October 2009 Archives

Barry, we don't get a lot of calls about Halloween.  Over the years, it's not something we hear much about.  And this year is no exception.  What we are hearing about from a lot of folks, though, is the continued frustration and concern about the use of taxpayer dollars to fund organizations like Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest abortion provider.

A recent example is what's taking place in Ohio where a local government body approved a $50,000 grant to Planned Parenthood to provide 'sex education' in public schools.  

At the national level, as Planned Parenthood continues to receive hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars each year, debate is intensifying over whether the organization should receive ANY federal funds in the future.  In Congress, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana has introduced H.R. 614 which would prohibit federal dollars from going to Planned Parenthood.

Every year about this time Americans United starts getting calls about celebrations of Halloween in public schools.

They come from two kinds of people.  First, we get calls from Christians wondering why Pagans are able to get decorations and parties at schools around one of their holidays, but Christians can barely get a tree in the schoolhouse door in December, much less have a Christmas party.  Second, we get calls from Pagans and Wiccans wondering why their local schools are insulting their religious traditions by putting up ugly pictures of "witches" and acting like Halloween is just about loading your mouth with chocolate bars and gumdrops.

Do you get these calls, too?  Do both sides have a point?  Would you, Jay, suggest schools put up--oh, maybe-- maps and math puzzles from October to January and leave black cats and pine trees out of the decor?

Barry, you pose an interesting question.  I believe that end of life decisions should be made primarily between an individual and that individual's family and trusted advisors, including spiritual counselors.  An individual should certainly be able to consult his physician, if the individual so chooses.  I would imagine that most health care plans would cover an annual physical exam during which a person could consult with his physician. 

I do think it is inappropriate for the government to give physicians an incentive to initiate this conversation and mandate what should be covered in the counseling.  That could all too easily lead to a scenario where the federal government makes care decisions based on life expectancy.

And, now from the category... if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  That's exactly what Michael Newdow, an atheist, and his fellow plaintiffs are doing - this time in a federal appeals court - this time appealing a lower court decision that dismissed their lawsuit challenging prayers offered at the presidential inauguration - including the phrase used in the oath, "So help me God."

I have just one comment on the cross controversy at the Supreme Court.  In my view, the Court will probably end up not resolving the core issue of the legitimacy of the land tranfer and resolve this either on standing grounds or on the issue of whether the pemanent injunction can be vitiated by act of Congress.  (This will be important to us, but may not make for scintillating television commentary.)

I'd like to move to something new.  I gave a presentation to the annual conference of the group Compassion and Choices yesterday.  This group advocates for serious planning about individual end of life care choices and has supported in limited circumstances "physician assistance in dying".  When I was reviewing some material for my speech, I noticed that the idea of planning for the end of your life was a postion once advocated by such conservatives as Newt Gingrich and  Sarah Palin.  These are the same people who have now condemned Administration healthcare plans in part because of a provision which would have compensated physicians in Medicare for having voluntary discussions with people about their end of life choices.  That provision seems to be vanishing from current work on healthcare reform.  And that, from my perspective, is a very sad thing to have happened.

Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here - that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start. 

Merely being 'offended' does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because the 'standing' issue did not receive a lot of attention during oral argument does not mean the Justices are ignoring it.  They won't and in the end I believe our side will carry the day on this issue.

Second issue: the Establishment Clause question.  Does the placement of a cross on what was once public land - but now private land - constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause?  I believe the answer is 'no' and I am hopeful that's what a majority of the court will determine.