Jay Sekulow: 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.

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."

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. 

Barry, it was good to see you today.  I always enjoy an opportunity to sit next to you during oral arguments at the Supreme Court - especially with a case like the one we witnessed today. 

As we both know, this case is closely watched and involves the display of an 8-foot cross on a mountain top in California's Mojave Desert - a memorial honoring war veterans.  The case is Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono. (08-472)

Like most of these cases, the Justices were divided on this issue.  And, Justice Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in these church/state cases, said little to reveal how he will vote on this case.

Ok, Barry - looks like we won't agree on the Ten Commandments and what we consider to be the proper and constitutional displays present in Judge DeWeese's courtroom.

Let's try this one. 

A federal district court in New Hampshire has issued a decision upholding the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in school and has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The suit was filed in 2007 against two New Hampshire public school districts and Congress on behalf of several parents and students who objected to the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school.  Specifically, the lawsuit challenged the addition of the words "under God" in 1954 in the Pledge and the practice of reciting the Pledge in public schools as a patriotic exercise.