Categories
biz, legal, and professionalism politics, economy, etc.

Life Affirming Legislation – Rights and Remedies

The U.S. House of Representative is considering some great new legislation known as the “NO TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION ACT” (H.R. 3).  Here are some important points about the proposed new law:

  • It would prohibit taxpayer funding of elective abortions as well as insurance coverage that includes elective abortion.
  • It offers conscience protections for health care providers, health care institutions, and health insurance providers.  The government would not be able to discriminate against any of these on the basis of their refusal to provide, pay for, cover, and refer for abortions.
  • These conscience protections also protect the many Americans who prefer to do business with health care providers and insurance companies that do not support abortion.
  • The law would create a legal cause of action for those whose conscience rights have been violated.

NO ONE should be compelled to act against conscience.  The abortion industry would like to coerce unwilling health care professionals and other providers into supporting their agenda—regardless of their religious, moral, or ethical convictions to the contrary.  This new law would grant permanent conscience protections and also ensure that your tax dollars are not siphoned off to fund abortions.

There is also encouraging new legislation being proposed in North Carolina:  “WOMAN’S RIGHT TO KNOW ACT.”  Any medical procedure required informed consent.  Abortion should not be an exception.  This new state law would ensure that no abortion is performed without the woman’s informed consent, and it would also create a 24-hour waiting period.

Praise God for these life affirming proposals in our federal and state legislatures!

Categories
biz, legal, and professionalism

The High Cost of Free Speech

Sometimes it costs money to speak, particularly in the context of a campaign or heated political debate.  Candidates and their supporters must raise and spend funds in order to get their message to the people.  But what if—every time you spent a dollar—the government cut a check to your opponent?

That’s the essence of Arizona’s “Matching Funds” provision, an integral part of its state campaign finance law.  Some candidates choose to finance their own campaigns privately, while others opt for public funding.  Suppose you are a privately financed candidate.  When you—or a supporting independent group—spend money for your campaign, the government disburses an equal amount to each of your opposing publicly financed opponents.

This scheme discourages political speech, one of our core First Amendment rights in America.  It is especially unfair to independent groups formed to advocate for particular issues—pro-life groups, for example.  Justice and Freedom Fund filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, focused on how the law burdens these groups.  Arizona’s scheme allegedly guards against political corruption—a goal not applicable to independent advocacy groups.  It also attempts to “level the playing field”—a purpose the Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional in our free country.

On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging Arizona’s law.  Deborah Dewart, Senior Legal Counsel for Justice and Freedom Fund, was there to listen.  Based on the lively questions the Justices posed to attorneys, it looks like a victory for free speech.  Stay tuned!

Check out:  http://justiceandfreedom.org for more information on Justice and Freedom Fund.