FRC: Europe High Court Denies ‘Right to Abortion,’ Upholds Irish Legal Autonomy

December 17, 2010

WASHINGTON, (MetroCatholic) — In a decision involving challenges to Ireland’s abortion laws, the European Court of Human Rights today held that the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain a general right to abortion. In a suit that had been dubbed the “Roe v. Wade of Europe,” today’s decision was a substantial victory for the unborn. The ruling stymies the international abortion movement’s claims that abortion is a universally-recognized right.
In November, 2008, Family Research Council, the Alliance Defense Fund (FRC’s counsel), the European Centre for Law and Justice, and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children filed an amicus brief supporting Ireland. Of this decision, Jeanne Monahan, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said:

“Europe’s highest court has sent a very welcome message not only to its constituent countries but to the world at large that the so-called ‘right to an abortion’ is neither fundamental nor recognized worldwide, as abortion advocates would suggest.

“We are thankful that the European Court on Human Rights stood by the right of a nation to define its own laws, and also that the court stood by the life of the unborn. The result of Europe’s ‘Roe v. Wade’ decision reaffirmed that it is up to nations to define their own laws, and that a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body does not extend to a right to terminate a life she is carrying,” Monahan concluded.

Of final note is that with respect to one of three plaintiffs, the Court also held that Ireland had not provided proper procedures pursuant to Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution whereby a life-saving abortion could be procured effectively. This procedural failure was deemed to violate the Convention’s Article 8. It is anticipated that the Irish government will correct this situation while also continuing to maintain its current protections for unborn children.

Abortionist Released from Jail Against Recommendations in Abortion Manslaughter Case

December 8, 2010

BARSTABLE, Mass., (MetroCatholic) — Eileen Smith, who helped bring abortionist Rapin Osathanondh to justice for killing her 22-year old daughter, Laura Hope Smith during a botched abortion in Hyannis, Massachusetts, in 2007, tells Operation Rescue that Osathanondh has won a motion for early release from jail today after serving only half of his sentence.

According to Smith, Osathanondh will be fitted with a monitoring device and released today to serve out the remainder of his sentence in home confinement at his plush luxury home on Cape Cod.

The following is Eileen Smith’s statement on the release of the man who killed her daughter:

    “Rapin Osathanondh was granted a ‘revise and revoke’ motion on his sentence today by the same Judge who originally gave him the ‘light’ sentence. Once again the man who killed my daughter receives mercy while our daughter and family receive none. He will leave jail as soon as they get the bracelet on him for his ‘million dollar home’ confinement. Even though the Parole Board recently denied his parole because they said he was NOT remorseful for what he did, and he was the most ‘arrogant and callous person to ever ask for parole in their experience serving on the parole board’, the Judge disregarded the parole board’s comments and decision and granted him freedom to go home. Where is my daughter’s freedom to go home, Judge?”

Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue states:

    “Today’s decision to release Laura’s killer was just plain wrong. We are very upset that Osathanondh was allowed to be released from jail early against the recommendation of the parole board. A three month incarceration for depriving a woman of her life trivializes her humanity and diminishes the human dignity of all women. As long as abortionist quacks who maim and butcher unsuspecting women and kill their innocent babies are slapped on the wrist and sent home, we can only expect their arrogant, ‘above the law’ attitudes to persist and the body count of dead abortion patients to rise.”

Osathanondh had agreed to a plea bargain on September 14, the third anniversary of Laura Smith’s death, that included six months of incarceration with parole eligibility after three, to be followed by nine months of home confinement and three years probation. He surrendered his medical license and closed both of his abortion offices.

About Operation Rescue®
Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America. Operation Rescue is now headquartered in a former abortion clinic that it bought and closed in 2006. From there, Operation Rescue launches its innovative new strategies across the nation, exposing and closing abortion clinics through peaceful, legal means. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to stop abortion and ultimately restore legal personhood to the pre-born in obedience to biblical mandates.

MIM Urges Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to ‘Speak Out Against the Flood of Illegal Hardcore Adult Pornography Engulfing Our Nation’

September 23, 2010

NEW YORK (MetroCatholic) — On Monday, Morality in Media President Robert Peters sent letters to the chairmen of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and National Republican Senate Congressional Committee. In the letters, Mr. Peters said in part:

“We want to call your attention to an extremely important issue that Federal law enforcement authorities are ignoring, and in so doing are ignoring the concerns of the large majority of voters. We refer to the proliferation of obscenity on the Internet.

“Repeated polling has made it clear that voters support enforcement of existing laws that prohibit the distribution of obscenity on the Internet and elsewhere….

“It does not take an astute politician to recognize how the parents of America react to the prevalence of Internet obscenity and to its terrible effects. We know they are outraged, frightened, worried, angry, and disgusted….

“Unbeknown to many voters, obscenity is illegal. Since 1973, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity; and Congress to its credit has repeatedly updated and strengthened the federal obscenity laws.

“From 1987-1993, the Justice Department also proved that federal obscenity laws could be successfully enforced against large-scale commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography. During this period more than 120 adult pornographers were convicted.

“And while the Bush administration was in large measure a disappointment when it came to enforcement of obscenity laws, its Justice Department did prove that obscenity laws can still be successfully enforced against commercial distributors of obscene materials.

“Since November 2008, however, there have been no new obscenity indictments involving commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography.

“There is a pandemic of pornographic addiction. There is overwhelming evidence of a connection between addiction to hardcore adult pornography and sexual abuse of children, child pornography, psychological damage to children, sexual violence against women, sexual trafficking of women and children, and the ruin of many marriages.

“Since the White House has shown no interest in addressing this unprecedented assault on women, on family life and children, and on our nation, that leaves it up to Congress, which appropriates funds for the Justice Department and oversees its work.

“We are a nation that permits the illegal distribution of obscene materials domestically and the export of this degeneracy on the Internet to other nations. What a shameful face to present to the world and a horrid patrimony to bequeath to our children.

“The large majority of voters will welcome your candidates calling for the Justice Department to vigorously enforce federal obscenity laws against these illegal hardcore pornographers who have no rightful place in a decent society.

“We hope you agree and will encourage…candidates…to speak out against the flood of illegal hardcore adult pornography engulfing our nation and in support of vigorous enforcement of federal obscenity laws!

“This is a political tinderbox waiting to be ignited by concerned candidates!”

For copies of the letters and accompanying documents, contact [email protected].

Complaint Filed Against Kagan at Supreme Court

July 30, 2010

WASHINGTON (MetroCatholic) — Larry Klayman, the founder of corruption watchdog Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch public interest law groups, has filed a complaint before the U.S. Supreme Court at the behest of pro-life organization Declaration Alliance, asking that the high court disbar Elena Kagan.

Kagan, while she was an Associate White House Counsel in the Clinton administration, falsified an expert medical report, prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). In this report, ACOG had originally found that partial birth abortion was in fact not medically necessary to save the life of a woman, but Kagan changed the report’s finding to say that it was an appropriate procedure under some circumstances. This altered report was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down legislation banning partial birth abortion.

In filing the complaint, Klayman issued the following statement:

    “Elena Kagan, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has defrauded the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, her membership to practice before the Court should be revoked and the matter referred to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. How, then can Ms. Kagan be confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a seat on the high court, when in reality she should not even be allowed to practice in front of it?

    “The rules of legal ethics require her disbarment and I intend to pursue it, to set an example that prospective and sitting judges, or anyone in the legal profession or otherwise, are not above the law.”

Klayman represents the Declaration Alliance, a national non-partisan social welfare organization founded in 1996 by Ambassador Alan Keyes. The details of Ms. Kagan’s misconduct are most exhaustively detailed in a report prepared by the Americans United for Life Action, available online at www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf

For more information call 310 595 0800 or visit www.declarationalliance.org

DonationsTracker.com - Make a Donation to Donation

AUL’s Kagan File: The “Foreign Justice” Memo

May 21, 2010

McKinney, TX (MetroCatholic)

FROM: Americans United for Life Legal Team

DATE: May 21, 2010

RE: Constitutional law or International law?

BACKGROUNDER:

During her Senate confirmation hearings last year to become U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan was asked her view of the role of foreign law in statutory interpretation. Kagan responded: “At least some members of the Court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts.When this is the case, I think the Solicitor General’s office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these Justices’ support for the positions that the office is taking.”[1]

Kagan’s high regard for International and Comparative law comes as no surprise. In addition to her admiration for judicial activist Judge Aharon Barak, who encourages judges to rely on Comparative law, Kagan led curriculum reforms in 2006 that changed Harvard Law School’s 100 year-old curriculum to require International and Comparative law.

What course is no longer required? Constitutional law. It became a course students could elect if they so desired.[2]

Our entire legal system is rooted in and dependent on the U.S. Constitution. To no longer require law students preparing to be lawyers to take Constitutional law is like ceasing to require medical students to take biology or accounting students to take math.

Kagan’s role in revamping the first year curriculum to require students to take International and Comparative law, but not Constitutional law, is especially important given her nomination to the Supreme Court.

  • Kagan said: “The courses in international and comparative law are opening up new questions and possibilities, showing choices made by different societies and challenges that arise from globalization, while also helping every student to locate American law in the larger map of laws, politics, and histories across the world.”[3] Would Kagan’s opinions as Supreme Court Justice rely on international laws and the “choices different societies” have made instead of the U.S. Constitution?
  • As Dean of Harvard Law, Kagan said: “A great law school reflects in everything it does a global perspective and a global context.”[4] Would Kagan seek to make the Supreme Court “great” by reflecting a “global perspective and global context” in her judicial opinions?
  • Kagan also stated: “We must seek to train leaders—creative thinkers and problem solvers capable of designing new institutions to meet individual and social needs during a time of tremendous—perhaps unprecedented—social and economic change.”[5] Would Kagan endeavor to create a “new” Supreme Court to meet the individual and social needs she values rather than adhere to the Constitution?

CONCLUSION:
Kagan led the reform of Harvard’s curriculum to emphasize International law and to de-emphasize American Constitutional law. She should be deeply questioned during her Senate hearings as to her view of the role of Constitutional law and International law in judicial decision-making.


[1] See Written Questions for Elena Kagan, Nominee to be Solicitor General of the United States available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/Kagan-QFRs.pdf.

[2] Legislation and Regulation was another course added to the new curriculum in 2006, which includes some elements of traditional Constitutional law courses.

[3] See http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/Kagan_NH_speech_distribution.pdf.

[4] See http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/Kagan_NH_speech_distribution.pdf.

[5] See http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/Kagan_NH_speech_distribution.pdf.

Americans United for Life ( AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.

AUL’s legal team has been involved in every pro-life case before the U.S. Supreme Court including the successful defense of the Hyde Amendment. AUL also publishes Defending Life, the most comprehensive state-by-state legal guide of its kind, which is distributed annually to legislators across the nation.

Recently, Americans United for Life detailed the facts on taxpayer-funding of abortion during the debate over federal health care legislation, provided legal assistance to states working to opt out of abortion provisions created by federal health care law, and has played a major role in educating policymakers on the record of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

PRIMARY RUNOFF ELECTION IS TUESDAY -

April 12, 2010

Tuesday, April 13, is Primary Runoff Election Day. The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Even if you didn’t vote in the March Primary Election, you are eligible to vote in the Runoff Election.

Please get out and vote! Your vote will make a critical difference! Electing pro-life elected officials will help to protect innocent human lives!

Vote pro-life!

For a personalized voter guide for any address in Texas, click HERE. Simply click, type in your street address, and the list will appear.

For your voting location from the Secretary of State, click HERE.
It is your legal right to print and take this page into the voting booth.

(D) — Democratic primary runoff election; (R) — Republican primary runoff election

*U.S. Representative candidates endorsed by Texas Alliance for Life, Inc.; state and local candidates endorsed by the Texas Alliance for Life PAC.

If you need help, call us at 512.477.1244.

Pol. adv. paid for by Texas Alliance for Life PAC and Texas Alliance for Life, Inc.

Celebrating the Truth on the Fourth

July 4, 2009

- by George Vogt

flagLittle Elm, TX (MetroCatholic) - I wrote this piece 2 years ago. With a few modifications, it is even more relevant today.

Tomorrow, we will celebrate our country’s independence, yet we should not forget our total dependence on God nor should we be afraid to lean on one another in times of need.

We celebrate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We consider ourselves a “Just” nation.

However, we are a nation that does not recognize the value of life from the moment of conception until natural death. The science of metaphysics proves that, at the moment of conception, a “human being” does indeed exist. In short, at the moment of conception, a new and unique set of human DNA exists. This DNA, while obviously having characteristics of the father and the mother, is clearly not the father’s or the mother’s. It is a unique human being. Additionally, many would have us believe that the value of one’s life is dependant on his/her ability to be a “productive” human being. Created by God, we share in the dignity of “the image of God”.

The definition of liberty has been so twisted that even Webster now says one meaning is to do whatever one wishes. Surely this was never the intent of the “founding fathers” of our country as this promotes anarchy. Worth noting is a quote from Anton Levay (founder of the church of Satan in the USA) “Do what thy wilt shall be the whole of the law”). Various atheistic groups and even some who claim to be Christian hold that any form of religion is suppressive and that this nation should be freed from the values of the Natural Law in favor of self and self-reliance.

Many people believe that the pursuit of happiness means a guarantee of happiness. Our nation should always help those truly in need, but it should never confuse helping someone with blindly throwing money and resources at a person (or problem). Financial assistance without training, guidance, and accountability hurts, not helps one. This requires true empathy.

Justice is one of the four Cardinal Virtues. The other three are Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance. As I consider whether we are truly just, I look to guidance from the Church to help me to understand such a complex topic:

Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” CCC

I love this country. There is NO better place to live. However, true patriotism does not mean following blindly nor ignoring that which needs to be corrected or improved. True freedom attains perfection only when it is directed toward God.
———————————————
From “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Home | About | Archives | Advertising | Contact | Privacy Policy

MetroCatholic, Inc · 5604 Belton Ln. · Suite 400 · McKinney, TX 75070
Ph. (972) 400-2423 · Fax (888) 248-7696

The sites and respective links above offer additional information on the Catholic faith. Please note that DFW Catholic is not officially associated with any of these sites and is unable to effectively monitor all information contained therein. Please use your own judgement when visiting these or any websites. If you find information that is objectionable, contact us.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish an article without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "MetroCatholic". Any Internet re-publishing of original MetroCatholic articles MUST additionally include a live link to http://www.dfwcatholic.org. Republishing of articles on DFWCatholic.org that have come from other news sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources. MetroCatholic may at times publish content that is taken from the internet and thus considered to be in the public domain. Anyone contrary to the publication of said content need only to contact the editorial office which will immediately proceed to remove the content.