Missouri Family E-News

July 3, 2018

Retires in Ignominy  
The recent announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court is extremely welcome news to defenders of the unborn and believers in the traditional family.
No single jurist in American history has wreaked more destruction on the institutions of marriage and the family than Anthony Kennedy.
No justice of the nation's highest court is more responsible for the solidification of abortion on demand in American law than Anthony Kennedy.
For several years, Justice Kennedy has served as the swing justice on the Supreme Court, authoring opinions loaded with metaphysical musings that reflected his own philosophical perspectives as opposed to established principles of constitutional law.  
Anthony Kennedy proved to be a brazen champion of the homosexual rights movement, trampling on the Constitution to impose an unsupported legal standard that personal homosexual affections entitled a person to special protections under the law.  
Justice Kennedy proved to be the deciding vote in the abominable Obergefell decision in 2015 that redefined marriage to include same-sex unions.
Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that declared that God's design of marriage was improperly constructed and failed to respect the unnatural desires and dalliances of same-sex partners.    
In his dictatorial decision, Anthony Kennedy completely contradicted the correct legal position he had taken just two years before that marital relations and domestic affairs have always been the jurisdictional province of the states.    
In so doing, Kennedy substituted his own perversion of marriage for the universal understanding of marriage as it has existed from the beginning of time in virtually every civilization in the world.
In 1992, Justice Kennedy had the opportunity to join a court majority in striking down the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that legalized the indiscriminate murder  of preborn children by unscrupulous abortionists.
Instead, Justice Kennedy collaborated behind the scenes with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to reaffirm a woman's right to abortion as an enduring legal standard. The result has been two more generations of the slaughter of innocent unborn children.
Justice Kennedy's legacy is stained by the blood of these aborted children to the same degree as Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade ruling.  Kennedy chose to be conniving where Blackmun had chosen to be calculating.
President Trump has stated that he will nominate a replacement for Kennedy next week.  Trump has pledged to choose from a list of 25 judges he has publicly shared, all of whom can be expected to defend the Constitution rather than dismember it.
It is quite unlikely that a new working conservative majority on the Supreme Court will restore the prerogative of the states to define marriage according to its true nature and purpose as the union of a man and a woman.
However,  it is possible that such a majority could eviscerate the Roe v. Wade decision, returning to the states the jurisdiction to regulate the abortion procedure as they see fit.   
President Trump made the unorthodox promise during his presidential campaign that he would only appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.  Please be praying that Donald Trump fulfills that promise.  
What seems almost certain is that a new conservative bloc of justices on the High Court will be staunch defenders of religious freedom.  The civil liberties of people of faith should find greater protection in the highest court in the land in the years to come.  
Donate Now
to Support
Missouri Family!

Supreme Court Acts
to Protect Freedom
of Pregnancy Centers
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot force pregnancy resource centers to function as referral agents for abortion clinics.  The High Court decision effectively nullifies a California law that was designed to harass pro-life crisis pregnancy agencies by requiring them to promote abortion as an option for unplanned pregnancies.
The lawsuit was filed by a pro-life umbrella group called the National Institute of Family Life Advocates.  NIFLA challenged a law passed by the California General Assembly known as the FACT Act.  The new law established onerous requirements exclusively for both licensed and unlicensed pregnancy resource centers.
The FACT Act stipulated that licensed crisis pregnancy agencies must inform clients that the State of California provides free or low-cost services to pregnant women including abortion.  The law required that the pro-life agencies provide women with a phone number to call to obtain information about "abortion services."
Under the provisions of the law, unlicensed pregnancy resource centers were legally obligated to notify their clients that they were not licensed by the State of California to provide medical services and that the services they offer are not delivered by a licensed medical provider. 
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that the FACT act was "likely unconstitutional," and invalidated a decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denying an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. 
Justice Thomas wrote that the law compelled individuals to speak a particular message, and thus was an unconstitutional "content-based regulation of speech."  "By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions--at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option--plainly 'alters the content' of petitioners' speech."
"The FACT act unduly burdens protected speech," Thomas further wrote.  "The notice imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that...covers a curiously narrow subset of speakers...This Court's precedents are deeply skeptical of laws that distinguish among different speakers...They give [states] a powerful tool to impose invidious discrimination of disfavored subjects."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the FACT Act amounted to unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination."  "This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts..."

Justice Kennedy mocked the claim of the California General Assembly that the law was part of the state's legacy of "forward thinking."  "It is not forward thinking to force individuals to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view they find unacceptable."

"It is forward thinking...to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it...to confirm that history shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech, and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for generations to come," Kennedy continued.

Longtime pro-life Congressman Chris Smith cheered the High Court ruling.  "Pregnancy centers were created to affirm life and to love both mother and baby.  They want no part of a law requiring them to tell a woman where to go to kill her child.  Thankfully, the Supreme Court recognized their First Amendment right to free speech."

Mark Rienzi, President of the religious liberty law firm The Becket Fund, also applauded the decision.  "Crisis pregnancy centers serve women and children according to their religious mission...This ruling proves that the government doesn't get to tell people what to believe, and it also doesn't get to tell people what to say about it."

Chuck Donovan, President of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, says the Supreme Court's action sends a clear message.  "This ruling will reverberate across the country wherever these remarkable nonprofits have been subjected to state bullying as they strive to carry out their mission of love."

One of those examples of government bullying has occurred here in the State of Missouri, where the Board of Aldermen in the City of St. Louis adopted an ordinance intended to throttle the operations of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.   The Missouri Legislature responded during last year's special session by passing a law prohibiting local governments from adopting regulations that control or interfere with the speech or operations of alternatives to abortion agencies.

Joe's Signature