News & Media

Indiana’s Planned Parenthood, along with its network of 35 clinics across the state, announced it is offering holiday vouchers.  The vouchers can be redeemed for basic health care services “or the recipient’s choice of birth control method,” including abortions.  Becky Cockrum, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, is offering the vouchers because many people are uninsured or are putting off health care because of the cost. 

Abortion opponents said Planned Parenthood was making a “mockery” of the holiday season.  Sister Diane Carollo, director of the Office for Pro-Life Ministry for the Catholic Archdioceses of Indianapolis, stated that the gift certificates were a “horrendous” idea and that “they deserve coal in their stocking, not money for lethal gift certificates.” 

Indiana is among a handful of its 99 affiliates that currently offer gift certificates for services, i.e. birth control, breast exams, and abortions.    

The realization that more than one million abortions are performed every year, and one abortion is performed every 20 seconds, is staggering.  Advocates for Faith and Freedom is committed to preserving the sanctity of life and advancing the pro life cause! 

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has filed a notice of appeal arguing that gay men and lesbians are “disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent – especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress.” 

In California, the ACLU and their supporters are asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by California voters defining marriage between one man and one woman.  In Florida, the ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of a law that has existed for 30 years and exists solely for the protection of children.   We are at a crucial time in our nation’s history. 

This Florida ruling is just one of the many cultural battles that are being waged across the Nation…battles that will impact our religious liberty and the values we share.   This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts! 

To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

In 1971, Pleasant Grove accepted a Ten Commandments monument built by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and after September 11, 2001, the city allowed the Boy Scouts of America to build a monument to the firefighters and police officers who responded to the terrorist attacks. However, in 2003, Summum was denied an attempt to donate a monument bearing the church’s Seven Aphorisms, a set of principles that are central to the Summum religion.

If Pleasant Grove is required to either remove all existing monuments or permit the display of every monument that is donated, city governments across America will lose the ability to make decisions as to what message it wishes to portray. Pleasant Grove is simply recognizing the historical significance of the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our laws and the sacrifice made by civil servants on September 11, 2001.

We are a Christian nation and our government should not be forced into removing all religiously based monuments respecting our Judeo Christian heritage just to avoid displaying all donated monuments regardless of their message or relevance. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected within 90 days.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts! To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the City Attorneys for Los Angeles and San Francisco have filed lawsuits with the California Supreme Court.  These lawsuits assert that Prop 8 is invalid and asks the Court to stop the state from enforcing the initiative until the court has decided on its constitutionality. 

 

In response to these lawsuits, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is urging backers of gay marriage to “never give up” and he predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian unions would not see their marriages annulled by the initiative.  The Governor continued to discuss his view on the passage of Prop 8 by stating, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end.  I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.” 

Governor Schwarzenegger’s disrespect for the democratic process and for the majority of California voters who have elected him twice is clear.  The Governor has now publicly expressed his hope that the Supreme Court will again choose to ignore the votes of over six million Californians who previously voted to pass Prop 8.  In a nation and state built on democratic principles, the Governor’s total disregard for those principles is especially shocking since California has voted TWICE to keep the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman.

 

Now that Californian’s have again voted to protect traditional marriage, it is clear that those six million people must protect that vote by fighting to assure that the democratic process is respected both by elected officials and the courts.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

In speaking about American culture, Thomas expressed concern that the creed of most Americans today is far different than the past. He worries that Americans now “ask not what you can do for yourself or your country but what your country must do for you.” When John F. Kennedy famously stated, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country,” the people of America understood that specific type of sacrifice and welcomed calls to effectuate change one individual at a time. That was a vastly different culture because, as Thomas stated, it had an appreciation for “delayed gratification . . . something larger . . . perhaps something transcendent.”

Thomas also discussed constitutional interpretation and the approaches that judges can take. “We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. We are just judges. Like the Wizard of Oz, we are mere mortals.” Thomas concisely stated there are only two approaches to being a judge: The first: “To try to see as best we can the framers’ intentions.” The second: “Make it up.” As Thomas stated, “At least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and impartial.”

Thomas’ view of constitutional interpretation, otherwise known as “originalism,” requires judges to try as best as they can to determine the framers’ intentions when the document was originally drafted and apply it accordingly. The other view is that of a “living constitution,” which permits judges to apply their own cultural and moral views to create law. In other words, as Thomas stated, it gives judges the green light to “make it up.”

It is far too often that we see judges “make up” the law and, in the process, create rights that never existed or ignore those that as Americans we were guaranteed in the Constitution. The California Supreme Court recently created a “right” to same-sex marriage in California’s Constitution and then, in another Advocates case, the court ignored two doctors’ right to exercise their religion freely in their chosen profession. Justice Thomas challenged us to recognize the sacrifice that democracy requires and not continue to ask what our country must do for us. As judges continue to “make up” our constitutional rights, it has become increasingly more necessary for us to stand up, both in the courtroom and the voting booths.

In doing so, four judges decided they are more qualified to legislate than the Connecticut legislature.  In a 4-3 ruling, the Court stated that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated equal protection principles despite the fact that same-sex couples in Connecticut are allowed to enter into civil unions providing them the same rights and benefits as traditional marriage. 

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

This decision again ignores the will of the people.  In California, the people expressed themselves through the initiative process by passing Proposition 22 defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  In Connecticut, the people expressed themselves through a democratically elected legislative body.  Fortunately, Californians have the opportunity to overrule the California Supreme Court on November 4, 2008, by voting yes on Proposition 8. 

The Marriage Protection Act will place the same 22 words Californians overwhelmingly supported in Proposition 22 into the California Constitution.   For more information, please visit protectmarriage.com. 

When asked to “name any of the specific rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment,” only 15% of respondents named “freedom of religion.”  Encouragingly, however, 56% of respondents named “freedom of speech.”  The survey also asked the following question: “Even though the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, government has placed some restrictions on it.  Overall, do you think Americans have too much religious freedom, too little religious freedom, or is the amount of religious freedom about right?”  In answer to the question, 62% stated that Americans religious freedom was “about right.” 

When asked whether “people should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups,” 32% of respondents stated they “strongly agree” and 23% of respondents stated they “mildly agree.”  Each person surveyed was also asked whether “[t]he nation’s founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation, and 46% of respondents stated they “strongly agree” while 17% stated they “mildly agree.”  Finally, when asked whether “[t]he U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation,” 36% of respondents stated they “strongly agree” and 19% stated they “mildly agree.”

Advocates is fighting for the constitutional rights that define who we are as a Nation.  The right to free exercise of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was mentioned by only 15% of respondents.  The importance of vigilantly protecting and defending our religious liberty in the Courts is evident from both the results of this survey and a culture that is increasingly devoid of the Christian influence that formed our Nation’s foundation and guided its founding principles.  This is the same Christian foundation that a significant percentage of Americans no longer agree existed. 

As our religious freedom is increasingly under attack, 62% of those surveyed believe our “religious freedom” is “about right.”  The California Supreme Court recently stated that doctors do not have the right to exercise their religious beliefs in the work place.  The name of God and Christianity is slowly being stripped from the public square by a myriad of court decisions.   Advocates is fighting to defend a Christian School’s right to teach from a Christian perspective in the classroom. 

The state of the First Amendment is fragile because too many activist judges fail to apply its principles as it was written by the Founding Fathers.  Advocates exists to assure that the existing fragility of the First Amendment does not result in a complete disregard for our religious freedoms for future generations. 

Whoever is chosen to occupy the White House come November will play a significant role in shaping our judiciary.   The next president will have the opportunity to nominate judges to both the United States Supreme Court and appellate courts around the Nation who will respect the role of the judiciary and work to protect the religious liberties guaranteed to all Americans by the United States Constitution.  Recently, four justices on the California Supreme Court made clear that they no longer believe it is their job to faithfully apply the law as written, when they discovered a right in the California Constitution to same-sex marriage.  In November, Californians will have the chance to overrule the California Supreme Court and define marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Similarly, each and every American will have the opportunity to evaluate the candidates and consider how their stances on the issues will affect the already ailing culture and activist judiciary.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was recently chosen as Senator John McCain’s running mate.  She has publicly made clear both through her words and actions that she is pro-life.  Her record also reflects an understanding of the importance of traditional family values.  As a result, she has stood against same-sex marriage and other aspects of the homosexual agenda.  Finally, she understands the importance of religious liberty.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom exists to protect our religious liberty in the courts and fight for the traditional family values that form the bedrock of our society.  We are dedicated to fighting for the right to life of the unborn.  We are committed to fighting against judicial activism and securing our constitutional rights as Americans.  Please take a stand with us in November, and vote for a candidate who will nominate judges who respect the role of the judiciary and the rights secured by the Constitution.  Vote for a candidate who recognizes the rights of the unborn and the intrinsic value of family.  Vote for a candidate who understands the foundation this Nation was built upon, and will build on that foundation instead of taking it apart piece by piece.

To support our fight for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.   

In 2000, over 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 reaffirming that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.  However, because this language wasn’t put into the state constitution when it was approved, four activist judges wrongly overturned the people’s vote.  In November 2008, Proposition 8 will give California voters the power to reverse the court’s decision by restoring the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman in the state constitution.

 YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

1)      It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

2)      It overturns the outrageous decision of the Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

3)      It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

 To learn more about Yes on 8, click here.