News

pregnant

A pro-life group in the US has filed a lawsuit against a college for restricting free speech on campus.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF),  representing Students for Life, filed the lawsuit challenging the policies of Chemeketa Community College, in the State of Oregon, that restrict outdoor speech to a pair of small areas, that are less than 1.5% of the 100-acre campus.

The policy also requires students to obtain permission at least two weeks before speaking in those zones.

Alliance Defending Freedom said the policies have prevented students from engaging in spontaneous expression and promoting their events.

ADF said Students for Life obtained permission to host a debate about physician-assisted suicide but could not distribute flyers outdoors to promote  the event.

“The only permission slip students need to speak on public college campuses is the First Amendment,” said ADF Legal Counsel Michael Ross.

“Students don’t give up their constitutionally protected freedoms when they step on to campus or hold a specific viewpoint,” he said.

“Our clients have the right to peacefully engage and persuade their peers. They also have the freedom to support pregnant and parenting students without censorship or harassment from their school.”

ADF said the college’s policy limits student ability to mobilise in a timely manner in response to breaking political issues.

“Today’s college students are our future legislators, judge, and voters. That’s why it’s so important that public universities model the First Amendment values they’re supposed to be teaching,” said Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom.

“Pro-life students—like their peers—have the freedom to share messages of hope and healing without first asking college administrators for permission to speak.

“Across the country, we are seeing incredible opposition to the pro-life speech of our student leaders and volunteers as they speak for the defenseless and educate their fellow students on abortion,” said Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins.

“But the law and the Constitution are clear on the matter: Public schools cannot silence pro-life groups or force them to self-censor. If Chemeketa Community College wants to respect every member of its community, it will clarify that Students for Life can participate in the open exchange of ideas and ensure that the entire college community becomes a ‘free speech zone’ for pro-life students and their peers.”

pregnant

Christian advocacy group FamilyVoice Australia is urging Australian health ministers to mandate the communication of research into foetal pain to anyone planning an abortion.

New research backs a grieving British mother’s legal bid to compel abortion clinics to disclose that unborn children feel pain as early as 12 weeks.

Ana-Maria Tudor, 32, was not informed that her 23-week-gestation baby would feel pain when it was decapitated in April 2017, and is now suing the British Pregnancy Advisory Service that conducted the abortion with NHS funding.

“I did not find out a baby at 23 weeks might be able to feel pain until afterwards. It made me feel awful and I now deeply regret my decision,” Ms Tudor said.

Official guidelines and abortion information booklets in Britain and Australia do not protect a mother’s right to know that babies may feel pain in the first trimester.

Across the western world, unborn babies are not given any form of pain relief during the macabre decapitation (beheading) or limb-from-limb dismemberment procedures.

A recent British Medical Journal research paper highlights findings that point to 12 week old unborn infants possessing pain-sensing neurological pathways.

FamilyVoice spokesman Darryl Budge said this research must lead to updating documents that provide informed consent.

“All Australian health departments must update their websites and information booklets,” he said.

“Health ministers would be irresponsible if they did not instruct abortion clinics about their duty of care to inform parents about foetal pain from 12 weeks gestation.”

black wooden church budakirkja PK352CR 2

Another US city has reversed its unconstitutional ban on drive-in church services.

In response to the city of Chattanooga ceasing the ban, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing an area church voluntarily dismissed a federal lawsuit that challenged the ban.

Initially the city’s stay-at-home order did not ban drive-in churches, but subsequently Mayor Andrew Berke announced right before Easter that his order specifically prohibited them.

On April 9, Berke posted a message aimed at churches stating that “drive-in services…even in their cars with the windows rolled up, for any length of time, will be considered a violation of our shelter-in-place directive.”

A number of churches in the area were forced to cancel drive-in Easter services.

“Singling out churches for special punishment makes no sense and is very clearly unconstitutional,” said ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker, director of the ADF Center for Christian Ministries.

“It never made any sense that, in Chattanooga, you could sit in your car at a drive-in restaurant, but you couldn’t sit in your car at a drive-in church service.

“We commend the city for changing its policies and respecting the constitutionally protected freedoms of area congregations, which can now participate in alternate versions of worship during this pandemic that are specifically designed to comply with all applicable health and safety recommendations.”

Now that Pastor Steve Ball and Metro Tab Church have been permitted to host drive-in services, the church has been able to not only safely hold worship services but receive donations for victims of a tornado that affected the city.’

On Monday April 27, US Attorney General William Barr issued a memo that instructed federal prosecutors to identify coronavirus-related measures “that could be violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens.”

“If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court,” the memo read.

euthanasia 800

Wesley J. Smith has criticised a Dutch Supreme Court decision that allows doctors to perform euthanasia on people with advanced dementia.

The decision extended euthanasia to patients who have previously put their desires in writing but are no longer able to confirm them because of their illness.

“The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests”, said Smith.

“This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers.”

Smith noted that a media story failed to mention that the woman at the centre of the case fought against being killed.

“Nor does the story mention that the doctor had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her, and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection.

“Moreover, the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide ‘when’ the time for death had come — which she never did. The termination ‘choice’ was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient’s advance directive.”

euthanasia 800

Many countries with euthanasia are freezing end-of-life requests and are instead prioritizing palliative care – a response that exposes what true care is about, according to a Dutch ethicist.

In the Netherlands, the sole dedicated clinic for euthanasia and assisted suicide has closed since March, and has admitted in a statement, “euthanasia care cannot be identified as a top priority in healthcare”.

Two euthanasia and assisted suicide clinics in Ontario have stopped providing medical assistance in dying (MAID) because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to the Globe and Mail.

Hospices in the Netherlands, Ontario and Scotland continue to remain open, and some have even begun providing palliative care to COVID-19 patients.

The lack of priority given to suicidal ‘medicine’ during this worldwide health crisis has led ethicist Professor Theo Boer to conclude that the supposed need for such poisons is abstract rather than practical.

Boer believes that the suicide clinics’ stock in trade, “the existential angst about death that seems to make euthanasia a necessary human right – has disappeared in this time of crisis. Death, in this time of war against a disease, no longer appears a comforting friend or a useful medical treatment.”

“The reality is that most people die peaceful deaths,” Boer said. “But many fear loss of control and find the prospect of others caring for them terrifying.”

“Perhaps, though, we can remember this time when we made huge sacrifices to preserve every life, no matter how frail and vulnerable. We can remember this time when euthanasia no longer seemed necessary.”