S. Federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 37,231 deaths, 214,906 hospitalizations, 21,524 heart attacks, and 28,214 myocarditis and pericarditis case, among other ailments. An April 2022 study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection itself cannot fully account for the myocarditis numbers, despite common insistence to the contrary. 

VAERS reports are technically unconfirmed, as anyone can submit one, but U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than overreporting. A 2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.”

Settlement affirms VA religious groups free to operate according to beliefs

ADF attorneys favorably settle lawsuit on behalf of two churches, three religious schools, pregnancy center network

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – In settlement of a lawsuit that Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed on behalf of two Virginia churches, three Christian schools, and a pregnancy center network, Virginia officials have acknowledged that commonwealth law protects the religious organizations’ ability to operate consistent with their faith.

As part of the settlement agreement in Calvary Road Baptist Church v. Miyares, Virginia officials conceded that all of the ministries, as religious organizations, are free to only hire “individuals who profess and live according to religious beliefs held by [the ministries], including beliefs on abortion, marriage, sexuality, sex, and gender.” Further, Virginia officials agreed that commonwealth law protects the ministries from having to pay for or facilitate any gender dysphoria treatment that violates their religious teachings. Examples include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, so-called “sex reassignment” surgeries, or any other “gender transition” procedures.

“Religious organizations are free to operate their ministries without fear of government punishment, and Virginia’s law protects that foundational right,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Our clients are motivated by their faith to offer spiritual guidance, education, pregnancy support, and athletic opportunities to their communities. The commonwealth must respect their right—just like anyone else’s—to continue operating by their own internal policies and codes of conduct about life, marriage, and sexuality.”

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit in September 2020 on behalf of Calvary Road Baptist Church, Community Fellowship Church, Community Christian Academy, and Care Net to challenge a Virginia law that forced nonprofit ministries to abandon their core convictions in hiring and other policies or face fines up to $100,000 for each violation.

The Virginia Values Act, enacted in July 2020, compelled churches, religious schools, and Christian ministries to hire employees who do not share their beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender identity—and even banned them from publishing their biblical beliefs on these topics. A companion law required the ministries and others like them to include in employee health care plans coverage for “sex reassignment” and “gender affirming” surgeries that run contrary to their beliefs. It also prohibited the ministries from offering sex-specific Bible studies and youth activities.

In light of the settlement, ADF attorneys filed a dismissal of the case with the Loudoun County Circuit Court Friday.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

Church Files Lawsuit Against the City of San Luis for Blocking Food Distribution to Impoverished Families

 The city issued fines and threatens criminal charges for parking transport trucks in the church’s parking lot.

San Luis, AZ—First Liberty Institute and the law firm Snell and Wilmer L.L.P. filed complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona urging the court to stop the City of San Luis from blocking Gethsemani Baptist Church from distributing food to the poor. Gethsemani’s food distribution is a 25-year ministry to impoverished families in the southernmost part of Yuma County.

 

You can read the motion here.

 

“It’s unconscionable that the City of San Luis won’t allow Gethsemani Baptist Church to continue its 25-year mission of providing food for the hungry, hurting people in the surrounding communities,” said Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute. “People who take action to care for the hungry should be encouraged and affirmed, not threatened and fined.”

 

Since 1999, Gethsemani Baptist Church has operated its food ministry mere blocks from the Mexico border, sharing the Gospel as it distributes hundreds of thousands of pounds of food and other household items to the most vulnerable families in the surrounding areas. It is the only food ministry in the city serving desperate families. Gethsemani uses semi-trucks to transport food where it is off-loaded on the church’s parking lot.

 

When a new mayor took office, the city went from celebrating and supporting Gethsemani’s ministry to escalating tactics to shut it down. The city has sent letter after letter, moving the goalposts and not even allowing the church to benefit from laws already on the books. But even while the city has relentlessly worked to stop the church from parking its truck or storing and distributing food, the city turns a blind eye as commercial trucks and businesses regularly violate the same city codes in the same zoning district. Even after switching to smaller trucks in an attempt to comply with the city’s demands, the city continues to enforce its “cease and desist” order, preventing the church from ministering.

 

The City even resorted to citing the church’s pastor when he handed out small quantities of emergency food supplies to ten people. Less than a week later, after a third-party truck accidentally parked in front of the church for just five minutes, the City cited the pastor again instead of the driver. The church and its pastor cannot afford the city’s heavy fines and fear that more citations could result in the pastor going to jail. The city’s actions have forced the church to pause its ministry as it seeks relief from the court.

 

The complaint states that the city is, “engaged in efforts of increasing severity to clamp down on the Church, but throughout the same time period, Defendants have not enforced the same ordinances against similarly situated secular organizations that also use semi-trucks and store food in the same residential zone. Defendants are wielding City ordinances as a cudgel in a persistent lawfare campaign to stop the Church’s ministry activities. Their treatment of the Church violates both federal and Arizona law.”

 

About First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.

Soros-backed group hacks 4,000+ pro-lifers’ emails

An organization backed by left-wing billionaire George Soros reportedly hacked over 4,000 private emails sent by European pro-life advocates. A Dutch leftist activist who helped obtain the emails told the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) that they will be cited in an upcoming article accusing the pro-lifers who sent them of spreading “misinformation and disinformation.”  READ