Neil Gorsuch Scores Supreme Victory Against Abortion… Liberals Stunned

California is probably the abortion capital of the nation and until the Supreme Court stepped in, certain medical establishments were allowed to aggressively advertise abortion. It’s disgusting, wrong and immoral.

Luckily that’s all gonna change now…

DailyWire reports:

On Tuesday, the justices of the Supreme Court sounded as if they are ready to shred the California law that requires pregnancy centers to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.

That law was adopted in California in 2015, and forced the pregnancy centers to post a prominent notice if they had “no licensed medical provider” available. If the centers were licensed, they were forced to notify clients that the state offers “free or low-cost” contraception, prenatal care and abortion.

As The Los Angeles Times reports of the case, titled NIFLA vs. Becerra, the justices gave the California law short shrift:

Justice Elena Kagan, referring to the fact that doctors and for-profit clinics were exempt from the law, said, “If it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue.” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed that the law “has a lot of crazy exceptions. … What you’re left with is a very strange pattern, and, gee, it turns out just about the only clinics that are covered by this are pro-life clinics.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy saw the law as violating the laws of free speech, calling the required notice “mandating speech” that “alters the content of the message.” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said that California has “other means to provide messages. … It’s pretty unusual to force a private speaker to do that for you under the 1st Amendment.”

After Michael P. Farris, a lawyer for the centers, said advertisements, including billboards, would have to offer the information in large print and in 13 languages, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turned to the lawyer for California and stated, “If you have to say that, those two sentences in 13 different languages, it can be very burdensome,” she said.

The Times reported further:

“What would happen if an unlicensed center just had a billboard that said, ‘Choose Life.’ Would they have to make the disclosure?” Kennedy asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Farris replied.

“It would be 29 words, in the same size font as ‘Choose Life’?” Kennedy continued.

Yes, Farris said, “and in the number of languages required by that county.”

Kennedy said he had heard all he needed to hear. “It seems to me that means that this is an undue burden. And that should suffice to invalidate the statute,” he said.

As Politico reported, “California Deputy Solicitor General Joshua Klein acknowledged that the law might be unconstitutional in some applications, but he encouraged the justices to return the issue to the lower courts to address specific concerns involving certain plaintiffs. That did not sit well with Kennedy. “You want me to have a remand to have them tell the court what a billboard is?” Kennedy scoffed.

Only Justice Stephen G. Breyer defended the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also agreed with those who found the law problematic.

The Times concluded, “By the hour’s end, it appeared the justices would vote to strike down all or at least most of the law’s mandatory disclosure provisions.”

Source: patrioticexpress.com

Justice Kennedy Calls Out Sotomayor for Breaking Very Basic Rule All Judges Know

Image result for Justice Kennedy Calls Out Sotomayor for Breaking Very Basic Rule All Judges Know

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra, a case out of California centered around abortion that has big ramifications regarding the issue of free speech versus state-compelled speech, according to Fox News.

At issue is a 2015 statute passed by the state of California which requires all pregnancy-related facilities to conspicuously post a disclosure informing women of the state-provided “free or low-cost access” to various forms of prenatal care, such as abortion. The law also requires unlicensed, non-medical facilities to prominently inform their clients that they are not licensed medical providers.

However, the law was written with so many carveouts and exemptions that it ended up solely targeting a number of explicitly pro-life, nonprofit “crisis pregnancy centers,” which counsel women on options other than abortion, such as adoption. However, the law compelled these centers to inform the women of their abortion options.

David French of National Review noted that during arguments in front of the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to step outside the traditional norms of evidence submitted in the case and earned a rebuke for it from her colleague, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In questioning the attorney representing the plaintiffs — Mike Farris of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — Sotomayor referenced information she had obtained herself from the website of one of the unlicensed pro-life pregnancy centers, and asked several questions in regard to licensed versus unlicensed facilities providing what amounts to medical advice.

According to a transcript of the arguments (page 22), Sotomayor was followed by Kennedy, who began his line of questioning with a not-so-subtle criticism of Sotomayor for side-stepping the normal bounds of Court procedure.

Kennedy stated, “Well, in this case I didn’t go beyond the record to look on the internet because I don’t think we should do that, but I do have a hypothetical.”

French, who has a legal background, pointed out that court cases are fought over evidence that has been submitted ahead of time and placed into the record in such a manner that both sides have an equal opportunity to examine the same set of facts.

This is done so that unverified or misleading claims don’t end up deciding the outcome of a case.

“Simply put, judges should not act as free-lance investigators in the cases before them. In fact, this is judging 101,” French wrote.

Sotomayor nevertheless took it upon herself to do some “free-lance investigating,” thus going above and beyond the set of facts already put forward through arguments and evidence in lower courts by questioning an attorney with whom she no doubt disagreed ideologically.

Of course, The Associated Press was quick to rush to Sotomayor’s defense after she was rebuked by Kennedy.

The AP noted that there have been a handful of previous instances in other cases where justices or their clerks will have looked something up online to better inform their line of questioning, and even cited examples where Kennedy and Roberts had done so, as well as Breyer, Justice Sam Alito and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Yet, given the thousands of cases heard over the years by the Supreme Court that have strictly kept to the presented record, a mere five examples of a justice going outside the record in their questions or written opinions doesn’t give Sotomayor any excuse.

Kennedy was right to call out Sotomayor for stepping outside the record, and his rebuke should serve as a reminder going forward to all current and future justices.

They need to stick to the arguments and evidence before them, not whatever information they can pull up with a quick internet search.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

Source:conservativetribune.com

Mansour: Trump ‘Has Governed Completely as a Pro-Lifer,’ Unlike Other GOP Presidents

President Donald Trump “has governed completely as a pro-lifer” and has “given the pro-life movement everything he could,” said Breitbart News’s Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour on Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight.

Mansour made these remarks while discussing Friday’s annual pro-life March for Life in Washington, D.C.

“Ever since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land by fiat, by Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench,” said Mansour, “pro-lifers from around the country come to Washington, D.C., to peacefully petition the government on behalf of the unborn and the millions that we will never know.”

“It’s very hopeful to me to see this happen again and again, to show that we do not forget this issue,” she said, expressing admiration for the dedication of the pro-life movement in coming to the nation’s capital every January on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision despite the “awful weather” and the news media’s blackout of their protests.

“It’s remarkable to see these young people come here,” said Mansour, noting the predominance of college and high school students among the participants. “This is the future of our country and the future of the pro-life movement.”

Describing her personal connection to the March, Mansour said, “The first time in my life that I ever went to Washington, D.C., was when I was nineteen years old and participated in a March for Life.”

Mansour noted that President Trump is making history by addressing this year’s March for Life. Despite her earlier reservations about the sincerity of his opposition to abortion, Mansour said that the president’s actions towards the issue are a better metric for evaluating his pro-life bona fides.

“For the first time in history, a sitting President of the United States will address the March for Life,” said Mansour. “And that president is, of course, President Donald Trump. Donald Trump, I’ve got to tell you, I’m not entirely certain that he is pro-life personally. To be perfectly honest, I never quite bought that he was pro-life when he said that he was during the election, during the primaries. I always kind of figured he’s just saying that. But, I will tell you this, he has governed completely as a pro-lifer. He has given the pro-life movement everything he could. He has given social conservatives everything he could. This is a guy who has stood up for conservatives and has governed like a conservative more than we’ve seen since Ronald Reagan.”

Members of the ostensibly conservative “Never Trump” movement, added Mansour, look foolish in the light of Trump’s conservative governance: “The Never Trumpers who belittled this man — who laughed at him, thought he was just completely lying to us, snowballing us — you know what? You guys have egg on your face because this man has fulfilled his promises when it comes to pro-lifers, when it comes to the social conservatives. He has stood with us completely and defended the religious communities in this country.”

Mansour illustrated the primacy of behavior over attitude with a biblical anecdote, drawing on Christ’s Parable of the Two Sons.

“I’ve often been reminded of the Parable of the Two Sons,” said Mansour. “This is from the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus said, ‘What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, “Son, go and work today in the vineyard.” “I will not,” the son answered. But later he changed his mind, and he went. Then the father went to the other son, and he said the same thing. That son answered, “I will, sir,” but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?’ Of course, the crowd answered, ‘The first. The one that said no, but then went and did it.’ And Jesus used that parable to explain how the sinners often are the ones fulfilling what God has asked, who will enter the Kingdom of God, as he said, ahead of the others who say, ‘Yes,’ but actually don’t do it.”

Trump has “completely stood with the religious community” where previous Republican presidents had not, noted Mansour: “There’s all sorts of stuff in the news about Donald Trump — all sorts of stories about porn stars, this, that, and the other thing, these sensational things to try to smear and besmirch the man’s record and character. I have no doubt that he’s very venal and that he’s done things in his past that we would look askance at, but what I look at is what the man’s actions are in office, and I see a man that has stood completely with the religious community in this country and has basically defended them in places where other Republican presidents, who claim to be Christian and who actually seem to be very upright, didn’t.”

“So I’ve got to say, thank you very much President Trump for what you’re doing,” concluded Mansour.

Trump is scheduled to address Friday’s March for Life rally via TV feed around 12:15 PM ET.

Breitbart News Tonight airs Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).

LISTEN:


Source:www.breitbart.com

California Is Heading To The Supreme Court Over What They Are Forcing Conservatives To Do

It must be great to be a liberal. You spend your days telling other people what to do, and then act surprised when those same people are offended.

But I’m willing to bet you’d be more surprised when those same people fight back – and no one puts up a better fight than a group of pissed-off conservatives.

Actually, I take that back – no one puts up a better fight than a group of conservatives protecting the weak. And there’s no group more vulnerable than the unborn. Especially in California, where they can be slaughtered at will.

It’s also the state that decided that pro-life clinics must advertise for abortion clinics…in their own waiting rooms.

Congratulations California libs – you just found a group of pissed-off conservatives willing to fight back.

The Daily Caller reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about state-funded abortions.

A coalition of pro-life groups challenging the law say it explicitly targets and coerces religious counseling centers into pro-abortion expression.

The law requires crisis pregnancy clinics to post a bulletin informing patients that the state offers subsidized abortion access.

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office.”

I don’t have words for this.

The fact that liberals are somehow surprised by conservative reaction here shows just how stupid they are. Imagine how outraged liberals would be if schools were forced to tell homosexual students that some faiths believe there are alternatives to being gay. You’d have rioting in the streets.

And yet, when it comes to protecting the unborn, the state sees no problem with telling young mothers about ‘alternatives.’ The hypocrisy here is piled high.

Luckily, a group of sharp legal conservative minds has tackled the issue.

The case is the second of the new term involving a conservative group’s challenge to a liberal state law.

“It’s unthinkable for the government to force anyone to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. The state shouldn’t have the power to punish anyone for being pro-life. Instead, it should protect freedom of speech and freedom from coerced speech.”

California’s had a tough time fighting these conservative lawyers. And the state now has to face down SCOTUS – and with a newly appointed Neil Gorsuch within it.

It doesn’t look good for the lib state.

Source: Daily Caller,myrightamerica.com