Say you own a Chevy dealership and a federal court rules: “From now on you have to tell your customers about the good deal they can get from the Ford dealer down the street.” Crazy, right? Well, that’s what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just decided about pregnancy centers. Pregnancy center staff must tell any woman who comes for help with her unborn baby that publicly funded abortion is available—even if the staff’s religious belief, or that of the pregnant woman, opposes abortion.
Here’s how “The Federalist” announced it: “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that California law AB 775, which compels Christian, pro-life pregnancy centers to advocate for abortion, doesn’t impede their First Amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs.”
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. Question: How could this federal appeals court possibly decree such a ruling “doesn’t impede their First Amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs?” Answer: the court apparently decided not on the basis of the First Amendment, but on the basis of a liberal worldview which elevates “women’s health” (euphemism for “the right to put your unborn baby to death”) over freedom of the expression of one’s religion.
Such a decision by the appeals court is only possible because in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court somehow found a woman’s right to choose abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws“, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. The Federal Government must do the same, but this is required by the Fifth Amendment Due Process.
“The point of the equal protection clause is to force a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights“ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection).
By declaring “a woman’s right to choose [abortion] as civil right,” Roe v. Wade, in my view, goes down as one of the worst travesties of “justice” the Court has foisted on the nation. Since the 1973 decision, 59,465,821 unborn babies have been put to death. And now, a lower federal appeals court has forced pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for more unborn babies’ deaths.
The Ninth Circuit Court, headquartered in San Francisco, is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals, with 29 active judgeships. According to the most current count, the Ninth Circuit has the highest percentage (68%) of sitting judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Republicans argue the court is biased because of its relatively high proportion of Democratic appointees.
“It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is even more unjust and dangerous. In this case, political allies of abortionists are seeking to punish pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer real hope and help to women,” Nate Bowman. senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said. “Forcing these centers to promote abortion and recite the government’s preferred views is a clear violation of their constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms.”
Now Hillary who, according to polls, may very well be our next president (“The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, Review and Outlook”) suggests she believes a woman has an “absolute [right] to an abortion, at any time during pregnancy right up until birth. She claimed merely to oppose the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which allows some regulation of late-term abortions. But she somehow overlooked Gonzales v. Carhart , the 2007 decision that upheld a legislative ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.
“Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Carhart opinion that ruled such restrictions are consistent with Roe and the Constitution. Mrs. Clinton kept invoking ‘the life and the health of the mother’ to justify her opposition to any limit on abortion, but Carhart found the life of the mother can be sufficient.
“To put all this another way, Mrs. Clinton believes there is no restriction on abortion she would ever support, and there is no restriction on gun rights she would ever oppose. Carhart, Citizens United and Heller were 5-4 decisions, and Mrs. Clinton wants each of them to be litmus tests for her Supreme Court appointments. She mocks Mr. Trump for saying he won’t abide by the election result, but she wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit her own political views.”
Every presidential election has consequences. This one, by one to three Supreme Court nominations, will have consequences for decades and for the lives of unborn babies by the millions. But let’s not forget federal appeals courts appointments. According to “The Wall Street Journal” . . .
“There are 73 vacancies on the federal appeals and trial courts, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Dozens more spots could open in the next few years, given the number of active judges nearing or at retirement age, judicial data show.
“Two terms of judicial appointments by Mr. Obama have shifted the political balance of the 12 regional U.S. courts of appeals, which review more than 50,000 cases each year, compared with the roughly 80 cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
I find myself in an uncomfortable corner, advocating for Donald Trump in order to deny Hillary Clinton’s ideology (worse than Obama’s?) to further this anti-God “legalized culture of death” in America. How can any serious Bible-believing Christian not share my uncomfortable corner?