lifesitenews--2020-06-30--Italian prelate to Viganò: We would like to ‘accompany your sure steps along the path of truth’

June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Today , Italian Archbishop Luigi Negri published on his website and on the website of Italian journalist Marco Tosatti a public letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò , in which he gives him his full support for his “ message which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience.
” Speaking about “ elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society , ” this recently retired Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio now endorses Archbishop Viganò 's work and says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ path of truth.
” Archbishop Negri clarified that his praise referred to Viganò ’ s early May interventions , not his June interventions on Vatican II .
Archbishop Viganò has made in recent months several statements that caught international attention .
First , at the end of April , he opposed Pope Francis ’ call to obey Italy ’ s continued coronavirus restrictions that continued a ban on Mass .
The archbishop called this not only “ undue , but is also a violation of conscience and harmful to the health of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Viganò issued , together with Cardinals Gerhard Müller , Joseph Zen , and Janis Pujats , as well as many scholars and journalists , an appeal concerning the dangers of the corona crisis being used to restrict our freedoms and those of the Catholic Church .
Then , on June 6 , Archbishop Viganò published an open letter to President Donald Trump , in which he describes the recent corona crisis and the ongoing political crisis in the U.S. as a battle between the children of light and the children of darkness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump himself .
Please see here the letter written by Archbishop Luigi Negri , with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò 's own response , reprinted here with kind permission .
As the present circumstances are continually revealing to us elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society , I would like [ to ] send you a message relating my adhesion to your message , which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience .
This living heart of ecclesial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the time that has been given to us is fleeting and that our existence remains strongly conditioned by the temporary nature of events and facts .
It seems to me that the Church , bit by bit , often by fits and starts , is recovering awareness of her own identity and the missionary task that characterizes her life and her history .
Each day we feel ever more keenly the pressure of events that demand to be judged according to the clarity of the Word of the Lord and lived out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midst of all this we are happy ; we are happy because we abandon ourselves each day to the Lord , with the profound awareness that His presence sustains us at every moment , and that it is impossible for our existence to ever be separated from the companionship of the Lord Jesus Christ .
Our strength is truly found in abandoning our lives to His will and above all in the desire that our life be alive with the great vibrancy of mission .
Our life looks to the future as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , aware of the presence of Christ , asking that this presence of Christ run with us each day in the adventure of mission .
Each morning our life opens in this and for this , with a great desire to sustain our own Christian life and that of our fellow men ; each evening it closes with the awareness of having contributed poorly , but always sincerely , to the maturation of the Christian conscience in the world .
We embrace you , Your Excellency , and as disciples we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure steps along the path of truth , beauty , and goodness .
May the Lord make his presence in the Church and among men a presence full of truth , the capacity for sacrifice and good will towards all men ; thus may we be seen to correspond in a poor but real way to the great invitation of the liturgy at every moment : not to waste time but to give it back each day with our whole will and with great openness to the very heart of God , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called to experience the greatness of God and the desire to contribute in some real way to bringing about the Kingdom of God in the world .
May the Lord bless us and comfort us on our daily path .
I read your words with great emotion ; they were truly touching for me .
It is a consolation to see that Your Excellency has grasped the heart of the problem with that acumen and lucidity that have always distinguished your judgment .
The present time , especially for those who have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most basic things of life : to the simplicity of the Good and the horror of Evil , to the necessity of choosing which side we are on as we fight our daily battles , both small and large .
There are those who see this as a banalization , as if the clarity of the Gospel was no longer capable of giving satisfying answers to a complex and articulate humanity .
And yet , while some of our brother bishops are concerned almost obsessively with inclusiveness and green theology , hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Common Home ” for the Abrahamic religions , the people and priests have an ever greater sense of being distant from their Pastors – fortunately , not all of them – right at the moment of epochal confrontation .
It ’ s true : time is slipping through our hands , Your Excellency , and as it does , the sandcastles of almost initiatory rhetoric are crumbling , sandcastles built by those who have wanted to base their own success on the fleetingness of time and the fragility of the contingent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is happening today : the ephemeral mirages that were supposedly going to replace eternal truths are now revealing , in the harsh light of reality , their artificial and false squalor , their ontological and inexorable falsity .
We discover that we are children , according to the words of Our Lord ; we recognize almost instinctively those who are good and those who are evil , reward and punishment , merit and fault .
But can we consider the serenity of the child resting on its mother ’ s breast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grips his father ’ s hand , to be banal ?
How many fatuous words have been spoken to us , how many useless sedatives have been delivered to us , thinking that the Eternal Word of the Father was inadequate , that it was necessary to update it in order to make it more seductive to the deaf ears of the world !
Yet it would have been enough to simply make that Word our own , and we would have needed nothing else .
If up until now we have allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this present age , we can now abandon ourselves with filial trust and allow ourselves to be led , because we recognize the voice of the Divine Shepherd , and we follow Him where He wishes to lead us – even when others , who should speak , are silent .
Our poverty is not an obstacle , but rather a help in these situations : the more humble we are , the more the skill of the Artist shines through us , holding us as an instrument in His skilled hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scribe wisely writes the story .
I ask Your Excellency to pray that all of us , who in the fullness of the Priesthood are called by the Lord not servants but friends , may succeed in making ourselves docile instruments of His Grace , rediscovering the divine simplicity of the Faith that He has commanded us to preach to all the nations .
Everything else of our own that we would add through pride is a pathetic tinsel , which we must now learn to get rid of if we do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flames of Purgatory , in which our few gold flakes will be purified of their slag in order to make us worthy of the beatific vision .
May we not waste the precious days in which illness and old age give us the opportunity to expiate our faults and the faults of others : they are blessed days which we can offer to the Majesty of God for the Church and her Ministers .
Most Dear Excellency , receive this expression of my profound gratitude for your inspired words , with the assurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacrifice of the Altar .
And pray for me .

'We embrace you, Your Excellency, and as disciples we would like to be able to accompany your sure steps along the path of truth, beauty, and goodness.'
June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, Italian Archbishop Luigi Negri published on his website and on the website of Italian journalist Marco Tosatti a public letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in which he gives him his full support for his “message which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience.” Speaking about “elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society,” this recently retired Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio now endorses Archbishop Viganò's work and says he would like to “accompany” his “path of truth.”
Archbishop Negri clarified that his praise referred to Viganò’s early May interventions, not his June interventions on Vatican II.
Archbishop Viganò has made in recent months several statements that caught international attention. First, at the end of April, he opposed Pope Francis’ call to obey Italy’s continued coronavirus restrictions that continued a ban on Mass. The archbishop called this not only “undue, but is also a violation of conscience and harmful to the health of souls.”
On May 7, Archbishop Viganò issued, together with Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats, as well as many scholars and journalists, an appeal concerning the dangers of the corona crisis being used to restrict our freedoms and those of the Catholic Church.
Then, on June 6, Archbishop Viganò published an open letter to President Donald Trump, in which he describes the recent corona crisis and the ongoing political crisis in the U.S. as a battle between the children of light and the children of darkness. That letter was subsequently endorsed by President Trump himself.
Please see here the letter written by Archbishop Luigi Negri, with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's own response, reprinted here with kind permission.
Archbishop Luigi Negri writes to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Most Dear Excellency,
As the present circumstances are continually revealing to us elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society, I would like [to] send you a message relating my adhesion to your message, which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience. This living heart of ecclesial experience carries with it the daily awareness that the time that has been given to us is fleeting and that our existence remains strongly conditioned by the temporary nature of events and facts.
It seems to me that the Church, bit by bit, often by fits and starts, is recovering awareness of her own identity and the missionary task that characterizes her life and her history.
Each day we feel ever more keenly the pressure of events that demand to be judged according to the clarity of the Word of the Lord and lived out as obedience to His Will. In the midst of all this we are happy; we are happy because we abandon ourselves each day to the Lord, with the profound awareness that His presence sustains us at every moment, and that it is impossible for our existence to ever be separated from the companionship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our strength is truly found in abandoning our lives to His will and above all in the desire that our life be alive with the great vibrancy of mission. Our life looks to the future as a reality in which to invest every moment, aware of the presence of Christ, asking that this presence of Christ run with us each day in the adventure of mission. Each morning our life opens in this and for this, with a great desire to sustain our own Christian life and that of our fellow men; each evening it closes with the awareness of having contributed poorly, but always sincerely, to the maturation of the Christian conscience in the world.
We embrace you, Your Excellency, and as disciples we would like to be able to accompany your sure steps along the path of truth, beauty, and goodness. May the Lord make his presence in the Church and among men a presence full of truth, the capacity for sacrifice and good will towards all men; thus may we be seen to correspond in a poor but real way to the great invitation of the liturgy at every moment: not to waste time but to give it back each day with our whole will and with great openness to the very heart of God, because in everyday life each of us is called to experience the greatness of God and the desire to contribute in some real way to bringing about the Kingdom of God in the world.
May the Lord bless us and comfort us on our daily path.
+Luigi Negri – Archbishop Emeritus of Ferrara – Comacchio
Milan, 16 June 2020
Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò replies to Abp. Luigi Negri
Most Reverend Excellency,
I read your words with great emotion; they were truly touching for me. It is a consolation to see that Your Excellency has grasped the heart of the problem with that acumen and lucidity that have always distinguished your judgment.
The present time, especially for those who have a supernatural perspective, brings us back to the most basic things of life: to the simplicity of the Good and the horror of Evil, to the necessity of choosing which side we are on as we fight our daily battles, both small and large. There are those who see this as a banalization, as if the clarity of the Gospel was no longer capable of giving satisfying answers to a complex and articulate humanity. And yet, while some of our brother bishops are concerned almost obsessively with inclusiveness and green theology, hoping for the New World Order and a “Common Home” for the Abrahamic religions, the people and priests have an ever greater sense of being distant from their Pastors – fortunately, not all of them – right at the moment of epochal confrontation.
It’s true: time is slipping through our hands, Your Excellency, and as it does, the sandcastles of almost initiatory rhetoric are crumbling, sandcastles built by those who have wanted to base their own success on the fleetingness of time and the fragility of the contingent. There is something inexorable at work in what is happening today: the ephemeral mirages that were supposedly going to replace eternal truths are now revealing, in the harsh light of reality, their artificial and false squalor, their ontological and inexorable falsity. We discover that we are children, according to the words of Our Lord; we recognize almost instinctively those who are good and those who are evil, reward and punishment, merit and fault. But can we consider the serenity of the child resting on its mother’s breast, the strong trust of the child who grips his father’s hand, to be banal?
How many fatuous words have been spoken to us, how many useless sedatives have been delivered to us, thinking that the Eternal Word of the Father was inadequate, that it was necessary to update it in order to make it more seductive to the deaf ears of the world! Yet it would have been enough to simply make that Word our own, and we would have needed nothing else. If up until now we have allowed ourselves to be confused by the din of this present age, we can now abandon ourselves with filial trust and allow ourselves to be led, because we recognize the voice of the Divine Shepherd, and we follow Him where He wishes to lead us – even when others, who should speak, are silent.
Our poverty is not an obstacle, but rather a help in these situations: the more humble we are, the more the skill of the Artist shines through us, holding us as an instrument in His skilled hands, like the pen with which the Scribe wisely writes the story.
I ask Your Excellency to pray that all of us, who in the fullness of the Priesthood are called by the Lord not servants but friends, may succeed in making ourselves docile instruments of His Grace, rediscovering the divine simplicity of the Faith that He has commanded us to preach to all the nations. Everything else of our own that we would add through pride is a pathetic tinsel, which we must now learn to get rid of if we do not wish it to be done by the flames of Purgatory, in which our few gold flakes will be purified of their slag in order to make us worthy of the beatific vision. May we not waste the precious days in which illness and old age give us the opportunity to expiate our faults and the faults of others: they are blessed days which we can offer to the Majesty of God for the Church and her Ministers.
Most Dear Excellency, receive this expression of my profound gratitude for your inspired words, with the assurance that I remember you in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. And pray for me.
Nunc dimittis servum Tuum,
Domine, secundum verbum Tuum in pace…
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
17 June 2020
Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--Stephen King retweets then rebukes JK Rowling, declaring ‘trans women are women’

June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Horror novelist Stephen King has added his voice to the chorus of entertainers rejecting Harry Potter author JK Rowling ’ s dissent from LGBT orthodoxy on the issue of transgenderism , declaring that “ trans women are women ” in response to an inquiry from a follower .
Over the weekend , King retweeted the following tweet from Rowling , which was part of a longer thread on the feedback , both positive and negative , she has received for her willingness to publicly declare that identifying as female does not change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequently asked King to “ address the TERF ( trans-exclusionary radical feminist ) tweet .
By telling us constant readers if you believe trans women are women , ” to which King agreed : Newsweek reported that , after King ’ s initial retweet , Rowling had tweeted , “ I 've always revered @ StephenKing , but today my love reached — maybe not Annie Wilkes levels — but new heights .
It 's so much easier for men to ignore women 's concerns , or to belittle them , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood up when they did n't need to .
Thank you , Stephen . ''
Rowling deleted the statement of gratitude after King ’ s follow-up statement .
King is only the latest to align against Rowling , joining a chorus that includes trans activists , staffers at the publishing company for her latest children ’ s book , the Canadian children ’ s show CBC Kids News , and even the stars of the Harry Potter film adaptations .
Yet Rowling has consistently said she has no intention of backing down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting of me has been , I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘ woman ’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it , ” Rowling wrote in an essay response to her critics .
“ I stand alongside the brave women and men , gay , straight and trans , who ’ re standing up for freedom of speech and thought , and for the rights and safety of some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay kids , fragile teenagers , and women who ’ re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces .
Polls show those women are in the vast majority , and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault , and who ’ ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.
” Rowling 's current leadership against the “ gender-fluidity ” movement is particularly striking in light of the fact that , on most issues , she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made clear her support for abortion and homosexuality and disapproval of U.S. President Donald Trump , claiming Harry Potter villain Lord Voldemort is “ kind of a nationalist , ” a label associated with Trump in the United States and Brexit supporters in the United Kingdom .
The Harry Potter series has grown closely aligned with young liberals in recent years , thanks in part to Rowling ’ s notorious decision to declare the wizard Dumbledore was gay all along after completing the original series , despite the character ’ s sexual attraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Horror novelist Stephen King has added his voice to the chorus of entertainers rejecting Harry Potter author JK Rowling’s dissent from LGBT orthodoxy on the issue of transgenderism, declaring that “trans women are women” in response to an inquiry from a follower.
Over the weekend, King retweeted the following tweet from Rowling, which was part of a longer thread on the feedback, both positive and negative, she has received for her willingness to publicly declare that identifying as female does not change gender-confused men into women:
Andrea Dworkin wrote: ‘Men often react to women’s words—speaking and writing—as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women’s words with violence.’ It isn't hateful for women speak about their own experiences, nor do they deserve shaming for doing so. 8/9 — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 28, 2020
A follower subsequently asked King to “address the TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) tweet. By telling us constant readers if you believe trans women are women,” to which King agreed:
Yes. Trans women are women. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) June 28, 2020
Newsweek reported that, after King’s initial retweet, Rowling had tweeted, “I've always revered @StephenKing, but today my love reached — maybe not Annie Wilkes levels — but new heights. It's so much easier for men to ignore women's concerns, or to belittle them, but I won't ever forget the men who stood up when they didn't need to. Thank you, Stephen.” Rowling deleted the statement of gratitude after King’s follow-up statement.
King is only the latest to align against Rowling, joining a chorus that includes trans activists, staffers at the publishing company for her latest children’s book, the Canadian children’s show CBC Kids News, and even the stars of the Harry Potter film adaptations. Yet Rowling has consistently said she has no intention of backing down.
“But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it,” Rowling wrote in an essay response to her critics. “I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.”
Rowling's current leadership against the “gender-fluidity” movement is particularly striking in light of the fact that, on most issues, she is a doctrinaire partisan liberal.
She has made clear her support for abortion and homosexuality and disapproval of U.S. President Donald Trump, claiming Harry Potter villain Lord Voldemort is “kind of a nationalist,” a label associated with Trump in the United States and Brexit supporters in the United Kingdom. The Harry Potter series has grown closely aligned with young liberals in recent years, thanks in part to Rowling’s notorious decision to declare the wizard Dumbledore was gay all along after completing the original series, despite the character’s sexual attraction not being referenced in the books themselves.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--Supreme Court decision confirms what we already know: Expect betrayal

June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – We can not say that the brutal Supreme Court June Medical Services v. Russo decision was a surprise to most veteran pro-lifers .
The June 29 decision struck down a state ’ s requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals for cases of botched abortions .
Regulations hoping to prevent the death of women from abortion complications were seen as an undue burden on women who seek abortions .
The decision confirms what we already know about our judiciary : The killing of babies has priority over the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such has been the consistent message since 1973 .
Activists may have hoped that the justices might have conceded in this minor point since it involved the most elementary safety measures .
What made this ruling particularly painful was that the swing vote in the 5–4 decision came from the supposedly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts .
However , pro-lifers no longer expect justice from the Supreme Court .
They have learned the hard way that they are much more likely to receive betrayal .
Pro-lifers expect betrayal because they know that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law—God ’ s Law upon which all human law is based .
The justices prefer to dabble in liberal law theories , legal fantasies , and meaningless technicalities than to acknowledge a Divine Lawgiver .
They craft their laws to adjust to an increasingly immoral society that needs such decisions to justify and legitimize its unbridled passions .
Nor is justice to be expected from the justices .
Even a child knows the most elementary notions of justice found in the moral law .
Saint Paul says it is “ written on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wrong and unjust .
It does not require a law degree to understand this elementary truth .
Yet the justices of the highest court in the land dare not affirm this basic truth .
They prefer to betray it and follow the world ’ s sinful ways .
Thus , the Supreme Court decision is yet one more betrayal in a treacherous fight that has spanned nearly 50 years .
The decision reflects the complicity of those in other fields that also have not the courage to confront a world gone awry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those in the political , business , and religious establishments that join forces with or fail to speak out against the culture of death .
This latest decision mocks the countless Americans who now fight against abortion .
It exalts iniquity and creates a separate law for those who slaughter the unborn .
Some might think such betrayal would discourage the pro-life cause .
Far from discouraging pro-lifers , it serves to make them more determined .
The constant betrayals over the years have callused the movement .
Pro-lifers have developed thick skins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and continuing the fight .
From the very beginning , the pro-life movement has fought against all the odds .
Such was the triumph of the sexual revolution of the 1960s that pro-abortion advocates calculated the pro-life resistance would gradually fade away .
Indeed , in the early days , we could count on few legislators , clergy , or leaders to appear on the pro-life stage .
Few dared to confront the pressure to conform to liberal norms .
With grit and determination , pro-life activists have fought over the decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ become almost mainstream .
Vast sectors of the public question procured abortion .
We have transformed the debate from that of “ women ’ s health ” to a moral issue .
Thus , nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade , the controversy still rages .
This long history of facing the odds allowed the movement to accomplish amazing things .
It forced activists to appeal to a higher authority .
The pro-life cause has won many important legislative and political battles , but it has run on miracles right from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close 1,707 abortion centers with the “ normal means ” by which these things are done .
There were no government interventions , clerical excommunications , and few business boycotts to make the way easier .
Undaunted , countless pro-life activists on the ground prayed and struggled .
They had recourse to the Divine Lawgiver whom the Court justices rejected .
The pro-life movement also turned the tables upon the Court justices , who refused to uphold the moral law by condemning abortion .
The judges are now the judged .
Abortion has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are judged .
Tens of millions of Americans also used abortion to judge politicians , political parties , movements , and currents .
It is a polarizing litmus test that brings back the moral law into society .
The issue has proven an immense obstacle to those who want to destroy all legal restraints and throw our nation into ruin and anarchy .
The abortion fight will continue despite the betrayals .
To the degree that human solutions appear less likely , the more we must look to supernatural solutions to aid us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s soul .
The latest ruling confirms what we already know : Expect setbacks and betrayals , but God always triumphs in the end .
John Horvat II is a scholar , researcher , educator , international speaker , and author of the book Return to Order , as well as the author of hundreds of published articles .
He lives in Spring Grove , Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition , Family and Property .

We know that killing babies is wrong and unjust. It does not require a law degree to understand this elementary truth. Yet the justices of the highest court in the land dare not affirm this basic truth. They prefer to betray it and follow the world’s sinful ways.
June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – We cannot say that the brutal Supreme Court June Medical Services v. Russo decision was a surprise to most veteran pro-lifers. The June 29 decision struck down a state’s requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals for cases of botched abortions. Regulations hoping to prevent the death of women from abortion complications were seen as an undue burden on women who seek abortions.
The decision confirms what we already know about our judiciary: The killing of babies has priority over the lives of the preborn…and their mothers. Such has been the consistent message since 1973.
Activists may have hoped that the justices might have conceded in this minor point since it involved the most elementary safety measures. What made this ruling particularly painful was that the swing vote in the 5–4 decision came from the supposedly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. However, pro-lifers no longer expect justice from the Supreme Court. They have learned the hard way that they are much more likely to receive betrayal.
Expecting betrayal
Pro-lifers expect betrayal because they know that the Supreme Court does not recognize a supreme law—God’s Law upon which all human law is based. The justices prefer to dabble in liberal law theories, legal fantasies, and meaningless technicalities than to acknowledge a Divine Lawgiver. They craft their laws to adjust to an increasingly immoral society that needs such decisions to justify and legitimize its unbridled passions.
Nor is justice to be expected from the justices. Even a child knows the most elementary notions of justice found in the moral law. Saint Paul says it is “written on our hearts.” We know that killing babies is wrong and unjust. It does not require a law degree to understand this elementary truth. Yet the justices of the highest court in the land dare not affirm this basic truth. They prefer to betray it and follow the world’s sinful ways.
Thus, the Supreme Court decision is yet one more betrayal in a treacherous fight that has spanned nearly 50 years. The decision reflects the complicity of those in other fields that also have not the courage to confront a world gone awry. Pro-lifers know well the silence of those in the political, business, and religious establishments that join forces with or fail to speak out against the culture of death.
This latest decision mocks the countless Americans who now fight against abortion. It exalts iniquity and creates a separate law for those who slaughter the unborn.
Facing enormous odds
Some might think such betrayal would discourage the pro-life cause.
Far from discouraging pro-lifers, it serves to make them more determined. The constant betrayals over the years have callused the movement. Pro-lifers have developed thick skins, taking such setbacks in stride, and continuing the fight.
From the very beginning, the pro-life movement has fought against all the odds. Such was the triumph of the sexual revolution of the 1960s that pro-abortion advocates calculated the pro-life resistance would gradually fade away.
Indeed, in the early days, we could count on few legislators, clergy, or leaders to appear on the pro-life stage. Few dared to confront the pressure to conform to liberal norms.
With grit and determination, pro-life activists have fought over the decades. Today, the movement has grown and become almost mainstream. Vast sectors of the public question procured abortion. We have transformed the debate from that of “women’s health” to a moral issue. Thus, nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade, the controversy still rages.
Recourse to the rejected lawgiver
This long history of facing the odds allowed the movement to accomplish amazing things. It forced activists to appeal to a higher authority. The pro-life cause has won many important legislative and political battles, but it has run on miracles right from the beginning.
Indeed, we did not close 1,707 abortion centers with the “normal means” by which these things are done. There were no government interventions, clerical excommunications, and few business boycotts to make the way easier. Undaunted, countless pro-life activists on the ground prayed and struggled. They had recourse to the Divine Lawgiver whom the Court justices rejected.
The pro-life movement also turned the tables upon the Court justices, who refused to uphold the moral law by condemning abortion. The judges are now the judged. Abortion has become a pivotal issue by which judges are judged.
Tens of millions of Americans also used abortion to judge politicians, political parties, movements, and currents. It is a polarizing litmus test that brings back the moral law into society. The issue has proven an immense obstacle to those who want to destroy all legal restraints and throw our nation into ruin and anarchy.
The abortion fight will continue despite the betrayals. To the degree that human solutions appear less likely, the more we must look to supernatural solutions to aid us in this moral fight for America’s soul. The latest ruling confirms what we already know: Expect setbacks and betrayals, but God always triumphs in the end.
John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--New video reveals Planned Parenthood admitting under oath babies are born alive

PETITION : Demand Planned Parenthood return $ 80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund !
Sign the petition here .
June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The pro-life investigators of the Center for Medical Progress ( CMP ) released a new video Tuesday containing footage from the sworn testimony of abortion industry officials admitting that they are aware of babies having been born alive , and suggesting that they are murdered soon after .
In the new video , Advanced Bioscience Resources ( ABR ) procurement manager Perrin Larton , one of the figures featured in CMP ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ intact ” fetuses are delivered after attempted abortions “ once every couple months , ” which is a far cry from the prevailaing abortion industry narrative that such cases are extraordinarily rare .
As to whether “ intact ” means a child is still alive when the procurement technician comes in to “ do a dissection ” for the desired tissue samples , Larton denies seeing signs of movement , but admits , “ I can see hearts that are not in an intact POC [ product of conception ] that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oath was Dr. Deborah Nucatola , former Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America ( PPFA ) , who was also seen in the original CMP videos .
Nucatola became infamous for admitting that Planned Parenthood is “ making money off of this ” despite laws against profiting from human tissue , and that abortionists know how to get around the ban on partial-birth abortion .
“ I ’ m sure I have ” had patients deliver a “ nonviable fetus , ” she admits , meaning a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survival.
” Nucatola is initially evasive about defining viability , offering that it depends on a case-by-case basis , based on many criteria , and that it “ depends on where you work.
” She ultimately offers a few examples of factors to consider , most of which are not related to any fatal condition on the part of the baby : “ estimated fetal weight , gestational age , the health of the fetus , ” and , notably , “ the availability of interventions.
” Jon Dunn , CEO of Planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testifies that he can only recall one decades-old instance of a baby being delivered alive after an attempted abortion .
In that case , he claims , the child was kept comfortable , and that he or she naturally died in a “ matter of seconds , ” meaning there would not have been time to call 911 for life-saving support anyway .
“ This is something that every obstetrician-gynecologist deals with on rare occasion , ” Dunn says .
“ It is their medical judgment what to do in that circumstance.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Planned Parenthood and their associates to sell living children inside and outside the womb and then kill them through organ harvesting ?
” CMP project lead David Daleiden asked .
“ The DOJ has vigorously prosecuted the sale of eagle body parts .
Surely selling human body parts after cutting them out of an infant with a beating heart is at least as grave of a crime.
” CMP ’ s original bombshell expose of Planned Parenthood ’ s sale of aborted babies ’ body parts occurred late into former President Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the abortion giant didn ’ t have to worry about a federal investigation .
Late in 2017 , the Trump administration requested documents from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s review of the case , which led many pro-lifers to hope Planned Parenthood would finally face justice .
But no charges were ever brought .
In June 2019 , 67 members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking an update on the investigation , including why no actions have been taken yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has updated the public on the state of the investigation since .

'This is something that every obstetrician-gynecologist deals with on rare occasion,' said Jon Dunn, CEO of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino Counties.
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The pro-life investigators of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a new video Tuesday containing footage from the sworn testimony of abortion industry officials admitting that they are aware of babies having been born alive, and suggesting that they are murdered soon after.
In the new video, Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) procurement manager Perrin Larton, one of the figures featured in CMP’s very first undercover videos, says that “intact” fetuses are delivered after attempted abortions “once every couple months,” which is a far cry from the prevailaing abortion industry narrative that such cases are extraordinarily rare.
As to whether “intact” means a child is still alive when the procurement technician comes in to “do a dissection” for the desired tissue samples, Larton denies seeing signs of movement, but admits, “I can see hearts that are not in an intact POC [product of conception] that are beating independently.”
Also testifying under oath was Dr. Deborah Nucatola, former Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), who was also seen in the original CMP videos. Nucatola became infamous for admitting that Planned Parenthood is “making money off of this” despite laws against profiting from human tissue, and that abortionists know how to get around the ban on partial-birth abortion.
“I’m sure I have” had patients deliver a “nonviable fetus,” she admits, meaning a “fetus that’s not capable of survival.” Nucatola is initially evasive about defining viability, offering that it depends on a case-by-case basis, based on many criteria, and that it “depends on where you work.” She ultimately offers a few examples of factors to consider, most of which are not related to any fatal condition on the part of the baby: “estimated fetal weight, gestational age, the health of the fetus,” and, notably, “the availability of interventions.”
Jon Dunn, CEO of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino Counties, testifies that he can only recall one decades-old instance of a baby being delivered alive after an attempted abortion. In that case, he claims, the child was kept comfortable, and that he or she naturally died in a “matter of seconds,” meaning there would not have been time to call 911 for life-saving support anyway.
“This is something that every obstetrician-gynecologist deals with on rare occasion,” Dunn says. “It is their medical judgment what to do in that circumstance.”
“How long will public authorities permit Planned Parenthood and their associates to sell living children inside and outside the womb and then kill them through organ harvesting?” CMP project lead David Daleiden asked. “The DOJ has vigorously prosecuted the sale of eagle body parts. Surely selling human body parts after cutting them out of an infant with a beating heart is at least as grave of a crime.”
CMP’s original bombshell expose of Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted babies’ body parts occurred late into former President Barack Obama’s second term, so naturally the abortion giant didn’t have to worry about a federal investigation. Late in 2017, the Trump administration requested documents from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of the case, which led many pro-lifers to hope Planned Parenthood would finally face justice. But no charges were ever brought.
In June 2019, 67 members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking an update on the investigation, including why no actions have been taken yet. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department has updated the public on the state of the investigation since.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--Victory as British court grants judicial review of at-home abortions

WESTMINSTER , England , June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― A British court has permitted a judicial review of a decision to allow home abortions during the coronavirus lockdown .
Yesterday the Court of Appeal struck down the High Court ’ s decision to reject pro-life group Christian Concern ’ s challenge to the United Kingdom Health Secretary ’ s measure .
The limits of the 1967 Abortion Act were relaxed in March to allow for early abortions during the lockdown .
In late March the British government first permitted women who are up to ten weeks pregnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-administer at home without a medical practitioner present .
The Health Department flip-flopped on the decision twice , concluding on March 30 that DIY at-home abortions could go ahead .
In his decision to allow Christian Concern ’ s challenge to the legality of self-administered abortion to go forward , Lord Justice Lewison wrote that it is “ arguable ” that Health Secretary Matt Hancock exceeded his powers under the Abortion Act when he defined “ a pregnant woman ’ s home ” as a place where abortions can be lawfully performed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that their argument “ has a real prospect of success.
” The organization stated that the Court of Appeal will now hold a public hearing to decide if the Health Secretary ’ s decision “ should be quashed.
” Christian Concern reported that they will advance two arguments that may overturn the de facto legalization of at-home abortion .
The first is that only Parliament , and certainly not the Health Secretary , can change the law .
The Abortion Act stipulates that abortions may take place only in hospitals run by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved ” clinics .
The second is that permitting women to perform abortions on themselves is directly contrary to the aims of the Abortion Act , “ which is to prevent ‘ backstreet abortions ’ and ensure that the abortions take place in safe [ sic ] and hygenic conditions.
” The Department of Health released its abortion statistics for 2019 on June 11 .
They revealed a new abortion record for England and Wales : 207,384 .
The number of abortions in Scotland for 2019 are not yet known .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 13,286 babies aborted .
Meanwhile , 129 babies were aborted in Northern Ireland within two months of its pro-life law being forceably altered .
Christian Concern ’ s Andrea Williams blamed the rising abortion rate on the British government ’ s determination to liberalize the deadly practice .
“ Abortion numbers are at record highs , ” she stated .
“ The government is making every effort to liberalize abortion to the point of decriminalization , ” Williams continued .
“ The Westminster government has forced abortion onto Northern Ireland .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s regulations on DIY abortions , being brought under the guise of being necessary due to coronavirus , were never meant to be temporary .
I can not overstate the importance of this appeal.
” Williams believes that the challenge will also serve to expose the abortion industry to public scrutiny , which in turn will save some lives and protect more mothers .
“ What is truly shocking is the unfettered and inappropriate level of access to government that the abortion lobby has , ” she added .
John Deighan of Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unborn Children ( SPUC ) told LifeSiteNews that they too are “ appalled ” by the permission granted for at-home abortions .
“ SPUC is strongly supportive of this case and the issues it raises , ” he said by email .
“ We wish Christian Concern every success in convincing judges of their objections .
We too are appalled that this policy of home abortions has been implemented , and our view is that the measure is beyond the powers of the government.
” Deighan noted that the Health Secretary ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dreadful occurrences ” such as a home abortion that killed a 28-week-old unborn baby .
In the United Kingdom , it is illegal to abort an unborn baby after he or she has reached 24 weeks ’ gestation except for eugenic reasons , like the child having Down Syndrome or spina bifida .
SPUC ’ s new leader also pointed out that unsupervised abortion heightens the chance of forced abortion .
“ We have ... warned [ the ] government that their policy is open to all sorts of abuse and coercion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not even have to see a medical professional before inducing an abortion in their own home .
It is a perfect system for all sorts of people : abusers , traffickers or pimps , to cover their tracks and force women to have abortions without fear of professional intervention.
” Deighan also noted that abortion extremists have taken advantage of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic to further their ideological ends .
“ The [ COVID crisis ] has been a convenient smokescreen for implementing home abortion which has long been a goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We hope that some light on the issue will expose how dreadful this policy is to the wider public .
Our abortion laws and policies are getting so extreme that awakening the hearts and minds of the public is an urgent necessity .
”

The coronavirus crisis 'has been a convenient smokescreen for implementing home abortion which has long been a goal of abortion advocates,' said a U.K. pro-life advocate.
WESTMINSTER, England, June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― A British court has permitted a judicial review of a decision to allow home abortions during the coronavirus lockdown.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal struck down the High Court’s decision to reject pro-life group Christian Concern’s challenge to the United Kingdom Health Secretary’s measure.
The limits of the 1967 Abortion Act were relaxed in March to allow for early abortions during the lockdown. In late March the British government first permitted women who are up to ten weeks pregnant to receive abortion pills by mail to self-administer at home without a medical practitioner present. The Health Department flip-flopped on the decision twice, concluding on March 30 that DIY at-home abortions could go ahead.
In his decision to allow Christian Concern’s challenge to the legality of self-administered abortion to go forward, Lord Justice Lewison wrote that it is “arguable” that Health Secretary Matt Hancock exceeded his powers under the Abortion Act when he defined “a pregnant woman’s home” as a place where abortions can be lawfully performed. According to Christian Concern, Lewison also said that their argument “has a real prospect of success.”
The organization stated that the Court of Appeal will now hold a public hearing to decide if the Health Secretary’s decision “should be quashed.”
Christian Concern reported that they will advance two arguments that may overturn the de facto legalization of at-home abortion. The first is that only Parliament, and certainly not the Health Secretary, can change the law. The Abortion Act stipulates that abortions may take place only in hospitals run by the National Health Service and in “approved” clinics. The second is that permitting women to perform abortions on themselves is directly contrary to the aims of the Abortion Act, “which is to prevent ‘backstreet abortions’ and ensure that the abortions take place in safe [sic] and hygenic conditions.”
The Department of Health released its abortion statistics for 2019 on June 11. They revealed a new abortion record for England and Wales: 207,384. The number of abortions in Scotland for 2019 are not yet known. However, they hit a ten-year high in 2018 with 13,286 babies aborted. Meanwhile, 129 babies were aborted in Northern Ireland within two months of its pro-life law being forceably altered.
Christian Concern’s Andrea Williams blamed the rising abortion rate on the British government’s determination to liberalize the deadly practice.
“Abortion numbers are at record highs,” she stated.
“The government is making every effort to liberalize abortion to the point of decriminalization,” Williams continued.
“The Westminster government has forced abortion onto Northern Ireland. It is equally clear that the Department’s regulations on DIY abortions, being brought under the guise of being necessary due to coronavirus, were never meant to be temporary. I cannot overstate the importance of this appeal.”
Williams believes that the challenge will also serve to expose the abortion industry to public scrutiny, which in turn will save some lives and protect more mothers.
“What is truly shocking is the unfettered and inappropriate level of access to government that the abortion lobby has,” she added.
John Deighan of Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) told LifeSiteNews that they too are “appalled” by the permission granted for at-home abortions.
“SPUC is strongly supportive of this case and the issues it raises,” he said by email.
“We wish Christian Concern every success in convincing judges of their objections. We too are appalled that this policy of home abortions has been implemented, and our view is that the measure is beyond the powers of the government.”
Deighan noted that the Health Secretary’s relaxation of the law permitted such “dreadful occurrences” such as a home abortion that killed a 28-week-old unborn baby. In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to abort an unborn baby after he or she has reached 24 weeks’ gestation except for eugenic reasons, like the child having Down Syndrome or spina bifida.
Deighan also pointed out that unsupervised abortion heightens the chance of forced abortion.
“We have … warned [the] government that their policy is open to all sorts of abuse and coercion,” Deighan told LifeSiteNews.
“Women do not even have to see a medical professional before inducing an abortion in their own home. It is a perfect system for all sorts of people: abusers, traffickers or pimps, to cover their tracks and force women to have abortions without fear of professional intervention.”
Deighan also noted that abortion extremists have taken advantage of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic to further their ideological ends.
“The [COVID crisis] has been a convenient smokescreen for implementing home abortion which has long been a goal of abortion advocates,” he said.
“We hope that some light on the issue will expose how dreadful this policy is to the wider public. Our abortion laws and policies are getting so extreme that awakening the hearts and minds of the public is an urgent necessity.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--‘Unreal,’ ‘unjust’: Conservatives react to SCOTUS ruling helping ‘genocidal’ abortion industry

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Reacting to yesterday ’ s decision by the Supreme Court to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications , conservatives criticized Chief Justice John Roberts ’ siding with the liberals on the bench and reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law .
“ Unreal , ” commented Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation on Twitter .
“ Justice Roberts just voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case because of stare decisis ...
The precedent he ’ s upholding is from a case just four years ago , that he dissented on .
If he thought the Court got it wrong four years ago , today was his chance to correct it.
” In his concurring opinion yesterday , Roberts , who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush , invoked the legal doctrine of stare decisis , a controversial theory that claims past opinions gain legal weight simply by virtue of how long they last , regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution .
That doctrine , he wrote , “ requires us , absent special circumstances , to treat like cases alike .
The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law , for the same reasons .
Therefore Louisiana ’ s law can not stand under our precedents.
” Roberts even acknowledged that he had “ joined the dissent in Whole Woman ’ s Health , ” the similar case in Texas , and continues “ to believe that the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however is not whether Whole Woman ’ s Health was right or wrong , but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.
” Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute , a libertarian think tank , characterized “ Chief Justice Roberts ’ s capricious application of stare decisis ” as “ startling.
” Shapiro noted stare decisis didn ’ t stop Roberts from overturning precedent in Citizens United v. FEC ( 2010 ) , Janus v. AFSCME ( 2018 ) , and Knick v. Township of Scott ( 2019 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much older and more entrenched.
” Now , however , “ a very recent close decision in which he dissented apparently carries more weight .
There are probably other examples , but those three come immediately to mind.
” Writing for National Review , Yuval Levin pointed out how Roberts had abused 18th-century conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke by writing about stare decisis , “ This principle is grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today ’ s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to answer them .
Because the “ private stock of reason … in each man is small , … individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.
” While Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion had already emphasized how improper it was to refer to Burke in this context , Levin had a different angle .
“ In the passage Roberts cites ( as well as the one that Justice Thomas cites ) , Burke is talking about judgments made by statesmen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
“ And it ’ s not as though he never expressed any views about how judges should think about precedent.
” “ Burke described precedents as ‘ one ground , though only one ground , of legal argument , ’ and said that before they could be treated as authoritative they needed to be tested against five crucial criteria , ” according to Levin .
He then proceeded to quote directly from Burke that precedents need to be “ numerous and not scattered here and there ; —secondly , concurrent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be made in good and constitutional times ; —fourthly , not to be made to serve an occasion ; —and fifthly , to be agreeable to the general tenor of legal principles , which over-ruled precedents , and were not to be over-ruled by them.
” Chief Justice Roberts , however , did not mention “ any such criteria in thinking through his defense of a decision he disagreed with just four years ago .
And if he had , it isn ’ t likely that his concurrence today would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President and Founder Lila Rose had particularly strong words about the decision and its ramifications for unborn children .
“ In the very act of bringing a case against Louisiana ’ s law , the abortion industry reasserted its obsession with profit , at any cost , ” she said .
“ Abortion businesses claim to be healthcare entities , but resist any law that holds them to the same health and safety standards as the actual medical community .
Abortion violently dismembers , decapitates , poisons , and crushes the living bodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been , and never will be healthcare.
” Rose said the “ unjust ruling is a reminder that the lives of an entire people group have been wrongly placed in the hands of nine lawyers , several of whom abuse their power to violate the human right to life .
With this decision , the Supreme Court has once again provided aid and comfort to the genocidal abortion industry which profits from the pain and fear of mothers and the deaths of their children.
” ‘ Civil rights laws will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to favor the Sexual Revolution in all its manifestations ’ Rod Dreher , author of The Benedict Option , commented , “ Two years ago , Roberts signed the dissent in the 2016 Texas case — a dissent that said the majority decision ‘ exemplifies the court ’ s troubling tendency ‘ to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion , or even to speak in opposition to abortion , is at issue.
’ Today , only four years later , Justice Roberts has Grown In Office™ , and has voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good Catholic Justice Roberts.
” Dreher asked , “ Can anyone understand SCOTUS abortion jurisprudence ?
Can it ever be applied logically ?
I think it can , if you understand this principle : Pro-lifers must lose.
” Referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion , and to recent decisions on homosexual “ marriage ” and gender ideology , Dreher wrote , full of pessimism , that “ Roe v. Wade will never be overturned .
Civil rights laws will continue to be interpreted by the High Court to favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are no longer a socially conservative nation , and have ceased to be a Christian nation in any historically orthodox sense.
” He then took a swipe at Republicans and those claiming to be conservatives .
“ The Christian leaders who told you to be cool , and trust the Republican Party and its judges — they were wrong .
Maybe they meant well , but they were wrong .
If you want to be a useful pawn for Conservatism , Inc. , be my guest — but please stop deceiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , ” he said .
Richard W. Garnett , who teaches law at the University of Notre Dame , circled back to stare decisis , which , he said , “ is not an absolute rule .
Every justice — including , in several important and high-profile cases , Roberts — has voted at one time or another and for one reason or another to abandon an earlier case.
” “ There is general agreement that it is , all things considered , a good thing for the law to be settled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , sometimes , errors need to be corrected , ” Garnett pointed out .
He also criticized the vetting process of new judges during confirmation hearings .
“ Disingenuous questions , ” Garnett wrote , “ and slippery answers , about Roe and abortion have become a familiar feature of judicial confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
” Josh Hammer of the First Liberty Institute tweeted in the same vein , “ We need express litmus tests for the role of stare decisis in constitutional adjudication .
Nothing less than Clarence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ) lamented the Supreme Court ’ s “ failure to recognize the legitimacy of laws prioritizing women ’ s health and safety over abortion business interests , ” continuing “ a cruel precedent.
” “ As we grieve this decision and the pregnant women who will be harmed by it , we continue to pray and fight for justice for mothers and children , ” said Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City , who serves as chairman of the USCCB Committee for Pro-Life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the day when the Supreme Court corrects the grave injustice of Roe and [ Planned Parenthood v. ] Casey and recognizes the Constitutional right to life for unborn human beings , ” he added .
“ And we continue to ask all people of faith to pray for women seeking abortion , often under enormous pressure , that they will find alternatives that truly value them and the lives of their children.
” Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List said the ruling was “ a bitter disappointment .
It demonstrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court to allow the American people to protect the well-being of women from the tentacles of a brutal and profit-seeking abortion industry.
” At the same time , she expressed her conviction that electing President Donald Trump to a second term would make things better .
“ It is imperative that we re-elect President Trump and our pro-life majority in the U.S. Senate so we can further restore the judiciary , most especially the Supreme Court , ” Dannenfelser wrote .
“ President Trump , assisted by the pro-life Senate majority , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court justices and other federal judges .
This is evidenced by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh , who joined with Justices Thomas and Alito and dissented from today ’ s ruling.
” Just a few days ago , Gorsuch wrote transgenderism into law in Bostock v. Clayton County .
Kavanaugh dissented but praised the outcome of the case , only opposing how the Court decided it .
But Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joining the conservative dissenters in the Louisiana abortion case may help reassure social conservatives going into the 2020 election that , despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bostock LGBT ruling , Trump ’ s judicial nominees have still made and would continue to make a critical difference compared to the nominees of former Vice President Joe Biden .
Daniel Horowitz , senior editor of Conservative Review , looked at the recent Supreme Court decisions and came to the conclusion that “ Republican-appointed justices , aside from Clarence Thomas and maybe one other , will never overturn even recent expansions of abortion ‘ rights , ’ much less the foundation of Roe and [ Planned Parenthood v. ] Casey.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had “ affirmed that Roe is a complete myth .
No other justice joined his dissent , ” Horowitz stressed .
“ They all wrote dissents focusing on how there should be no standing in this case.
” “ Kavanagh [ sic ] focused on how it wasn ’ t even clear that the doctors in the case would have been denied admitting privileges if they applied for them , ” he said .
“ Gorsuch and Kavanagh [ sic ] joined Alito ’ s dissent suggesting that this case should be remanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than Thomas ’ dissent suggesting that this entire case should be thrown out – along with every case predicated on a right to murder.
” Horowitz admitted that the justices are not wrong , but “ they refuse to show their cards .
It ’ s not even clear how many of them , aside from Alito and maybe Gorsuch , would overturn Hellerstadt on principle without these technicalities , much less Roe .
We don ’ t know how Kavanagh [ sic ] would vote in a similar case , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Precedent is a one-way street , ” Horowitz commented .
“ The left wing can overturn it after 200 years , but once it does so even once , Republican judges will worship it as God ’ s word .
”

URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Reacting to yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications, conservatives criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ siding with the liberals on the bench and reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law.
“Unreal,” commented Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation on Twitter. “Justice Roberts just voted with the four liberals on an abortion case because of stare decisis… The precedent he’s upholding is from a case just four years ago, that he dissented on. If he thought the Court got it wrong four years ago, today was his chance to correct it.”
Unreal. Justice Roberts just voted with the four liberals on an abortion case because of stare decisis… The precedent he's upholding is from a case just four years ago, that he dissented on. If he thought the Court got it wrong four years ago, today was his chance to correct it — Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanTAnd) June 29, 2020
In his concurring opinion yesterday, Roberts, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, invoked the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a controversial theory that claims past opinions gain legal weight simply by virtue of how long they last, regardless of how faithfully they reflect the law or the Constitution.
That doctrine, he wrote, “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
Roberts even acknowledged that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health,” the similar case in Texas, and continues “to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”
Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, characterized “Chief Justice Roberts’s capricious application of stare decisis” as “startling.”
Shapiro noted stare decisis didn’t stop Roberts from overturning precedent in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), Janus v. AFSCME (2018), and Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), “cases in which the precedent was much older and more entrenched.”
Now, however, “a very recent close decision in which he dissented apparently carries more weight. There are probably other examples, but those three come immediately to mind.”
Writing for National Review, Yuval Levin pointed out how Roberts had abused 18th-century conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke by writing about stare decisis, “This principle is grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them. Because the “private stock of reason … in each man is small, … individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.”
While Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion had already emphasized how improper it was to refer to Burke in this context, Levin had a different angle.
“In the passage Roberts cites (as well as the one that Justice Thomas cites), Burke is talking about judgments made by statesmen, not by judges,” Levin wrote. “And it’s not as though he never expressed any views about how judges should think about precedent.”
“Burke described precedents as ‘one ground, though only one ground, of legal argument,’ and said that before they could be treated as authoritative they needed to be tested against five crucial criteria,” according to Levin.
He then proceeded to quote directly from Burke that precedents need to be “numerous and not scattered here and there;—secondly, concurrent and not contradictory and mutually destructive;—thirdly, to be made in good and constitutional times;—fourthly, not to be made to serve an occasion;—and fifthly, to be agreeable to the general tenor of legal principles, which over-ruled precedents, and were not to be over-ruled by them.”
Chief Justice Roberts, however, did not mention “any such criteria in thinking through his defense of a decision he disagreed with just four years ago. And if he had, it isn’t likely that his concurrence today would have withstood scrutiny under them.”
Lila Rose: Supreme Court is aiding ‘genocidal abortion industry’
Live Action President and Founder Lila Rose had particularly strong words about the decision and its ramifications for unborn children.
“In the very act of bringing a case against Louisiana’s law, the abortion industry reasserted its obsession with profit, at any cost,” she said. “Abortion businesses claim to be healthcare entities, but resist any law that holds them to the same health and safety standards as the actual medical community. Abortion violently dismembers, decapitates, poisons, and crushes the living bodies of children. Abortion is not, has never been, and never will be healthcare.”
Rose said the “unjust ruling is a reminder that the lives of an entire people group have been wrongly placed in the hands of nine lawyers, several of whom abuse their power to violate the human right to life. With this decision, the Supreme Court has once again provided aid and comfort to the genocidal abortion industry which profits from the pain and fear of mothers and the deaths of their children.”
‘Civil rights laws will continue to be interpreted by the High Court to favor the Sexual Revolution in all its manifestations’
Rod Dreher, author of The Benedict Option, commented, “Two years ago, Roberts signed the dissent in the 2016 Texas case — a dissent that said the majority decision ‘exemplifies the court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.’ Today, only four years later, Justice Roberts has Grown In Office™, and has voted to uphold the abortion status quo. Good Catholic Justice Roberts.”
Dreher asked, “Can anyone understand SCOTUS abortion jurisprudence? Can it ever be applied logically? I think it can, if you understand this principle: Pro-lifers must lose.”
Referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, and to recent decisions on homosexual “marriage” and gender ideology, Dreher wrote, full of pessimism, that “Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Civil rights laws will continue to be interpreted by the High Court to favor the Sexual Revolution in all its manifestations. We are no longer a socially conservative nation, and have ceased to be a Christian nation in any historically orthodox sense.”
He then took a swipe at Republicans and those claiming to be conservatives.
“The Christian leaders who told you to be cool, and trust the Republican Party and its judges — they were wrong. Maybe they meant well, but they were wrong. If you want to be a useful pawn for Conservatism, Inc., be my guest — but please stop deceiving yourself that this strategy is a winning one,” he said.
Richard W. Garnett, who teaches law at the University of Notre Dame, circled back to stare decisis, which, he said, “is not an absolute rule. Every justice — including, in several important and high-profile cases, Roberts — has voted at one time or another and for one reason or another to abandon an earlier case.”
“There is general agreement that it is, all things considered, a good thing for the law to be settled, but it is just as clear that, sometimes, errors need to be corrected,” Garnett pointed out.
He also criticized the vetting process of new judges during confirmation hearings. “Disingenuous questions,” Garnett wrote, “and slippery answers, about Roe and abortion have become a familiar feature of judicial confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
Josh Hammer of the First Liberty Institute tweeted in the same vein, “We need express litmus tests for the role of stare decisis in constitutional adjudication. Nothing less than Clarence Thomas’s position should suffice.”
We need express litmus tests for the role of stare decisis in constitutional adjudication. Nothing less than Clarence Thomas’s position should suffice. — Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) June 29, 2020
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lamented the Supreme Court’s “failure to recognize the legitimacy of laws prioritizing women’s health and safety over abortion business interests,” continuing “a cruel precedent.”
“As we grieve this decision and the pregnant women who will be harmed by it, we continue to pray and fight for justice for mothers and children,” said Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, who serves as chairman of the USCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities.
“We will not rest until the day when the Supreme Court corrects the grave injustice of Roe and [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey and recognizes the Constitutional right to life for unborn human beings,” he added. “And we continue to ask all people of faith to pray for women seeking abortion, often under enormous pressure, that they will find alternatives that truly value them and the lives of their children.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List said the ruling was “a bitter disappointment. It demonstrates once again the failure of the Supreme Court to allow the American people to protect the well-being of women from the tentacles of a brutal and profit-seeking abortion industry.”
At the same time, she expressed her conviction that electing President Donald Trump to a second term would make things better.
“It is imperative that we re-elect President Trump and our pro-life majority in the U.S. Senate so we can further restore the judiciary, most especially the Supreme Court,” Dannenfelser wrote. “President Trump, assisted by the pro-life Senate majority, is keeping his promise to appoint constitutionalist Supreme Court justices and other federal judges. This is evidenced by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who joined with Justices Thomas and Alito and dissented from today’s ruling.”
Just a few days ago, Gorsuch wrote transgenderism into law in Bostock v. Clayton County. Kavanaugh dissented but praised the outcome of the case, only opposing how the Court decided it.
But Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joining the conservative dissenters in the Louisiana abortion case may help reassure social conservatives going into the 2020 election that, despite the former joining Roberts and the liberals on the Bostock LGBT ruling, Trump’s judicial nominees have still made and would continue to make a critical difference compared to the nominees of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Daniel Horowitz, senior editor of Conservative Review, looked at the recent Supreme Court decisions and came to the conclusion that “Republican-appointed justices, aside from Clarence Thomas and maybe one other, will never overturn even recent expansions of abortion ‘rights,’ much less the foundation of Roe and [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey.”
No justice, apart from Thomas, had “affirmed that Roe is a complete myth. No other justice joined his dissent,” Horowitz stressed. “They all wrote dissents focusing on how there should be no standing in this case.”
“Kavanagh [sic] focused on how it wasn’t even clear that the doctors in the case would have been denied admitting privileges if they applied for them,” he said. “Gorsuch and Kavanagh [sic] joined Alito’s dissent suggesting that this case should be remanded and judged by a different standard, rather than Thomas’ dissent suggesting that this entire case should be thrown out – along with every case predicated on a right to murder.”
Horowitz admitted that the justices are not wrong, but “they refuse to show their cards. It’s not even clear how many of them, aside from Alito and maybe Gorsuch, would overturn Hellerstadt on principle without these technicalities, much less Roe. We don’t know how Kavanagh [sic] would vote in a similar case, especially given his obsession with precedent.”
“Precedent is a one-way street,” Horowitz commented. “The left wing can overturn it after 200 years, but once it does so even once, Republican judges will worship it as God’s word.”
RELATED:
BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion regulations
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Roe v. Wade ‘should be overruled’
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--Having true reverence for the Holy Eucharist

To help keep this and other programs on the air , please donate here .
Watch Mother Miriam 's Live @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s episode , Mother speaks about the importance of true reverence for the @ @ @ @ @ speaking about the reasons to receive Holy Communion only on the tongue and how our @ @ @ @ @ Blessed Sacrament needs to be solved .
You can find the full podcast here .
@ @ @ @ @ at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live aired on 6.30.2020. In today’s episode, Mother speaks about the importance of true reverence for the Holy Eucharist. She continues speaking about the reasons to receive Holy Communion only on the tongue and how our loss of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament needs to be solved.
You can find the full podcast here.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Roe v. Wade ‘should be overruled’

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has condemned U.S. abortion law and called for Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision imposing abortion on demand across the country , and “ its progeny ” to be overruled as irreconcilable with the Constitution .
Thomas made the comments during his dissenting opinion given during yesterday ’ s June Medical Services v. Russo ruling striking down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ [ W ] e exceed our constitutional authority whenever we ‘ appl [ y ] demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law ’ s text , ’ ” Thomas concluded .
“ Because we can reconcile neither Roe nor its progeny with the text of our Constitution , those decisions should be overruled , ” he stated .
Thomas said that the challenge to the Louisiana law should have been rejected for the simple fact that the abortionists in question had no legal standing to bring it in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction , ” he wrote .
Thomas said that the case had been brought by “ abortionists and abortion clinics ” whose sole claim was that Louisiana ’ s law “ violated the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child.
” “ But they concede that this right does not belong to them , and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own .
Under a proper understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing to invoke our jurisdiction , ” he stated .
Thomas rejected the claim of Chief Justice John Roberts that according to the legal doctrine of stare decisis precedents set by previous Supreme Court rulings in similar cases required the Louisiana law to be overturned , but insisted that the justices should have rejected the challenge to the state law because it violated the Constitution .
“ The Constitution does not constrain the States ’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion , ” he wrote .
“ Moreover , ” Thomas added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justices can agree on the proper interpretation of our precedents today evinces that our abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy.
” Thomas has previously taken aim at the contemporary understanding of stare decisis ( the concept that the longer a ruling stands , the greater weight it accrues as legal precedent ) which is also the chief theory sustaining Roe v. Wade .
In his assenting opinion given in Gamble v. United States last year , a case not directly to abortion , Thomas took the opportunity to discuss that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Court ’ s typical formulation of the stare decisis standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III because it elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions—meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation—over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law , ” Thomas wrote .
Criticising current U.S. abortion law in general in his opinion given yesterday , Thomas said that the Supreme Court had “ created the right to abortion based on an amorphous , unwritten right to privacy , which it grounded in the 'legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' “ Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons , ” he continued , “ but the most fundamental is that its core holding—that the Constitution protects a woman ’ s right to abort her unborn child—finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
” Thomas said that ” the idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.
” “ Roe suggests that the Due Process Clause ’ s reference to ‘ liberty ’ could provide a textual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he continued .
“ But that Clause does not guarantee liberty qua liberty .
Rather , it expressly contemplates the deprivation of liberty and requires only that such deprivations occur through ‘ due process of law.
’ ” Citing the eighteenth century Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke , Thomas said that “ no one could seriously claim ” that “ revolutionary ” pro-abortion Supreme Court rulings “ are part of the ‘ inheritance from our forefathers , ’ fidelity to which demonstrates ‘ reverence to antiquity ’ .
” Earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one of many “ incorrect decisions ” in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment and in the same context of “ incorrect decisions , ” also mentioned the 2015 ruling Obergefell v. Hodges , which guaranteed a “ right ” to homosexual “ marriage .
”

'The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion,' wrote Justice Thomas. 'Moreover, the fact that no five Justices can agree on the proper interpretation of our precedents today evinces that our abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy.'
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has condemned U.S. abortion law and called for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision imposing abortion on demand across the country, and “its progeny” to be overruled as irreconcilable with the Constitution.
Thomas made the comments during his dissenting opinion given during yesterday’s June Medical Services v. Russo ruling striking down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications.
“[W]e exceed our constitutional authority whenever we ‘appl[y] demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law’s text,’” Thomas concluded.
“Because we can reconcile neither Roe nor its progeny with the text of our Constitution, those decisions should be overruled,” he stated.
Thomas said that the challenge to the Louisiana law should have been rejected for the simple fact that the abortionists in question had no legal standing to bring it in the first place. “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction,” he wrote.
Thomas said that the case had been brought by “abortionists and abortion clinics” whose sole claim was that Louisiana’s law “violated the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child.”
“But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction,” he stated.
Thomas rejected the claim of Chief Justice John Roberts that according to the legal doctrine of stare decisis precedents set by previous Supreme Court rulings in similar cases required the Louisiana law to be overturned, but insisted that the justices should have rejected the challenge to the state law because it violated the Constitution.
“The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion,” he wrote.
“Moreover,” Thomas added, “the fact that no five Justices can agree on the proper interpretation of our precedents today evinces that our abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy.”
Thomas has previously taken aim at the contemporary understanding of stare decisis (the concept that the longer a ruling stands, the greater weight it accrues as legal precedent) which is also the chief theory sustaining Roe v. Wade.
In his assenting opinion given in Gamble v. United States last year, a case not directly to abortion, Thomas took the opportunity to discuss that legal concept.
“In my view, the Court’s typical formulation of the stare decisis standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III because it elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions—meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation—over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law,” Thomas wrote.
Criticising current U.S. abortion law in general in his opinion given yesterday, Thomas said that the Supreme Court had “created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the 'legal fiction' of substantive due process.”
“Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons,” he continued, “but the most fundamental is that its core holding—that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child—finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Thomas said that ”the idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.”
“Roe suggests that the Due Process Clause’s reference to ‘liberty’ could provide a textual basis for its novel privacy right,” he continued.
“But that Clause does not guarantee liberty qua liberty. Rather, it expressly contemplates the deprivation of liberty and requires only that such deprivations occur through ‘due process of law.’”
Citing the eighteenth century Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke, Thomas said that “no one could seriously claim” that “revolutionary” pro-abortion Supreme Court rulings “are part of the ‘inheritance from our forefathers,’ fidelity to which demonstrates ‘reverence to antiquity’.”
Earlier this year Thomas referred to Roe v. Wade as one of many “incorrect decisions” in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment and in the same context of “incorrect decisions,” also mentioned the 2015 ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed a “right” to homosexual “marriage.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-30--States can’t use grant money to discriminate against religious schools, Supreme Court rules

PETITION : Tell Trump Christians can ’ t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that states may not deny tuition grants to religious schools if they would award those same grants to secular private schools .
Espinoza v. Montana concerned Kendra Espinoza , a Montana mother who used a tax-credit-funded state scholarship to send her daughters to Stillwater Christian School .
The Montana Supreme Court had struck down that tax-credit system on the basis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which bans the use of taxpayer funds at “ sectarian ” schools .
Blaine Amendments , which are part of the constitutions of 37 states , were “ added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day ” against Catholics , according to a Cardinal Newman Society report .
On Tuesday , the nation ’ s highest court sided with Espinoza and reversed the Montana justices .
The majority opinion , written by Chief Justice John Roberts , explained that while it ’ s ultimately up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools at all , if they choose to do so they can not discriminate against some on the basis of their religious beliefs .
Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts , while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Elena Kagan , and Sonia Sotomayor dissented .
“ Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit solely because of their religious character imposes ‘ a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny , ’ ” Roberts wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling in Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer .
“ Montana 's no-aid provision bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools .
The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits , again solely because of the religious character of the school.
” Calling the majority holding “ perverse , ” Sotomayor claimed in her dissenting opinion that the court “ appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue was not whether Montana had to keep the program as a whole , but whether it could discriminate on the basis of religious status within it .
“ Today , the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that affirmed one of America 's first freedoms , established in the First Amendment -- the right of religious freedom , ” said Family Research Council ( FRC ) research fellow for legal & policy studies Katherine Beck Johnson .
“ America was founded , in part , to apply the principle that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe or how to worship .
For many Americans , our religion informs every aspect of our lives , from where and how we worship , to how we interact with civil society , to how to educate our children .
Americans of faith even come together to form institutions united around their common goals.
” “ It was high time for the Blaine Amendments to bite the dust , ” Becket Fund senior counsel Diana Verm added .
“ Our Constitution requires equal treatment for religious people and institutions .
Relying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics to exclude all people of faith was legally , constitutionally , and morally wrong .
The Court was right to kick the Blaine Amendments to the curb.
” Tuesday ’ s victory for religious schools follows a string of defeats for social conservatives at the nation ’ s highest court , each of which involved at least one justice appointed by a Republican president .
But while some conservative voters have said they feel demoralized by those defeats , the fact remains that Espinoza v. Montana would have been a 7-2 ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who were appointed by President Donald Trump .

PETITION: Tell Trump Christians can’t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that states may not deny tuition grants to religious schools if they would award those same grants to secular private schools.
Espinoza v. Montana concerned Kendra Espinoza, a Montana mother who used a tax-credit-funded state scholarship to send her daughters to Stillwater Christian School. The Montana Supreme Court had struck down that tax-credit system on the basis of the Blaine Amendment to the Montana Constitution, which bans the use of taxpayer funds at “sectarian” schools.
Blaine Amendments, which are part of the constitutions of 37 states, were “added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day” against Catholics, according to a Cardinal Newman Society report.
On Tuesday, the nation’s highest court sided with Espinoza and reversed the Montana justices. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, explained that while it’s ultimately up to states to decide whether to support private schools at all, if they choose to do so they cannot discriminate against some on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit solely because of their religious character imposes ‘a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny,’” Roberts wrote, citing the court’s 2017 ruling in Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer. “Montana's no-aid provision bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school.”
Calling the majority holding “perverse,” Sotomayor claimed in her dissenting opinion that the court “appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place.” However, the issue was not whether Montana had to keep the program as a whole, but whether it could discriminate on the basis of religious status within it.
“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that affirmed one of America's first freedoms, established in the First Amendment — the right of religious freedom,” said Family Research Council (FRC) research fellow for legal & policy studies Katherine Beck Johnson. “America was founded, in part, to apply the principle that a government may not tell anyone what to believe or how to worship. For many Americans, our religion informs every aspect of our lives, from where and how we worship, to how we interact with civil society, to how to educate our children. Americans of faith even come together to form institutions united around their common goals.”
“It was high time for the Blaine Amendments to bite the dust,” Becket Fund senior counsel Diana Verm added. “Our Constitution requires equal treatment for religious people and institutions. Relying on century-old state laws designed to target Catholics to exclude all people of faith was legally, constitutionally, and morally wrong. The Court was right to kick the Blaine Amendments to the curb.”
Tuesday’s victory for religious schools follows a string of defeats for social conservatives at the nation’s highest court, each of which involved at least one justice appointed by a Republican president. But while some conservative voters have said they feel demoralized by those defeats, the fact remains that Espinoza v. Montana would have been a 7-2 ruling against religious equality without Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, who were appointed by President Donald Trump.
Share