Saturday, December 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
FROM YAHOO MAIL
Tue Nov 30, 1:03 pm ET
Is California’s prison system cruel and unusual punishment?
By Zachary Roth
Buzz up!12 votes ShareretweetEmailPrintBy Zachary Roth zachary Roth – Tue Nov 30, 1:03 pm ET
In a major test case, lawyers for California prisoners allege their clients are kept in such overcrowded conditions that they should be released, rather than continue serving sentences that fall under the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing the case today, in a proceeding likely to shine a spotlight on the nation's controversial incarceration system.
A panel of federal judges ruled last year that the overcrowding in California prisons constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The judges ordered California to release 40,00 inmates over two years. But lawyers for the state appealed, leading to the Supreme Court's hearing.
Lawyers for the prisoners argue in court papers that California's prisons are housing twice as many prisoners as they were built to contain, and as a result, the safety of prisoners, guards, and prison personnel is in jeopardy.
For instance, the lawyers argue, prisoners aren't receiving adequate access to health care. "Prisoners are dying unnecessarily at the alarming rate of one every eight days because they do not receive basic medical care from the State," wrote Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office.
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association agrees. "Due to overcrowding," lawyers for the group wrote in an amicus brief, "California uses converted gymnasiums to house hundreds of inmates on double- and triple-stacked bunks. In these prison 'dormitories' there are normally only one or two correctional officers to supervise approximately 200 inmates."
But lawyers for the state counter that releasing so many prisoners would put Californians at risk, because there isn't currently enough money for the rehabilitation programs that the released inmates would need. And, they say, with the state facing a budget crisis, it's by no means certain that that money will materialize.
They also say the state hadn't been given enough time to comply with previous court orders on the issue.
The case could have implications beyond the Golden State. Eighteen other states have filed a brief in support of California, because they fear that they, too, could be forced to release prisoners.
During the 1980s and 1990s, tough-on-crime laws -- including California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law -- helped to swell prison populations across the country. Though the United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world's population, it incarcerates almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I thought prisions was for correction. Somebody breaks the law & they get everything. The victem gets nothing. They should make the prisioner work for their up-keep
Is California’s prison system cruel and unusual punishment?
By Zachary Roth
Buzz up!12 votes ShareretweetEmailPrintBy Zachary Roth zachary Roth – Tue Nov 30, 1:03 pm ET
In a major test case, lawyers for California prisoners allege their clients are kept in such overcrowded conditions that they should be released, rather than continue serving sentences that fall under the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing the case today, in a proceeding likely to shine a spotlight on the nation's controversial incarceration system.
A panel of federal judges ruled last year that the overcrowding in California prisons constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The judges ordered California to release 40,00 inmates over two years. But lawyers for the state appealed, leading to the Supreme Court's hearing.
Lawyers for the prisoners argue in court papers that California's prisons are housing twice as many prisoners as they were built to contain, and as a result, the safety of prisoners, guards, and prison personnel is in jeopardy.
For instance, the lawyers argue, prisoners aren't receiving adequate access to health care. "Prisoners are dying unnecessarily at the alarming rate of one every eight days because they do not receive basic medical care from the State," wrote Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office.
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association agrees. "Due to overcrowding," lawyers for the group wrote in an amicus brief, "California uses converted gymnasiums to house hundreds of inmates on double- and triple-stacked bunks. In these prison 'dormitories' there are normally only one or two correctional officers to supervise approximately 200 inmates."
But lawyers for the state counter that releasing so many prisoners would put Californians at risk, because there isn't currently enough money for the rehabilitation programs that the released inmates would need. And, they say, with the state facing a budget crisis, it's by no means certain that that money will materialize.
They also say the state hadn't been given enough time to comply with previous court orders on the issue.
The case could have implications beyond the Golden State. Eighteen other states have filed a brief in support of California, because they fear that they, too, could be forced to release prisoners.
During the 1980s and 1990s, tough-on-crime laws -- including California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law -- helped to swell prison populations across the country. Though the United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world's population, it incarcerates almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I thought prisions was for correction. Somebody breaks the law & they get everything. The victem gets nothing. They should make the prisioner work for their up-keep
Saturday, November 20, 2010
PRAYER REQUEST
PLEASE, PRAY FOR NORBERT. HE IS A GUN SHOOT VICTEM WHO BELIEVES GOD HAS LEFT HIM & TAKEN EVERYTHING HE LOVED AWAY FROM HIM. HE SAYS EVERYBODY HE LOVES HAS DIED, HIS UNBORN SON, AND THE BABY MOTHER. HIS FATHER. HE HAS DONE OTHER THINGS & NORBERT NEEDS THE LORD!!! HE HAS A HARD HEART AS HE'S BEEN HURT EVER SINCE HE WAS A YOUNG CHILD. PLEASE, PRAY FOR HIS SALVATION, HIS HEALING, TO KNOW GOD LOVES HIM! AND OTHER PEOPLE LOVES HIM. HE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY TYPE OF LOVE.
FROM LYNN JENKINS
Republican Leadership Vote
With our nation facing a nearly $14 trillion debt and two consecutive budget deficits of over $1 trillion dollars the new Republican house majority has a lot on its plate. This Wednesday Republicans elected a new leadership team to chart the path toward fiscal responsibility and a less intrusive federal government. Congressman John Boehner of Ohio was unanimously selected as the Republican conference’s nominee for Speaker of the House. Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia was chosen to hold the post of Majority leader in the next Congress, and Congressman Kevin McCarthy from California was elected as next the Majority Whip.
As I said, Republicans have an uphill battle ahead, but I am confident that the good men and women on the new House leadership team are the best people for the job. Republicans have learned from mistakes of the recent past and will be continually engaging with the American people as we move forward. I look forward to working side by side with my colleagues in leadership to get this nation back on the right track.
Supporting an Earmark moratorium
The Congressional earmark process has been abused for years and is in desperate need of repair. That is why this week I was proud to support a new two year earmark ban. With a $1.3 trillion deficit facing our nation and a Congress that has been on a two year spending spree, it is time to stop the federal government’s out-of-control spending. The Congressional moratorium on earmark requests is a crucial step in restoring fiscal responsibility and discipline to Congress. While I understand earmarks are a small portion of the federal budget, they are often used as incentives for members to vote for big spending legislation they would otherwise oppose. Therefore, I believe eliminating earmarks will have a far reaching impact on the size and scope of the federal government.
Over the last two years, Kansans and folks around the nation have stepped up to take back their government. I have heard their message, and I will continue fighting to protect Kansans’ hard-earned tax dollars and to ensure our children and grandchildren are not buried under an enormous mountain of this generation’s debt.
Congratulations to St. George Elementary for Blue Ribbon School Award
I am honored to be joining the good folks at St. George Elementary School in St. George, Kansas today as they celebrate being named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. The Blue Ribbon School Award is considered the highest honor an American school can achieve, and it is great to see the hard work of the students and teachers at this fantastic school be recognized for their efforts on the national stage.
With an increasingly competitive global economy, effective education will become even more critical in equipping the next generation’s work force. As a parent of two children being educated in Kansas public schools, I have great faith in Kansas’ education system, and have worked hard my entire career to strengthen it. Please be assured that in the 112th Congress I will continue to work to ensure America’s schools remain competitive, accountable, and effective.
With our nation facing a nearly $14 trillion debt and two consecutive budget deficits of over $1 trillion dollars the new Republican house majority has a lot on its plate. This Wednesday Republicans elected a new leadership team to chart the path toward fiscal responsibility and a less intrusive federal government. Congressman John Boehner of Ohio was unanimously selected as the Republican conference’s nominee for Speaker of the House. Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia was chosen to hold the post of Majority leader in the next Congress, and Congressman Kevin McCarthy from California was elected as next the Majority Whip.
As I said, Republicans have an uphill battle ahead, but I am confident that the good men and women on the new House leadership team are the best people for the job. Republicans have learned from mistakes of the recent past and will be continually engaging with the American people as we move forward. I look forward to working side by side with my colleagues in leadership to get this nation back on the right track.
Supporting an Earmark moratorium
The Congressional earmark process has been abused for years and is in desperate need of repair. That is why this week I was proud to support a new two year earmark ban. With a $1.3 trillion deficit facing our nation and a Congress that has been on a two year spending spree, it is time to stop the federal government’s out-of-control spending. The Congressional moratorium on earmark requests is a crucial step in restoring fiscal responsibility and discipline to Congress. While I understand earmarks are a small portion of the federal budget, they are often used as incentives for members to vote for big spending legislation they would otherwise oppose. Therefore, I believe eliminating earmarks will have a far reaching impact on the size and scope of the federal government.
Over the last two years, Kansans and folks around the nation have stepped up to take back their government. I have heard their message, and I will continue fighting to protect Kansans’ hard-earned tax dollars and to ensure our children and grandchildren are not buried under an enormous mountain of this generation’s debt.
Congratulations to St. George Elementary for Blue Ribbon School Award
I am honored to be joining the good folks at St. George Elementary School in St. George, Kansas today as they celebrate being named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. The Blue Ribbon School Award is considered the highest honor an American school can achieve, and it is great to see the hard work of the students and teachers at this fantastic school be recognized for their efforts on the national stage.
With an increasingly competitive global economy, effective education will become even more critical in equipping the next generation’s work force. As a parent of two children being educated in Kansas public schools, I have great faith in Kansas’ education system, and have worked hard my entire career to strengthen it. Please be assured that in the 112th Congress I will continue to work to ensure America’s schools remain competitive, accountable, and effective.
Friday, November 19, 2010
FROM TOWNHALL
Taking the Gloves Off: Is the Health Care Bill Constitutional
Email Jillian Bandes
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg
Sign-Up The legal arguments surrounding the constitutionality of the health care debate are nuanced, and at the center of the debate is whether Congress can regulate a citizen’s inactivity. The Federalist Society holds its annual conference in Washington, D.C. this week, and that's one of the hottest topics. In an afternoon panel on Thursday, four legal scholars went head-to-head in a panel titled “Litigation: Debating the Constitutionality of the Federal Health Care Legislation.”
Four lawsuits in four different states have been launched challenging Obamacare’s constitutionality — in California, Michigan, Virginia, and Florida — according to the panel’s moderator, David Stras, of the Minnesota Supreme Court. So far, the California and Michigan cases have been thrown out. The Virginia case is pending. In Florida, twenty other states have latched on to the case, which has just survived a motion to dismiss. Which arguments the courts will address in that suit remain to be seen.
On the panel, Charles Fried of Harvard University Law School took the unpopular position that the individual mandate in Obamacare was nothing more than a regulation of commerce — a regulation of activity — and was therefore completely Constitutional. The Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to “regulate Commerce ...among the several States,” which has provided the basis for interstate laws that govern the purchase and sale of goods and services.
“The commerce here is health insurance, and what the individual mandate does, is prescribes along with many other rules... for the economic activity, which is health insurance,” said Fried.
The liberal professor then went on to expound his theory of limitless government power: Government has the full authority to garnish wages from its citizens in the form of taxes, he said, and the individual mandate is able to garnish wages in order to force purchase of insurance. Fried also said that the government has authority to require its citizens to buy Froot Loops, for example, though it has no authority to require its citizens to eat them. Just because the government is requiring citizens to buy health care doesn’t mean it’s requiring them to go to the doctor.
David Rivkin, a partner at the law firm of Baker & Hostetler and outspoken political activist, said that Fried's argument was downright fruity. If there are no limits to what the government can require its citizens to buy, there is no way to say one type of purchase is more valid than the other.
“The fact that there's no meaningful, judicially enforceable doctrine here dooms what you... are defending,” said Rivkin. “Any failure to purchase something has impacts.”
Rivkin agreed with Randy Barnett, a professor of legal theory at Georgetown University Law Center, who cited the “necessary and proper” clause, as well as the "substantial effects" doctrine originally proposed by Justice Antonin Scalia.
“You realize there is a limiting doctrine on necessary and proper,” said Rivkin, and that the “line between economic and non-economic activity” has already been formulated through existing case law.
Fried insisted that in practice, the government’s powers have been virtually limitless. He cited a case where the government had required children to be vaccinated — a purchase, a service, and physical pain.
“There was a needle into the body they mandated for that,” said Fried, who insisted that the only leg conservatives have to stand on were “liberty arguments,” that "make my heart beat faster.”
Rivkin insisted that government’s power had to be limited, and that the health care bill was unprecedented. Next up, he said, was the “Happiness and Welfare Act of 2011.”
Jillian Bandes
Jillian Bandes is the National Political Reporter for Townhall.com
Email Jillian Bandes
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg
Sign-Up The legal arguments surrounding the constitutionality of the health care debate are nuanced, and at the center of the debate is whether Congress can regulate a citizen’s inactivity. The Federalist Society holds its annual conference in Washington, D.C. this week, and that's one of the hottest topics. In an afternoon panel on Thursday, four legal scholars went head-to-head in a panel titled “Litigation: Debating the Constitutionality of the Federal Health Care Legislation.”
Four lawsuits in four different states have been launched challenging Obamacare’s constitutionality — in California, Michigan, Virginia, and Florida — according to the panel’s moderator, David Stras, of the Minnesota Supreme Court. So far, the California and Michigan cases have been thrown out. The Virginia case is pending. In Florida, twenty other states have latched on to the case, which has just survived a motion to dismiss. Which arguments the courts will address in that suit remain to be seen.
On the panel, Charles Fried of Harvard University Law School took the unpopular position that the individual mandate in Obamacare was nothing more than a regulation of commerce — a regulation of activity — and was therefore completely Constitutional. The Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to “regulate Commerce ...among the several States,” which has provided the basis for interstate laws that govern the purchase and sale of goods and services.
“The commerce here is health insurance, and what the individual mandate does, is prescribes along with many other rules... for the economic activity, which is health insurance,” said Fried.
The liberal professor then went on to expound his theory of limitless government power: Government has the full authority to garnish wages from its citizens in the form of taxes, he said, and the individual mandate is able to garnish wages in order to force purchase of insurance. Fried also said that the government has authority to require its citizens to buy Froot Loops, for example, though it has no authority to require its citizens to eat them. Just because the government is requiring citizens to buy health care doesn’t mean it’s requiring them to go to the doctor.
David Rivkin, a partner at the law firm of Baker & Hostetler and outspoken political activist, said that Fried's argument was downright fruity. If there are no limits to what the government can require its citizens to buy, there is no way to say one type of purchase is more valid than the other.
“The fact that there's no meaningful, judicially enforceable doctrine here dooms what you... are defending,” said Rivkin. “Any failure to purchase something has impacts.”
Rivkin agreed with Randy Barnett, a professor of legal theory at Georgetown University Law Center, who cited the “necessary and proper” clause, as well as the "substantial effects" doctrine originally proposed by Justice Antonin Scalia.
“You realize there is a limiting doctrine on necessary and proper,” said Rivkin, and that the “line between economic and non-economic activity” has already been formulated through existing case law.
Fried insisted that in practice, the government’s powers have been virtually limitless. He cited a case where the government had required children to be vaccinated — a purchase, a service, and physical pain.
“There was a needle into the body they mandated for that,” said Fried, who insisted that the only leg conservatives have to stand on were “liberty arguments,” that "make my heart beat faster.”
Rivkin insisted that government’s power had to be limited, and that the health care bill was unprecedented. Next up, he said, was the “Happiness and Welfare Act of 2011.”
Jillian Bandes
Jillian Bandes is the National Political Reporter for Townhall.com
FROM TOWNHALL
Ray LaHood: Obama's Power-Mad Cell Phone Czar
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up America is in debt past its eyeballs. Unemployment remains stuck near double digits. Small and large businesses, unions and insurers are clamoring for Obamacare waivers in droves. Jihadists are making a mockery of homeland security. And border chaos reigns. So, what's one of the Obama administration's top domestic policy agenda items this month? Combating distracted drivers.
What? You missed the Million Anti-Distracted Drivers Protest March on Washington and the Great Grassroots Groundswell for federal intervention on our highways and byways? Don't worry. You weren't the only one.
Making the cable TV rounds to unveil a public service announcement campaign against "epidemic" cell phone use and texting on the road, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood revealed bizarre and alarming plans on Wednesday to install devices in cars that would block a driver's ability to communicate.
"There's a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones, and we're looking at that," he threatened. LaHood -- a liberal Republican and pork-addicted Chicago crony who embodies Obama "bipartisanship" -- envisions centralized government mechanisms to shut off commuters' BlackBerries and iPhones.
And that's just the start. "We need to do a lot more if we're going to save lives," LaHood vowed, while paying obligatory lip service to encouraging "personal responsibility." Will the cell phone banners ban radios, GPS devices, makeup and fast food in cars next? All are also listed as causes of distracted driver-induced accidents.
Any death due to such reckless behavior is tragic. But by "saving lives," what cell phone czar LaHood really means is "controlling lives." There are already 30 states with laws in place regulating drivers' cell phone and/or texting habits. The District of Columbia and Guam also passed bans. The safety benefits of such laws are in dispute.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined insurance claims and driving habits in Louisiana, Washington, Minnesota and California, which all passed texting bans two years ago. Its study found that when compared to neighboring states that had not yet banned texting while driving (Arkansas, Texas and Mississippi), the no-texting states actually reported higher accident rates among young drivers -- while the states with no bans maintained constant accident rates. Safety officials theorized that drivers in no-texting states may have adjusted their habits to hide their cell phone use from visual detection by police -- incentivizing even riskier behavior.
_LaHood and his fellow social meddlers have lashed out at the study and any other evidence that state enforcement of these bans is futile. But there's a long history of government safety regulations backfiring on central planners. Back in the 1970s, the federal drive to require child safety-caps on aspirin bottles resulted in no reduction in child poisoning deaths. In fact, renowned risk analyst Kip Viscusi at Harvard Law School found that the regulations induced many parents to leave the caps off altogether because they were inconvenient and difficult to remove.
_Moreover, the push for federal policing of our driving habits comes just as the federal government itself reports that the rate of teenage-related car accidents has fallen. Yes, fallen. Despite increased cell phone use, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that when the years 2004 through 2008 were compared, there was a 38 percent reduction in the number of car accidents involving 16 and 17 year olds.
So what's really driving LaHood? He's pursued an anti-car ideological zeal from Day One -- from entertaining proposals to impose mileage taxes on drivers and to track drivers' routes, to redistributing tax dollars to pie-in-the-sky high-rail projects that no private business will touch, to peddling a "livability initiative" that would discourage suburban growth and corral residents in high-density areas dependent on public transportation.
Like the rest of Obama's radicals, the Transportation Department's self-appointed cell phone czar is a power-hungry busybody hiding behind children to expand government's reach. If only federal agencies came equipped with anti-big government ignition breathalyzer locks.
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up America is in debt past its eyeballs. Unemployment remains stuck near double digits. Small and large businesses, unions and insurers are clamoring for Obamacare waivers in droves. Jihadists are making a mockery of homeland security. And border chaos reigns. So, what's one of the Obama administration's top domestic policy agenda items this month? Combating distracted drivers.
What? You missed the Million Anti-Distracted Drivers Protest March on Washington and the Great Grassroots Groundswell for federal intervention on our highways and byways? Don't worry. You weren't the only one.
Making the cable TV rounds to unveil a public service announcement campaign against "epidemic" cell phone use and texting on the road, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood revealed bizarre and alarming plans on Wednesday to install devices in cars that would block a driver's ability to communicate.
"There's a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones, and we're looking at that," he threatened. LaHood -- a liberal Republican and pork-addicted Chicago crony who embodies Obama "bipartisanship" -- envisions centralized government mechanisms to shut off commuters' BlackBerries and iPhones.
And that's just the start. "We need to do a lot more if we're going to save lives," LaHood vowed, while paying obligatory lip service to encouraging "personal responsibility." Will the cell phone banners ban radios, GPS devices, makeup and fast food in cars next? All are also listed as causes of distracted driver-induced accidents.
Any death due to such reckless behavior is tragic. But by "saving lives," what cell phone czar LaHood really means is "controlling lives." There are already 30 states with laws in place regulating drivers' cell phone and/or texting habits. The District of Columbia and Guam also passed bans. The safety benefits of such laws are in dispute.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined insurance claims and driving habits in Louisiana, Washington, Minnesota and California, which all passed texting bans two years ago. Its study found that when compared to neighboring states that had not yet banned texting while driving (Arkansas, Texas and Mississippi), the no-texting states actually reported higher accident rates among young drivers -- while the states with no bans maintained constant accident rates. Safety officials theorized that drivers in no-texting states may have adjusted their habits to hide their cell phone use from visual detection by police -- incentivizing even riskier behavior.
_LaHood and his fellow social meddlers have lashed out at the study and any other evidence that state enforcement of these bans is futile. But there's a long history of government safety regulations backfiring on central planners. Back in the 1970s, the federal drive to require child safety-caps on aspirin bottles resulted in no reduction in child poisoning deaths. In fact, renowned risk analyst Kip Viscusi at Harvard Law School found that the regulations induced many parents to leave the caps off altogether because they were inconvenient and difficult to remove.
_Moreover, the push for federal policing of our driving habits comes just as the federal government itself reports that the rate of teenage-related car accidents has fallen. Yes, fallen. Despite increased cell phone use, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that when the years 2004 through 2008 were compared, there was a 38 percent reduction in the number of car accidents involving 16 and 17 year olds.
So what's really driving LaHood? He's pursued an anti-car ideological zeal from Day One -- from entertaining proposals to impose mileage taxes on drivers and to track drivers' routes, to redistributing tax dollars to pie-in-the-sky high-rail projects that no private business will touch, to peddling a "livability initiative" that would discourage suburban growth and corral residents in high-density areas dependent on public transportation.
Like the rest of Obama's radicals, the Transportation Department's self-appointed cell phone czar is a power-hungry busybody hiding behind children to expand government's reach. If only federal agencies came equipped with anti-big government ignition breathalyzer locks.
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
FROM AUL
Wednesday, November 17th, 2010
This Week's Feature
The Fine Print: Unraveling the Health Care Law and Abortion
President Obama’s health care law states that all insurance companies will have to cover preventive care for women. However, the law doesn’t define preventive care.
Members from the Institute of Medicine (part of the government’s National Academy of Science) will hear this week from a number of pro-abortion advocates about preventive care – which could be defined to include drugs that cause abortion.
Members of AUL’s legal team will be joining other pro-life advocates to fight such an interpretation, and will be there arguing the legal angles on such a drastic change. For more on that, click here.
On The Docket
Hope Clinic for Women v. Adams
AUL has been defending the right of parents in Illinois to be notified before their minor child can obtain an abortion. In 1995, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, which has been held in legal limbo ever since. The ACLU has filed multiple challenges, and this week, AUL’s legal team will be filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Illinois legislators.
The ACLU claims there is “no justification” for involving parents. AUL points to studies that reveal that parental involvement laws decrease minor abortion and birth rates. Many studies also show that abortion has a particularly harmful impact on minors, both physically and psychologically.
Mr. Smith goes to Washington
This week, the newly elected congressmen head to Washington, D.C. to begin their orientation. Stay tuned for reports from Capitol Hill as AUL works with the Members to put pro-life promises into action.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, began the process of meeting with House and Senate members, and observed: “Thousands of people across America invested in the campaigns of this next generation of leaders, and we believe that they can make a difference for Life. AUL will be there to promote laws that protect us all, born and unborn.”
Hot Off the Presses
For legal analysis and a Washington, D.C. insider’s perspective on the most significant events regarding life issues, AUL’s William Saunders pens the “Washington Insider,” a column featured regularly in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.
William L. Saunders is the Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs at Americans United for Life. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he writes frequently on issues of life, law and policy, and in this extensive analysis, he takes on critical issues like whether the health care law allows for taxpayer funded abortion and what can be done to stop such a change in the law.
To read more, click here.
Life in the News
Politico reports on concerns from AUL and others over who will get powerful committee chairmanships
This Week's Feature
The Fine Print: Unraveling the Health Care Law and Abortion
President Obama’s health care law states that all insurance companies will have to cover preventive care for women. However, the law doesn’t define preventive care.
Members from the Institute of Medicine (part of the government’s National Academy of Science) will hear this week from a number of pro-abortion advocates about preventive care – which could be defined to include drugs that cause abortion.
Members of AUL’s legal team will be joining other pro-life advocates to fight such an interpretation, and will be there arguing the legal angles on such a drastic change. For more on that, click here.
On The Docket
Hope Clinic for Women v. Adams
AUL has been defending the right of parents in Illinois to be notified before their minor child can obtain an abortion. In 1995, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, which has been held in legal limbo ever since. The ACLU has filed multiple challenges, and this week, AUL’s legal team will be filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Illinois legislators.
The ACLU claims there is “no justification” for involving parents. AUL points to studies that reveal that parental involvement laws decrease minor abortion and birth rates. Many studies also show that abortion has a particularly harmful impact on minors, both physically and psychologically.
Mr. Smith goes to Washington
This week, the newly elected congressmen head to Washington, D.C. to begin their orientation. Stay tuned for reports from Capitol Hill as AUL works with the Members to put pro-life promises into action.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, began the process of meeting with House and Senate members, and observed: “Thousands of people across America invested in the campaigns of this next generation of leaders, and we believe that they can make a difference for Life. AUL will be there to promote laws that protect us all, born and unborn.”
Hot Off the Presses
For legal analysis and a Washington, D.C. insider’s perspective on the most significant events regarding life issues, AUL’s William Saunders pens the “Washington Insider,” a column featured regularly in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.
William L. Saunders is the Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs at Americans United for Life. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he writes frequently on issues of life, law and policy, and in this extensive analysis, he takes on critical issues like whether the health care law allows for taxpayer funded abortion and what can be done to stop such a change in the law.
To read more, click here.
Life in the News
Politico reports on concerns from AUL and others over who will get powerful committee chairmanships
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
