May 16, 2011

There’s virtually total agreement in the legal community that the constitutionality of ObamaCare – the government-run health care law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama – will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where’s the plenty of disagreement:  what will the nation’s highest determine?

At the center of the issue is the individual mandate provision, which forces Americans – under penalty of law – to purchase health insurance.

That is where most of the legal challenges originate, including one from the ACLJ.  Today, we filed a brief at a federal appeals court in Washington, DC urging the court to reinstate our federal lawsuit and declare the entire health care law unconstitutional.

Our lawsuit, along with a number of others – including separate legal challenges by Virginia and Florida – focus on the assertion that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Nothing more than a brazen power-grab by Congress.  A move that is not only wrong, but unconstitutional.

That’s what we argued in our brief filed on behalf of four U.S. residents and taxpayers in at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“The individual mandate is unconstitutional because it exceeds even the outermost bounds of Congress’s Article I authority and is inconsistent with the constitutional system of dual sovereignty that divides power between the federal and State governments,” the brief contends. “Under the Commerce Clause, Congress cannot ‘regulate’ inactivity by requiring individuals to buy a good or service as a condition of their lawful residence in the United States. . . .”   Our brief is posted here. 

And, that’s exactly what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued just days ago – before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – at a hearing where the federal government tried to convince a three-judge panel (two judges appointed by Obama, one by Clinton) that a lower court got it wrong when it declared that the individual mandate had to go.

You can listen to the oral arguments here. 

And, in an interview with Fox News, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli correctly concluded that this case is about liberty, not health care.  As he put it, if the federal government can order you to purchase health insurance, it can order you to buy anything.

Watch the interview here.

As these challenges move forward, one thing is certain:  all legal roads end up at the Supreme Court.  Our case is before the DC court of appeals.  The Virginia case at the 4th circuit.  And, the Florida case before the 11th circuit.

You will certainly hear more about these legal challenges in the weeks and months ahead.  But the real media attention will begin when these appeals arrive at the U.S. Supreme Court.

You’re already hearing a lot of talk about 2012 – especially when it comes to presidential hopefuls.  Put 2012 on your calendar for another reason, too.  That’s when the nation’s highest court is likely to render its decision – either declaring ObamaCare constitutional – or striking it down.  Just in time for the election.

Stay tuned.

The reaction from around the world is still coming in.  Just days ago, there was an announcement that sent shock waves through the Middle East.  The Palestinian Authority is putting in place a so-called “unity government” that includes Hamas, a terrorist organization.

That’s right, Hamas, which calls for the elimination of the Jews in its charter, is now part of a “unity government” that presumably will be involved in peace talks with Israel.  That is absurd.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu put this dangerous development into perspective when the announcement was made just days ago.

Don’t forget, just days ago, Hamas praised 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, condemned the U.S. military action that took him out, and called bin Laden a “holy warrior.”

Here’s the problem:  the United States has been providing billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) over years, with more than $500 million going to them last year alone.  With Hamas becoming part of this so-called “unity government” – the U.S. must send a very strong message. 

We cannot send our tax dollars to support a terrorist-linked government.  Either the Palestinian Authority rejects Hamas, or we stop sending U.S. funds to the PA.

And with the United Nations set to vote in September on whether to recognize a Palestinian State, it’s important to demand that the U.N. reject any terrorist-based Palestinian government. 

The U.N. charter stipulates that:

“Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

Consider this excerpt from the charter of Hamas:

•Israel will arise and continue to exist until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished what went before.

•The time [Judgment Day] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them and until the Jew hides behind the rocks and trees, and [then] the rocks and trees will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding [behind me], come and kill him…

There are more excerpts from the Hamas charter posted here.

As you can imagine, there’s growing concern about all of this inside Israel.  Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on the international community to demand that Hamas recognize Israel.  That story is posted here.

It’s time to stand up against terrorism – against those organizations that want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

That’s why we’re mobilizing legal and legislative teams in this country and in Israel to address this troubling issue.  It’s time to stand-up in support of Israel.  Tens of thousands of Americans already have.  Now you can add your name to our critical petition here. 

It’s time for the U.N. to reject this terrorist-based government and time for the President and Congress to re-examine the massive aid we send to the PA in light of this new government that embraces terrorism.

I want to share with you an important victory in our ongoing effort to protect the fundamental right of pharmacists to practice their profession without having to violate their conscience.

Our attorneys secured a sweeping victory for pro-life pharmacy owners in Illinois after a legal battle lasting six years.  A state court in Illinois issued a decision striking down a state law that compels pharmacy owners to dispense Plan B and other forms of emergency contraception, even if doing so violates their religious or moral beliefs.

You can read more about the win here and here.

In August 2009, a state judge granted the ACLJ’s request for a preliminary injunction in the case of two pharmacy owners, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog in the case of  Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich.

The case went to trial in March 2010 and a decision today by Judge John W. Belz of the circuit court sitting in Springfield declared that the state law violates the state’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

In his ruling, Judge Belz noted that “The government asserts that this Rule serves a compelling interest in timely access to drugs. Yet the government concedes that it had never done anything to advance its asserted interest prior to April 2010. Even as to emergency contraception, the Court heard no evidence of a single person who ever was unable to obtain emergency contraception because of a religious objection.”   The decision is posted here. 

Our clients Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog – who own a number of pharmacies – reacted to the decision:

VanderBleek reiterated his reason for refusing to fill “morning after” pills. “Women are instructed to take this medication without regard that she may be carrying a human life,” he said.  “I can’t in good conscience prescribe the medication.  It is a pill that ends life.”

“We believe we’re in the practice of pharmacy to preserve life and to take away pain and suffering,” VanderBleek added, “and we’re not really there for the comfort and convenience of some who would want to end life early or to abort life. We wouldn’t stock or dispense any sort of medicines that we thought were intended to and had the ability to sacrifice human life.”

And Kosirog agreed with the Judge’s ruling that determined that there was “no evidence of a single person who ever was unable to obtain emergency contraception because of a religious objection.”

“I can count on both hands other pharmacies in our area where they could get it,” Kosirog said.

This decision represents a major victory for the rights of conscience.  It took six years, but our clients have finally prevailed against a state government determined to coerce them and all pro-life pharmacists into violating their deeply held religious beliefs or give up their livelihoods.  Such treatment is not permissible by either Illinois state law or the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We have a long track record of defending the rights of pro-life pharmacists in Illinois.  In Menges v. Blagojevich, we represented seven individual pharmacists who succeeded in having the state amend the regulation to recognize the conscience rights of individual pharmacists.  In Vandersand v. Walmart and Quayle v. Walgreens, our attorneys convinced two other courts that Illinois pharmacists are protected by the State’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

What happens with this latest court decision?

The Illinois Attorney General’s office says it plans to appeal.

We will be ready and meet this challenge at the appeals court level.  We’re confident this decision will stand especially since the defendants failed to produce at trial any evidence in support of their arguments.

We will keep you posted.

Each year, we receive questions about graduation prayer – what’s permissible, what isn’t.

Students do enjoy constitutional protections when it comes to expressing their faith.  However, when it comes to graduation, the legal landscape is anything but clear.  Court decisions in different areas of the country have produced a myriad of rulings – sometimes creating confusion and conflict.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has left open several issues regarding religious expression at graduation events that lower courts have addressed in a variety of ways.

What is clear is that it’s best to examine the law as it applies to your specific geographic area.

In an effort to provide information about this topic, we’ve produced a letter on prayer at graduation. It’s designed to address the questions and concerns you may have regarding the use of school facilities for religious baccalaureate ceremonies, religious content within speeches given by valedictorians and salutatorians, and organized prayer at graduation ceremonies at public middle and high schools.

We focus on questions like:

Are religious baccalaureate services constitutionally permissible?

Are valedictorians and salutatorians permitted to make religious remarks as a part of their speeches?

May school officials permit invocations at graduation?

The graduation prayer letter is posted here.   As always, if you have a specific question about graduation prayer, you can contact us directly online here.