Federal court rules against NC law on abortion

You can't imagine how angry I am!  I sat in the gallery at NCGA and listened to the opposition whine about coat hangers and women's health and a woman's right to chose and some of it was disgusting and all of it was bunk!  I know how hard the legislators worked to pass this bill (which actually does protect women) and also, how the public supported them.  And this is one of many such examples of the will of the people being thwarted by liberal judges.  (I have some other nice words for these judges and the people that support abortion--but I will be a lady and keep those to myself!)  SPEAK UP--SPEAK OUT!  ~ Lynn

Posted: Jan 17, 2014 by WNCN Staff

GREENSBORO, N.C. --A federal judge ruled against a North Carolina law requiring doctors to read a script to patients while showing them an ultrasound, saying the provision violates a doctor's First Amendment rights.

Federal judge Catherine Eagles, in a decision published Friday, ruled against a key part of the Woman's Right to Know Act passed in 2011.

READ THE ARTICLE HERE.

Stop the confirmation of the "Roadside Strangler" Judge -- Robert Chatigny

From the Desk of: 

Penny Nance, Chief Executive Officer
Concerned Women for America

We have just learned that the confirmation of the "Roadside Strangler" Judge -- Robert Chatigny -- is listed as the top agenda item for the Judiciary Committee's December 1st meeting.

As I stated in the Washington Times, Judge Chatigny is a disgrace to the legal profession and an example of one of the worst nominations President Obama has put forth.

I will not even dignify the horrible deeds of Michael Ross (the "Roadside Strangler") by recounting them here
other than to state the terrible fact that he murdered eight girls and women.

Here is what Chatigny said of the Roadside Strangler:  "[Michael Ross] never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death."

Judge Chatigny then fought to stop Ross's execution -- twice -- and was overturned by the Supreme Court both times. Judge Chatigny went on to suggest that "sexual sadism is clearly a mitigating factor." Mitigating factor? A sexual sadist deserves less time in prison because he's sick? That twisted thinking is a normal reality for Judge Chatigny.

Senate Could Fast-Track Chatigny On Wednesday!
I have instructed my staff to deliver our petitions opposing the Reid-Pelosi Lame Duck Agenda -- including the Chatigny nomination -- to the Senate Judiciary Committee in time for this hearing next Wednesday.

That means, with the Thanksgiving break, we have very little time to gather more petitions.

IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SIGNED OUR PETITION TO STOP THE REID-PELOSI AGENDA,
INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE "ROADSIDE STRANGLER" JUDGE. PLEASE GO HERE NOW TO SIGN:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=35134&RID=26686543

Judge Chatigny should NOT even be considered for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals! He is anti-woman and has sided with a serial rapist and murderer.

Thank you so much for taking action with CWA!

ParentalRights.org--Protecting Children by Empowering Parents

Parents of 50 Million U.S. Children Soon to Lose Parental Rights

If your children attend public school, you are among those parents whose rights will end the moment your child enters the school. That’s because in 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in Fields v. Palmdale School District “that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”  Read the story!



http://parentalrightsus.org/palmdale/

We'll seek Kagan's disbarment and impeachment

Watchdog: We'll seek Kagan's disbarment and impeachment



Complaint alleges Obama's new Supreme Court appointee lied to Senate
 
Posted: August 06, 2010, By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily

A formal complaint has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Elena Kagan – the bench's newest occupant – be disbarred, and an attorney who submitted the request for a criminal investigation into her statements said the effort will be expanded also to seek her impeachment, following the Senate's 63-37 approval of her appointment today.



"On behalf of Freedom Watch and Declaration Alliance, and as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar, I hereby file a complaint to disbar Elena Kagan from practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation and for obstruction of justice," wrote Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch.


The letter was dispatched to Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.


"In addition to disbarment, this matter should respectfully be referred to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation of obstruction of justice and other related crimes," the letter said.

The letter said Kagan, while associate White House Counsel in the Clinton White House, "falsified a medical report of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) in an intentional effort to mislead not just Congress and the White House concerning the efficacy and health risks of partial birth abortion, but also to mislead the various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately relied on this falsified medical report."


That came when the court struck down legislation restricting partial birth abortion, a gruesome procedure supported by Kagan that involves an abortionist partly delivery a live child, killing the child, and then finishing the delivery.


"This court relied in large part upon this falsified ACOG medical report to overturn Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban, which was then used as binding precedent among the circuits," Klayman wrote.


Klayman pointed out that the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that "a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."


"Clearly Elena Kagan's conduct in falsifying the ACOG report violates these Canons of the ABA code," Klayman said. "It was, at a minimum, reasonably foreseeable that her fraudulent changes to the ACOG report would ultimately be used by this court in its proceedings….


"This court must stand for the principle that 'no one is above the law.' If this is not the case, then 'We the People,' do not have a Supreme Court as envisioned and implemented by our founding fathers," Klayman's letter said. "Ms. Kagan cannot, and should not be treated differently than anyone else who deceives this court or any other court.


"She is thus unfit to remain a member of the court and should be disbarred from further representation before it. The issue of partial birth abortion, and the lives which it takes and affects, is too important than to allow a member of this court to pervert the medical findings of a body that is the expert in the field."


Declaration Alliance, Ambassador Alan Keyes' national pro-life organization, has joined in appealing for justice in the Kagan case. It noted the fact that Kagan altered a scientific analysis – inserting her own words – and then passed it off as a medical organization's analysis before the Supreme Court.


Klayman told WND today that the fact that Kagan now has been affirmed by the U.S. Senate means only that in addition to disbarment, the complaint will seek her impeachment.


"It is bad enough when Bill Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewisky, but Kagan's lying resulted in the deaths of human beings," Klayman told WND. "How much worse can it be?"


As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations previously asked the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

The perjury may have been committed when Kagan, during hearings in the Senate, said, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them and how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."


According to a statement from the Declaration Alliance, "there can be no doubt that this testimony is false and misleading."


Her changes in the document, the organization said, "dramatically changed the meaning."

Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor whose battle against "the seedy underbelly of Washington" is chronicled in his book "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment," is the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime.

He is still known in Washington as the biggest enemy of the city's elite, having made a name for himself suing Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and foreign dictators such as Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His battles against corruption in the Clinton administration became so well-known that a character in the hit TV series "West Wing" was based on him, Harry Klaypool.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188453

States Fighting Back Against Obamacare: Virginia

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/07/states-fighting-back-against-obamacare-virginia/

Virginia Challenges Feds in First Health Care Lawsuit Hearing

FOX NEWS, July 1, 2010

The Obama administration is trying to have its cake and eat it too by arguing that the federal government is not taxing people to pay for health care, but then says state must comply with the new law because they can't avoid paying taxes, Virginia's attorney general's office argued in federal court Thursday.


In a hearing to determine whether Virginia has the standing to go forward with it lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ian Gershengorn argued for the federal government that the Commonwealth of Virginia did not have the right to ignore the federal law because of the minimum coverage standard provision.

In brief, the provision says that if people don't buy health care insurance they must pay a fine. Gershengorn argued that the provision is a tax, which states can not ignore.

But Duncan Getchell, Virginia's solicitor general, argued that Congress was very careful not to classify any fees or penalties as taxes in the bill because President Obama opposed taxes on the middle class.

Getchell argued that the language in the law refers to the fine imposed for not obtaining health insurance as a penalty, which means it can not be classified as a tax.

The definition of a tax under the Commerce Clause is used to raise real revenue for the general purpose of the government. If the "penalty" works to get people to comply with the law, then it won't raise a dime, and therefore can not be considered a tax, the state argued.


"Congress called it a penalty in the bill, that is the word they used. Now mind you, this bill had taxes in it, when the judge asked the United States today is this a tax bill or is this a health care bill the answer was, it is both. That's very interesting given the insistence on part of the Legislature and the president prior to this bill that this is not a tax and not the position of the federal government is in face that this is a tax bill," Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told reporters Thursday morning after arguments.

Making a separate argument, the federal government said the actual activity is uninsured citizens using the health care system without paying for it. Gershengorn said to keep health care from imploding the economy, they must regulate what could be classified as freeloading activity.

Getchell countered that the decision to not buy insurance is not "activity," and the federal government can't draft a regular citizen into commerce in order to regulate him or her.

"If not engaging in commerce is commerce there are no limits on federal power," Cuccinelli said.

The federal government argued that Virginia does not have standing to make its claims.

"Virginia cannot bring this suit against the federal government on the theory that the minimum coverage provision will burden or otherwise injure Virginia's citizens," the feds said in its brief to the court.

"Virginia claims standing on behalf of its citizens to challenge federal legislation, but citizens of Virginia are also citizens of the United States. The Commonwealth does not have standing to sue the federal government to exempt Virginians from the operation of federal law," the brief reads.

Judge Henry Hudson heard the arguments and has 30 days to release his written decision.

If he allows the suit to go forward in the next 30 days, than the case will be heard in October, and after those arguments, he will have another 30 days to make his ruling.

It's entirely likely that whichever side loses the case will appeal the case to the 4th Circuit Court, and then whoever loses there will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, most pieces of legislation brought before Congress have a severability clause, which means if a portion of it is deemed unconstitutional than the rest of the bill can still stand. The health care law does not have this, which means if Virginia's lawsuit prevails at the highest levels, the entire law will go down.

Fox News' Gretchen Gailey contributed to this report.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/virginia-challenges-feds-health-care-lawsuit-hearing/