The Canadian Supreme Court in Quebec recently made a ruling on euthanasia, effectively making it easy for anyone diagnosed with a medical condition that causes “irremediable suffering” to die by a physicians’ hand. This ruling will extend to patients with mental illnesses like depression and even to children.
The preliminary hearings for pro-life heroes David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt concluded this week Wednesday in San Francisco. The pair are hopeful that sworn testimony over the past weeks demonstrates that those who trafficked aborted-baby body parts are guilty of crimes, not the whistleblowers who exposed it. Judge Christopher Hite’s ruling on whether the case will proceed to trial is expected within a month.
Read more…
Click here to learn more and to sign the petition:
As of Wednesday, September 18, 32 organizations and lawmakers had filed or co-signed briefs to the Supreme Court of Texas, asking the court to intervene on behalf of the Pardo family and send four-year-old Drake Pardo back home.
The case has been pending at the Supreme Court of Texas for the past three weeks. Yesterday was the deadline for Child Protective Services (CPS) to file its response to the family’s request for emergency intervention by the Texas Supreme Court.
Instead, CPS filed a request for a 10-day extension. The Texas Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether that extension will be granted.
In the agency’s brief at the Fifth Court of Appeals, CPS made a bizarre and jaw-dropping argument: that Ashley and Daniel Pardo have nothing to complain about because CPS is giving Drake the same medical care that Ashley and Daniel would have given him.
CPS bases this argument on the theory that there is no reason for the court to intervene provided that Drake is receiving the medical care everyone agrees that he needs. To support its argument, CPS outlined in extreme detail how Ashley and Daniel were already planning to give Drake the medical care he needs and how the two parents have stated repeatedly that they planned to follow the recommendations of Drake’s doctors.
However, rather than coming to the rather obvious conclusion that Drake should be returned home, CPS argued instead that they might as well be allowed to keep Drake if he is receiving the medical care he needs. A more calloused view of family rights can hardly be imagined.
It is yet to be seen whether CPS will maintain this argument at the Supreme Court of Texas, where a flurry of support for the family has arisen through the filing of the following briefs:
The Supreme Court of Texas has also requested a brief from the Texas solicitor general’s office to explain the opinion of the state of Texas regarding the relevant laws in the Pardo case. This type of invitation is only extended one to five times per year and indicates that the Supreme Court of Texas is taking the issue very seriously (although it does not indicate which direction the court may be leaning). Although CPS is a state agency, they represent themselves in CPS cases and are not represented by the solicitor general. Thus, the solicitor general, who works for the Texas attorney general, will be filing a brief as a third party.
The solicitor general’s office requested and was granted a 30-day extension to file their brief by Oct. 18. In light of the excellent attorney general opinion in defense of parental rights released back in February, we are hopeful that a brief from the solicitor general would be beneficial to the Pardo family. However, the 30-day delay in the case unnecessarily adds to the trauma that the family is already experiencing, requiring them to continue pursuing additional burdensome and costly trial strategies.
Today, the Houston Chronicle released the first in a series of articles detailing how cases similar to the Pardo’s case often lead to the destruction of families based on little to no evidence against the family. The problem has become systematic and statewide.
The Supreme Court of Texas has the chance to set right the severe abuses in this case that no other court or state employee has been willing to correct thus far. We are praying that they will intervene on behalf of the Pardo family and do so quickly.
To date, nearly 40,000 people have signed the petition demanding that Drake be returned home. More than 2.2 million people have viewed the viral video of Drake’s case. Thirty-two state lawmakers and organizations have intervened in the case to defend the family. People around the world have heard about the case and expressed their shock that these abuses could happen in Texas.
Hopefully the Supreme Court of Texas will add their name to that list, end this family’s three-month nightmare, and set a precedent that these abuses are not permitted in the state of Texas.
VIDEO from “Recent State Pro-Life Laws-Idealist or Pragmatic: Pursuing an Effective Legal Strategy to Protect the Unborn and Overturn Roe v. Wade”- Taken from a workshop given at the National Right to Life Convention in Charleston, South Carolina on July 6th, 2019.
The National Review editorial board writes, “After one of the most intense political fights of the last two decades, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has become Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Supreme Court. This is a good thing for the integrity of our Constitution, for elementary American norms, and for the long-term health of our political institutions.”
The following Letter to the Editor was submitted to, and accepted by, the Charleston Daily Mail. The editor responded saying they will publish the letter, and even better, that the paper will endorse a “YES” on Amendment 1, using the letter’s explanation as to why. The author, Mary Tillman, serves on the state board of West Virginians for Life and is an officer in the WV For Life – Harrison County Chapter. For more information and helpful resources, visit http://yeson1wv.com.
October 5, 2018
Letters to the Editor have been appearing in newspapers around the State, making extreme claims about what the effect of Amendment 1 will be if passed.
It’s time to get the facts. The most common claim is that Amendment 1 will “make abortion illegal in West Virginia.” FALSE. Abortion is legal in West Virginia NOT because of our state Constitution, but because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade, 1973) that decided there was a so-called “right” to abortion under the Federal, or U.S. Constitution. We cannot change that by amending our state Constitution.
Secondly, the claim is made that “women will die” if Amendment 1 passes, because (they say) there are “no exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the woman.” FALSE. It is true that the language in the Amendment itself does not spell out those particular exceptions, but if passed, a previous WV law, still on the books, will come back into force. That law, found at WV Code Section 9-2-11, allows for taxpayer funding of abortions in cases of medical emergency, reported rape and incest, fetal anomaly, and threats to the life of the mother.
Finally, the claim is made that the “state has no business in the exam room or the bedroom.” To that I would say, the state then has no business in my wallet to pay for something that I, and millions of others in this country, believe is the taking of innocent human life. The U.S. Supreme Court itself decided in Harris v. McRae (1980) that states are not required to pay for abortions using tax dollars, and only 17 states in the United States still do so. Let’s join the majority of the country and get out of the business of paying for elective abortions. Vote “YES” on Amendment 1.
Mary H. Tillman, J.D.
Lost Creek, WV
Pastors / churches please consider showing this video to help educate your members! Also consider hosting a voter registration drive. Please ‘Vote YES on Amendment 1.’