Can California Ban Moral Standards of Religious Employers? They're Trying!

Should a church be allowed to remove a high school youth pastor from his position if he coerced his pregnant girlfriend to get an abortion? What if the youth pastor was female, pregnant and unmarried? Today, church leaders have the ability to take the appropriate employment action that they believe is best in that situation. I suspect that you agree that the First Amendment protects the church’s right to make the best decision that the leaders see fit for that particular situation based on their religious beliefs.

But the California Legislature will soon decide whether the church is capable of making the right decision. If passed, AB 569 would outlaw the right of religious organizations, including churches, pro-life organizations, non-profits and Christian colleges to maintain employment standards regarding “reproductive health.” These are just liberal code words for abortion and birth control.

What if a Catholic nun became pregnant by a priest and later had a partial birth abortion? Will the California legislature really have the nerve to tell the Catholic Church that the church has no ability to take appropriate disciplinary action?

Assembly Bill 569 stomps on religious freedom by forbidding religious organizations from requiring that their employees maintain the moral standards taught by the individual organization.

We will certainly oppose the legislation and encourage you to do the same.

ACTION ITEM: It is absolutely vital that members of the Assembly hear your concerns. To see if your Assemblymember is on the committee, click here. To find your Assemblymember and contact information, click here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

         At the end of February, I was invited by Jim Domen of Church United, to participate in a briefing with pastors at the California State Capitol. We met with numerous politicians to pray with them in the Capitol Building. I was honored to have the opportunity to provide a legal briefing and to encourage the pastors to engage in today’s culture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Litigation Update           Reproductive Fact Act Lawsuit: You may recall that we are aggressively challenging this abusive law that requires pro-life licensed medical clinics to post a notice to patients in the waiting room or in the clinic’s intake paperwork. The notice states that free and low cost family planning services and abortions are available by calling a particular phone number. Last week, along with our co-counsel at the ACLJ, we filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to accept our case for review after the Ninth Circuit ruled that forcing this speech on pro-life organizations is not unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, on April 6, 2017, we will be in the California State Superior Court where we are taking a second strategic path of litigation against the California Attorney General’s Office. We have uncovered important evidence that will help us prove discrimination by exempting most all other that the State engaged in viewpoint licensed clinics from the law. Our case will either be dismissed by the court or set for trial. Please pray that we receive a fair hearing and favor before the state court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our cost of litigating these cases are significant and we urgently need your support so that we can continue to battle to protect the unborn and our First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion - all in the same litigation.

Religious Liberty Conference in Zambia

As a faith-based religious liberty legal firm, we take Scripture to heart: “be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8 ESV). As I discovered over the holiday, Samaria needs us. My family and I were privileged to travel to Zambia to work at the Breath of Heaven Orphanage with the children and their school teachers. I  participated in a  pastor’s  conference  on religious liberty and traditional  values.  About  100  pastors attended.  The purpose was to encourage pastors to stay  involved in a  cultural  tug-of-war  as the   nation is  faced   with   increased  pressure  from  the   United Nations to embrace a liberal agenda on moral issues.

The Christian nation is facing increased pressure to secularize by those who support abortion and same-sex marriage. Their struggle resembles the one we once faced in America. Beyond the social issues, there is a push to remove Christianity from its Constitution.

The new Zambian president created a new cabinet position—the Minister of National Guidance and Religious Affairs. I was invited to meet with the minister and am looking forward to the possibility of serving her office and Zambia’s parliament in the future with legislation promoting religious liberty.

In His Service,

Robert Tyler President and General Counsel

“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.” Dr. Martin Luther King

Christian Vindicated - WIN in the Ninth Circuit!

I have great news to share with you regarding a case that many of you have followed and supported for many years! On January 11^th, three federal  appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit  issued a final ruling in favor of our  client,  Mark  Mackey, who was arrested back in 2011 for reading the  Bible aloud  in  front of the  California Department of Motor Vehicles in Hemet.

Overzealous CHP officer, Darren Meyer, approached Mark Mackey, grabbed the Bible from his hands, slapped handcuffs on his wrists, and hauled him off to jail. The entire episode was recorded on video and, despite clear evidence that Mr. Mackey and his friends were merely exercising their constitutional rights, the state refused to drop the charges. The video showed Officer Meyer saying that it was illegal to “preach to a captive audience.”

The court also rightly rebuked Officer Meyer for false allegations in his police report. In that report, the officer alleged that Mr. Mackey was yelling at people waiting in line and that a “verbal confrontation” had become “heated and nearing a physical state.”

The Ninth Circuit judge explained, “That version of events is completely belied by video and audio footage which does not reveal any confrontations whatsoever, and merely shows Mackey reading the bible aloud somewhat apart from people standing in line.”

It was obvious to us from the beginning that a great injustice had occurred. An innocent man exercising his religious liberty and free speech was criminally  prosecuted  based on erroneous claims put  forth  by a false and deceitful police report because the officials did not agree with our client’s speech. But that is exactly why our founders created the First Amendment—to protect even disagreeable speech.

Mr.  Mackey  filed a federal lawsuit, but  immediately  offered to drop the  federal  suit  if  the CHP admitted to the unlawful arrest and agreed to properly instruct its officers on how to handle such cases. They declined. Instead they prosecuted him. We successfully prevailed over the criminal charges.

Because of the nature of this case, it received national attention and more than 165,000 people have viewed the online video. But the real work was done behind the scenes as our team invested hundreds of hours investigating legal precedents, drafting briefs and dealing with opposing counsel.

Without dedicated supporters like YOU, who offered consistent prayers and financial backing over the years, Mr. Mackey would never have prevailed. His win in the liberal Ninth Circuit is a win for all of us who hold religious liberty dear. On behalf of Mark Mackey—and those who come after him—We Thank You!

If you would like to financially support the essential work we do here at Advocates for Faith & Freedom, please click here.

Click to view the Press Release.

School District Stands Up to Atheists

Earlier this year, we shared the news that Advocates for Faith & Freedom had agreed to represent the Chino Valley Unified School District in a high-stakes federal case involving the constitutionality of allowing an invocation at the start of school board meetings. The district asked us to represent its interests after a lower court judge declared its prayer policy unconstitutional. James Long, a staff attorney for Tyler & Bursch, LLP, is working on the case for us and has spent the entire summer diligently preparing briefs for the federal appeal. With hundreds of hours already logged in this case, we expect to submit our opening brief to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days. In addition to the official filing, numerous organizations will be supporting our effort through their own amicus briefs.

As you may recall, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) took exception to Chino Valley’s pre-meeting prayer policy and, in November 2014, filed a lawsuit seeking to block it. The anti-religious freedom group took the legal action despite the fact that just five months earlier the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayers at city council meetings. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court sanctioned the practice as long as the city has a nondiscriminatory process in selecting volunteers who offer the prayers.

The significance—and possible ramifications—of the Chino Valley case has also garnered attention in scholarly circles. In a January 2015 article in The Journal of Law & Politics, author Marie Elizabeth Wicks explores how the Town of Greece ruling should also apply to local school district boards.

“Because school boards are deliberative public bodies and are nearly identical in structure to town boards like that in Town of Greece, school boards also should be allowed to solemnize the start of meetings with a brief prayer,” Wicks wrote in reference to our case.

FFRF is, in essence, trying to inoculate its position from the Supreme Court ruling by arguing that the presence of students at the board meetings shifts the focus of such gatherings from a business meeting to a school setting. But as writer Wicks rightly argued in her Journal of Law & Politics article, the presence of students in the audience does not negate the historical significance of such prayers, a key finding in the High Court case.

“The striking similarities between school boards and the Greece town board support the logical extension of the Town of Greece principles to school boards’ prayer practices,” Wicks wrote. “In both situations, an opening invocation acts to solemnize the occasion and is directed toward the board members.”

Chino Valley’s policy, which was adopted in 2013, does in fact allow all religious organizations an opportunity to participate and works to ensure equality in the process by sending out invitation letters to all religious assemblies in its area.

The implications from the case are great and extend well beyond the Southern California school district. Not only is the issue of school district prayer the first of its kind to reach the 9^th Circuit Court, but it is also the first case in the nation to reach the federal appeals level since the pivotal Town of Greece ruling.

While we have completed a great deal of legal research, much work still remains. This is where you can help partner with us to ensure that local school districts maintain the same rights the U.S. Supreme Court has already confirmed on town councils as “deliberative public bodies.” As you can imagine, the costs associated with mounting such a significant legal defense can escalate quite quickly. To that end, Advocates for Faith & Freedom is helping to underwrite the costs with the Tyler & Bursch legal team.

Would you prayerfully consider contributing to this vital cause for religious liberty? We can think of no more fitting way to help guide our educational policymakers than by ensuring they retain their constitutional right to begin their deliberations with the historical act of prayer.

Help Us Get Bibles for Belizean Defense Force

It has been a number of weeks since my last correspondence. I apologize for the delay. We spent close to one month in a religious liberty jury trial from mid-May to mid-June. As a result, I simply didn’t have the time to write and get out our regular monthly newsletters. Let me bring you up to speed on a few important things we have been working on.

Bibles for the Belize Military

We have been asked to extend our advocacy for faith to the military personnel in the Central American country of Belize! A close friend of mine, John Gotz, serves as a missionary in Belize and as a military chaplain to the Belizean Defense Force of approximately 3,000 troops. The country’s leading General has requested that John acquire 5,000 Bibles to deliver to each member of the military!

When John told me about this opportunity, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to bring this to Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Would you please participate in this outreach by generously donating to Advocates so that we can purchase the Bibles and advocate for our Christian faith internationally? The Bibles will probably cost us approximately $15,000.

I plan to personally deliver the Bibles to the Belizean military with John as soon as we can raise the money to buy the Bibles. We will have the opportunity to hold Bible studies for many of the troops. In contrast to the U.S. military chaplaincy policies, the doors are wide-open to the Gospel in Belize.

You can designate a specific gift by referencing “Bibles for Belize.” Thank you for your prayer and generosity.  We won’t be able to do this without your generous partnership!

In the Hands of a Jury One of our attorneys, Jordan Bursch, and I spent 3 ½ weeks in a jury trial in downtown Los Angeles that led us to a new realization of the environment in which we live. Our client, who asked to be left anonymous, filed a suit a few years ago through another attorney claiming religious discrimination against his former employer, the Metropolitan Water District. Just a couple weeks before trial, we were asked to take the case over. Unfortunately, we had to fight as though we had “one arm tied behind our back”   due to the   prior   attorney’s agreement to exclude substantial evidence.

Picking a jury was extremely enlightening to the state of our culture. During voir dire, we were able to question and exclude numerous jurors who appeared blatantly biased. One juror claimed that “religion is the root of all evil and Christians are the worst.” Another young professional said she was an atheist and could not be unbiased in a religious discrimination case. A high ranking official at UCLA said he was atheist, grew up in communist China, and didn’t believe that anyone should have the right to bring a claim of religious discrimination, regardless of the First Amendment. A young homosexual man said that he believed that whenever he heard of a Christian claiming discrimination, “it was really the Christian doing the discriminating and doing harm to others.” This comment broke my heart as this young man does not understand true Christianity.

While we initially persuaded five of the jurors needed to prevail, the jury ruled that we were not able to show enough evidence of discriminatory intent. Even though we established clear evidence that our client’s immediate supervisor stated, among other derogatory things, that “Jesus isn’t going to save your job,” it was not enough. The burden of proof is very high for proving religious discrimination. You can imagine how easy it is for a large institution to hide their real intent for terminating an employee with vague and benign reasoning.

We knew the likelihood of success would be pretty slim when we took over this case just a few weeks before trial. However, we felt led by the Lord that this gentlemen needed our help regardless of the probable outcome. Sometimes we are called by God to show up and advocate a righteous cause in spite of the odds. I am learning more and more in this post-Christian era that we must respond to God’s calling and leave the results to Him.

Defending Prayer at School Board Meetings

Lastly, I wanted to ask you for your prayer as we work extensively this summer on briefs that will be due in September in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal. We agreed to take over the defense of the Chino Valley Unified School District in the Ninth Circuit appeal where a District Court judge ordered the School District to cease and desist its practice of allowing an invocation at the beginning of School Board meetings. This case will likely have a national impact as many school districts nationwide have a practice of allowing invocations at the beginning of their meetings. Please pray for us to have wisdom as we research and write our legal arguments.  

Thank you for your financial support to our ministry. Because of your generosity, we can quickly come to the aid of worthy causes like these. Know that we will continue to work diligently to protect religious liberty and our First Amendment right.

Court Halts School Board Prayer.....NOT WITHOUT A FIGHT!

The Chino Valley Unified School District asked Advocates for Faith & Freedom to help them in defending its policy of allowing an opening invocation at their board meetings.

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of a city council to open its public meetings with an invocation —provided there was a nondiscriminatory process in selecting who offer the prayers.

The Supreme Court commented in Town of Greece v. Galloway that “legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of ‘God save the United States and this honorable Court’ at the opening of this Court’s sessions….”

In the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Nebraska Legislature’s chaplaincy prayer practice did not violate the Establishment Clause. In doing so, the ruling noted that legislative prayers were deeply embedded in American history as early as the 1774 Continental Congress, when such prayers were presented through paid chaplains.

Chino Valley Unified School District decided to appeal a recent federal court ruling calling its own prayer policy unconstitutional, even though the board policy adopted in 2013 contained the same stipulations later upheld in the Town of Greece v. Galloway ruling.

In keeping with those long-held and federally recognized provisions, the school district retained Tyler & Bursch, LLP to represent it pro bono on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Advocates for Faith & Freedom is working in association with Tyler & Bursch, LLP to help underwrite the costs of the appeal.  This case is being defended  by Tyler & Bursch  in order to  minimize the potential bias that we have experienced in the past when advocates for Faith & Freedom is the law firm of record.

CVUSD’s prayer policy is nondiscriminatory because it allows clergy from all faiths to present their prayers. To ensure the policy is nondiscriminatory, the district sends out a letter to all religious assemblies inviting them to voluntarily sign-up to participate in the invocation. The militant Freedom from Religion Foundation sued the school district in November 2014.

In February, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal ruled against CVUSD saying that the Town of Greece decision allowing prayer before city council meetings did not apply to school districts because of the impressionability of schoolchildren who may attend the meetings.

“The School Board possesses an inherently authoritarian position with respect to the students. The board metes out discipline and awards at these meetings, and sets school policies that directly and immediately affect the students’ lives,” Bernal wrote.

After losing at the district court level, Chino Valley officials asked us to take over their legal representation before the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Our appeal will narrowly focus on the question of whether a school board may begin its meetings with a ceremonial prayer.

We believe this case will have serious ramifications because it is the first one to advance to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also the first case to advance to the appeal level since the Town of Greece case reaffirmed the constitutionality of allowing ceremonial prayers before governmental meetings.

Because this case will require intensive staff time and legal costs throughout most of this year, we are asking that you please consider contributing to our defense fund. We seriously need additional financial support today to take on this battle. Whether you can afford to give $5, $25, or $1,000, it all matters and is greatly appreciated! We can’t afford to let a small minority of people and a radical organization redefine our way of life. To do so fosters tyranny of the worst kind. Thank you for your prayerful consideration to this cause. If you would like to donate to Advocates, click here.

Press Release 3-17-16

17 Opening Brief_4-26-17

Victory for Dream Center Lake Elsinore

Pastor Brett Masters leased a store front in downtown Lake Elsinore, California, as his headquarter offices for the Lake Elsinore Dream Center. The Dream Center is a volunteer driven organization that finds & fills the needs of individuals and families in their community. They do this by connecting isolated people to God and a community of support providing services that address immediate and long-term needs in order to build relationships that will allow them to speak into their God-given potential. They work to bring hope to the needy, a way off the streets, out of poverty, and into self-sufficiency. One of Pastor Brett’s plans has been to implement a weekly community assistance program called “Adopt-A-Block.” Through Adopt-A-Block, the Dream Center teams assist residents in cleaning up their properties and offer a hand-up to those in need. The Dream Center needed a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City of Lake Elsinore in order to begin using the building for their headquarters. The planning staff had been very friendly and supportive of the project.  However, during the process of obtaining the permit, Pastor Brett faced stiff opposition from a couple of individuals who spent considerable time opposing the project.  This resulted in a Planning Commission deadlock vote.

Pastor Brett was referred to Advocates for help on his appeal to the City Council.  After a review of the law protecting the religious use of land, Advocates was able to help Pastor Brett understand the existing zoning laws and the CUP process as he prepared for the public hearing at the Lake Elsinore City Council.  With much planning and prayer, the Dream Center was unanimously approved. The City of Lake Elsinore and its residents will be enjoying the assistance from this wonderful staff and many faithful volunteers for years to come.

In 2007, Advocates prevailed against the City of Lake Elsinore on behalf of Elsinore Christian Center  where we set precedent in the Ninth Circuit preventing zoning discrimination against churches. That case helped pave the way for this victory and many others across the country.

We appreciate the financial support and prayers from faithful people like you! It’s only with your help and donations that we can make a difference and help Pastor Brett Masters and the Dream Center.

Two Christmas Victories for Advocates and Religious Liberty

The spirit of Christmas has arrived at Advocates for Faith & Freedom with the settlement of two Christmas-themed cases involving Southern California children. Both cases involve incidents that happened in December 2013. The resolution of these cases demonstrate how West Covina and Temecula Valley school districts worked with us to address our clients’ First Amendment liberties. As you may recall, Isaiah Martinez, then a first-grader, was barred from handing out candy canes to his West Covina classmates after his teacher noticed an accompanying note explaining the legend of the candy canes. The legend involves a candy maker who created the red-and-white-striped candies to represent the life of Jesus Christ. The teacher consulted with the principal, who told her the candy canes could not be distributed with the Christian legend attached. After school, Isaiah reported to his parents that the teacher tore off the Christian legend and told him that Jesus was not allowed in school.

We filed a federal lawsuit after several attempts to resolve the case at the school district level were unsuccessful. But in depositions for the lawsuit, the district’s representative admitted that the principal made a mistake and violated Isaiah’s rights by telling him he couldn’t give the religious-themed candy canes to his friends. The revelation helped Advocates’ staff attorney, James Long, to successfully negotiate a settlement after the school district had revised its district policy to accommodate religious liberties at all of its campuses. The district also agreed to pay Advocates for a portion of the attorney fees we incurred. The school district required that the amount remain confidential. Alex Martinez, Isaiah’s father said, “Advocates have been a blessing to my family. This organization is truly a Godsend! We thank God for Bob Tyler and the staff there.”

The second case involved Brynn Williams who was a first grade student in December 2013 within the Temecula Unified School District. She was prevented from reading from John 3:16 during an in-class Christmas presentation. After filing an administrative complaint, the school district agreed to a settlement and we agreed to the joint statement that follows:

 The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Brynn Williams, and Brynn’s parents Gina and Shane Williams, have reached an agreement that will result in the dismissal of the administrative complaints submitted to the District by the Williams family.  The Williams family alleged that Brynn’s constitutional rights were violated when she was not permitted to read a Bible verse out loud as a part of a class assignment. The District’s internal 

investigation into the matter concluded that the actions of the classroom teacher and the principal were not anti-religious. 

Although further administrative action through an appeal and litigation are available to the Williams family, and litigation is available to District employees, the parties agree that a compromise would be more beneficial to all involved. The compromise reached by the parties is not an admission of liability on the part of either party.  The settlement presents a compromise that is in the best interests of Brynn Williams, her family, the District, District staff, and local students.

The District continues to be committed to providing an educational environment that ensures that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse gates.  Therefore, the District will continue to work to ensure that all of its students continue to enjoy their constitutional freedoms, including religious freedoms, in harmony with District policies. 

The District agrees that it is in the best interest of all concerned to provide training to school administrators on the topic of First Amendment rights of staff and students.  The Williams family, the District, and the District’s employees are very satisfied with the outcome and the Williams family applauds the School District’s willingness to provide First Amendment training to its staff.

While both cases were two years in the making, their successful completion shows the need for persistence when advocating for religious liberty and the protection of free speech. When we take on a case, it is not something that is usually resolved in a day or even a month. It’s typically a long-term commitment with many struggles and 150 to 500 hundred hours of legal work. For example, Isaiah Martinez’ case, our attorneys logged-in more than 350 hours.

We are grateful for your continued commitment to our vital work. To that end, would you please consider helping us to continue our core mission by making a year-end tax deductible donation so that we can continue to defend your liberties along with the liberties of students like Isaiah and Brynn who simply want to share the love of Jesus? We know there are many great ministries that deserve your support and we truly appreciate any contribution you can make to Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

Mobile Pregnancy Clinic Sues State Over New “Bully” Law

Just 15 months after launching a mobile pregnancy medical clinic ministry, Pastor Scott Scharpen is facing the reality of having to shut it down after Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the “Reproductive FACT Act,” which requires all such clinics to post a notice on site promoting free and low-cost abortions. The notice must be at least 22-point size and posted in the waiting area. It must also include a telephone number for abortion referrals. Clinics may opt to distribute the notice to each patient in 14 point type. “I will not post that notice in our clinic,” said Scharpen, founder of the Go Mobile for Lifeministry clinic in Riverside County. “I would rather close the clinic than post that notice. This is outrageous!”

Scharpen launched his mobile clinic in August 2014 with a 31-foot RV. The clinic provides free services, including ultrasounds. The unit parks in conspicuous locations in Riverside County, acting as a mobile billboard. “It’s not just a clinic,” he said. “It’s a ministry. We share the gospel with them. Our slogan is ‘GO serve women, GO save lives and GO share Jesus.’”

Before going to the extreme of shutting down the mobile clinic and disenfranchising hundreds of clients who receive free services through their non-profit community clinic, Scharpen chose to seek out the services of Advocates for Faith & Freedom and Tyler & Burch, LLP.

We have decided to file a lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court with the hope of finding justice in a neutral forum. In fact, the free speech clause under the California Constitution has been interpreted by courts to provide even greater protection to speech than does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See Press Release, complaint and preliminary injunction below)

Bringing a free speech case in state superior court is not the normal course of action for most religious liberty legal organizations because federal court has typically been the favored forum. However, we decided to bring this case in state court in order to take an alternative strategic approach to another case we already filed in federal court in San Francisco.  Along with our co-counsel, the ACLJ, we filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of Living Well Medical Clinic, Inc., Pregnancy Care Center of the North Coast, Inc., and Confidence Pregnancy Center, Inc.

We believe it is important to protect pro-life clinics because they typically provide safe options to pregnant women with resources to support a mother through pregnancy, parenthood and/or adoption. However, if the Reproductive Fact Act is allowed to remain the law of California, these important clinics promoting life will also be forced to promote abortions.

By enacting this law, Scharpen said, “the state is overstepping its authority by requiring privately funded ministries to act as agents of the state by promoting a state-mandated message promoting abortion.”

“We as clinics shouldn’t be required to provide information about services that we don’t offer and that women have the ability to find through other means,” he said.

Scharpen said he has always been prolife but never advocated on behalf of the unborn until he was preparing a sermon in early 2013. The Lord, he said, directed him to preach on abortion.

Later that year he purchased a clinic RV from an Ohio non-profit organization that provides similar RVs to ministries throughout the country. The clinic was officially launched in August 2014 after securing a medical license from the California Department of Public Health.

“As a pastor and as a businessman I did not think I would be involved in running a clinic,” he said. Now he’s fighting for the right to operate the privately held clinic in a manner that reflects the clinic’s religious beliefs.

Scharpen added, “This lawsuit has even broader implications. If the California state government gets away with telling pregnancy clinics what to say and even how to say it, then ALL faith-based businesses are at risk of being bullied into delivering the government’s mandated speech.  We must stand up and fight this unconstitutional law for the benefit of all people!”

We are excited about the opportunity to advocate for the life of the unborn. We will be faced with challenging the unlimited resources of the State of California, who will be represented by the State’s Attorney General. Numerous nongovernmental advocacy organizations will likely come join the defense of the State providing a well-funded defense and numerous attorneys.

We anticipate that we will provide over $200,000 worth of free legal services and will incur thousands of dollars in court costs and other expenses on this case alone. We would greatly appreciate any financial support you can provide to help us win this case. Thank you in advance for your prayers and support!

Read Press Release here.

Here Comes Common Core... What's the big deal?

Dear Friend,
In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” Our Founding Fathers recognized government as a necessary evil and, therefore, carefully crafted the American government with a separation of powers so no one branch of government became too powerful. Additionally, our Constitution provides the federal government with certain powers and the states with certain powers. Thomas Paine’s words ring truer now than in 1776, because the federal government’s “Common Core” curriculum interferes with States’ rights and violates federal laws prohibiting such control. 

Control of educational curriculum is a state right; not a federal right. Under Common Core and its financial incentives, the federal government is attempting to do what it legally cannot. The federal government, by financial incentives (our tax dollars), is attempting to take away power reserved for the states. A large part of the American government’s success lies in its inherent restraints on government power known as “checks and balances.” This means the federal government must not overstep its authority by ignoring the laws adopted by Congress.  We, as citizens, should be gravely concerned when any branch of our government ignores laws restraining it and, in this case, treads on the rights of States.

Everyone—not just parents—should oppose Common Core because it negatively affects the nation’s youth in two ways:

1. The math curriculum puts students almost two years behind their peers, potentially forcing them out of the university system and into the already impacted community college system, leaving our universities scrambling for foreign students who can qualify;
2. The questions students must answer on tests has an anti-conservative indoctrination and a socialism/communism agenda.  Common Core is about lowering the academic standards for American children and the indoctrination of an anti-American agenda.

Furthermore, Common Core collects our children’s data without proper parental consent. It is possible this data will be available to unknown sources. Common Core testing allows the educational system to ask if guns are in your home, if parents have served in the military, and other information not necessary to the academic pursuits of students.

What can parents do? Use an Opt Out Form to remove your children from the Common Core testing. As long as California has Common Core, students may not Opt Out of the curriculum entirely, but may Opt Out of the testing for religious reasons. If all students opt out of Common Core testing, the system will fail to accomplish its hidden agenda.  All citizens can write their political representatives encouraging them to get rid of the Common Core curriculum in California.  States like Texas and Alaska have not adopted Common Core for the reasons stated above.  Lastly, when you go to the polls, make sure you know your candidate’s view on Common Core.

There are many Opt Out Forms by great organizations, one source we recommend is TruthinAmericanEducation.com. You may also contact our office (888-588-6888 or email: info@faith-freedom.com), and we can send you an Opt Out Form.                              In His Service,                                                             Marty Nicholson                               Legal Counsel