Recently in Courts Category

I knew you were a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, but there's one comment in your response that really has stunned me.  And, that's not easy to do.  I can't believe that you really believe that it is "morally outrageous that one of the most well-respected sources of information on sexuality and pregnancy prevention is given so little government funding..."   Barry, "so little" government funding?  Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxpayer money each year - some $350-million last year alone.  You believe they need more taxpayer money?  How much more would you like to give them?  And, the only thing that's "morally outrageous" is the fact that the federal government continues to fund the nation's largest abortion provider with our tax dollars, year after year.

Not only are Americans fed up with subsidizing Planned Parenthood at the federal level, there's growing concern at the local level as more communities take action to keep their state and local taxes from going to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

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.