Obamacare Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court

For the next two days, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the case to determine whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. Obamacare has come under fire from many different groups, and there are several questions that need to be answered:

• Is Obamacare unconstitutional because of its individual mandate, stating that every person must buy health care, and doesn’t this constrain individual freedom and violate the Constitutional concept of limited government?

• Because there is a penalty for not buying health insurance, will that penalty be considered a tax or a fine?

• Does Obamacare use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions?

Although the individual mandate question is certainly the most contested and controversial, we find the last question regarding abortion coverage to be as important as any other. According to Obamacare policy, enrollees in certain insurance plans will be required to pay a $1 surcharge every month, above their plan fees, for abortion services, whether they plan to use them or not, or whether they believe in them or not.  They will only be informed of this surcharge only one time, upon enrollment in the program – meaning it could simply be one sentence in a giant insurance plan document.  In addition, people won’t be able to opt-out of the abortion surcharge without opting out of the entire insurance plan.

This sounds a lot like forcing Americans to fund abortions, doesn’t it?  If Obamacare is allowed to endure, countless Americans, many of whom are pro-life, will be paying for abortions out of their own pockets.

We will be eagerly watching as this U.S. Supreme Court review unfolds over the next few days, and we ask that you join us in prayer as this monumental decision is made in our nation’s highest Court.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

We Support the Mt. Soledad Cross!

Recently, we filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Mt. Soledad memorial cross located in San Diego, CA.  Shortly after the Korean War ended, members of an American Legion Post founded the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to honor the sacrifice of the countless Americans who died during that conflict and the two World Wars.  With the permission of the City of San Diego, they constructed a memorial cross to honor the fallen. Congress said of the cross: “[t]he Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial was dedicated on April 18, 1954, as ‘a lasting memorial to the dead of the First and Second World Wars and the Korean conflict’ and now serves as a memorial to American veterans of all wars, including the War on Terrorism.”

Our case rests on the fact that this Memorial was built with a secular purpose in mind – to honor our fallen soldiers and to preserve their memory.  In our opinion, a cross is a standard symbol used to honor our heroes.

However, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that “the record before us does not establish that Latin crosses have a well-established secular meaning as universal symbols of memorialization and remembrance.”  In addition, they concluded (erroneously, in our opinion) that the alleged religious or anti-religious motives of private individuals who donate memorials to the government are relevant in determining a law’s primary purpose and effect in Establishment Clause cases.

We believe strongly in the meaning and symbolization of this cross, and we will continue to fight against those that wish to tear it down.  Our amicus brief has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will keep you updated on the progress of this case.  Your prayers are appreciated!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Historical Lessons: Has America learned or are we doomed to repeat it?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."George Santayana, philosopher and poet

I have recently read and heard political leaders and writers who have expressed concern regarding our democratic form of government.  In one instance, presidential candidate Ron Paul was quoted as warning that the United States is “slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of individual rights of each and every American citizen.”       

While some commentators think that this statement is too extreme, there can be no question that our individual liberties are, in fact, eroding.  In a similar vein, I have recently read comparisons of the progression that is occurring in the United States to the progression that occurred in Nazi Germany.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the world watched in horror as Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, sought dominion throughout Europe, and orchestrated one of the most deadly genocides then known to mankind.  It is easy to look back at history from our vantage point and ask: Where were the German Christians, and why didn’t they confront this tragedy en masse?  Why didn’t they do more to protect life, individual rights, and religious liberty?

We must ask ourselves these very questions now, or generations to come may look back at this very time in history and ask: Why did my parents, grandparents and other Christians silently allow the government to take away our individual liberties?  Why didn’t the Christian Church take a coordinated public stand in defense of religious liberty?

I am not saying that our government is akin to Adolf Hitler and his murderous regime.  However, the suppression of individual liberties in America today, like the suppression of individual liberties in Germany before the war, can only be accomplished when the conscientious citizens of this Nation are silent and do nothing.

In the early 1930s, when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, he stated his belief that Christianity was the “unshakeable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people,” yet the ultimate ideals of the National Socialist movement were hostile towards religion.  Leading into the Holocaust, Hitler instituted a plan to strip away the religious liberties of German citizens.

Hitler slowly eroded the rights of the Christian Church—he permitted a remnant of worship but eliminated the church’s cultural influence.  After signing a concordant with the Catholic Church and establishing the German Christian Church (which upheld Nazi principles), Hitler and his administration gradually began to suppress the rights of Evangelical Christians and Catholics—ending denominational and youth organizations, prohibiting denominational schools, and widely defaming and imprisoning clergy of the Christian Church who refused to be silent about the truth.  The goal was to get the German people away from the Church’s conservative beliefs and on board with the Nazi’s radical plan of racism and aggressive warfare.

In modern day America, we often hear our leaders voice a shallow reverence toward our Christian heritage, while the actions of those same leaders show little respect for our heritage.   Even though our current administration has stated a belief in the faith of our Founding Fathers and the importance of religious liberty, many of its actions undermine the rights of religious institutions.

Most recently, “Obamacare” requires all businesses, including many religious organizations, to provide birth control and sterilization services free of charge to employees.  When the Catholic Church, whose teachings prohibit the use of any type of birth control, spoke out against this policy, President Obama offered a feeble “compromise,” saying the insurance company (instead of the church or religious business) would pay for the birth control.  But who ultimately pays the insurance company in the end?

We see an increasing progression of hostility by governmental officials and media toward Christians for expressing their faith in the public arena.  Christian student groups, such as the Christian Legal Society, are banned from recognition on campuses.  Christian groups are banned from using public facilities.  The so-called “separation of church and state” is beat like a war drum by governmental officials while the IRS threatens religious organizations with removal of tax exempt status for taking a stand on political issues.

Even our “war on terror” has adopted an alarming perspective.  A new report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issued in January 2012, details what activity to look for in a potential terrorist through its campaign titled “If You See Something, Say Something.”  The campaign encourages Americans to report suspicious behavior which includes the following characteristics: fiercely nationalistic, reverent of individual liberty, anti-abortion, speaking out against government policies, holding gold, and stocking up on more than 7 days of food.

My point is that we must not succumb to a hopeless attitude when our God-given, inalienable liberties are being eliminated by our government.  This is why we fight for our clients and against policies that limit our individual and religious liberties—because we believe that if we don’t take action now, there may be a time in the future when it is too late to fight.

Please take courage and make your stand now—in the voting booth, in the public square, at work, and in your schools.  Raise the awareness and cherish your liberty!

Robert Tyler, General Counsel

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

U.S. Supreme Court Puts a Stop to Students’ Rights Case

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in our case of student versus teacher.  Our client, Chad Farnan, was a sophomore in a high school Advanced Placement European History class, when he had to endure almost daily statements from his teacher that Chad argued were an unconstitutional attack on Christianity and religion, including the statement: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” A district court decided that one of the teacher’s statements was unconstitutional, as it expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.’"  Both parties appealed this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the district court’s decision and declared that the teacher involved had qualified immunity – meaning that, since there was no clear precedent of a teacher being held liable for his or her statements expressing disapproval of religion, this teacher could not have known that his statements would be unconstitutional.

We then appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, in hopes that they would reconsider the case and provide a final decision in this landmark, precedent-setting case.  However, they have decided not to hear our appeal.

We are disappointed that the highest Court in our nation will not hear this important case, and we agree with Douglas Laycock, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, who was quoted last year in the Orange County Register:

"They can't hold the teacher liable because the law was not clearly settled. Because they can't hold him liable, the law will never become clear on what teachers can say in class."

Please join us in prayer as we continue to work in defense of the religious and individual freedoms of our students!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Is President Obama’s “Compromise” Enough?

In January, President Obama announced that, as part of his Obamacare program, employers would have to include free access to birth control pills in their health coverage plans.  Churches and other houses of worship got an exception from this policy, but other religious institutions would only get an additional year to work out the issue and start providing this coverage to employees. Instantly, this announcement caused a great backlash from faith-based organizations, including hospitals and charities – and particularly those associated with the Catholic Church – who would not receive the exemption.  Birth control of any kind goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the issue quickly became one of freedom of religion and rights of conscience.

In response, President Obama proposed a “compromise” last Friday, stating that the religious institutions themselves would not have to pay for access to birth control pills and services…however, the insurance companies would have to supply coverage free of charge.

This does not in any way solve the underlying concern of these faith-based organizations – which is that they do not want to be forced to provide something that goes against the very tenets and intimate beliefs of their faith!

A House panel is meeting today to discuss whether President Obama’s decree goes against the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

What do you think?  Let your voice be heard by leaving a comment on our Facebook page.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

"Obamacare" Offers Little Room for Religious Liberty

Recently, the Obama administration announced that, as part of Obama’s healthcare mandate known as “Obamacare”, religious and church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for their employees.  Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, said that nonprofit religious organizations could have an additional year to implement this new requirement. The backlash against this new policy came immediately after the announcement.  Religious institutions will have to comply with this condition, or fight back, or else drop healthcare for their employees altogether and pay a fine to the government.  This particular mandate does give a very limited religious exemption to the rule, but still, only “certain religious employers” will be able to take this protection.  It is not enough.  (You can find the specific religious exemptions at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/) What about the freedom of conscience that should be afforded to these religious workers?  If something goes directly against their moral beliefs – such as use of contraception or sterilization – how can they, with good conscience, provide this for their employees?

Sister Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, responded to this new mandate, saying, “This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic society, which has always respected the role of religions.”

Time will tell how many religious institutions will take a stand and defend their religious freedoms and their right to freedom of conscience.  If you work for a religious or church-affiliated organization and are concerned about your rights in this matter, please contact Advocates.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Victory in Supreme Court Church Case

In January, the freedom of religious institutions to choose their staff and ministers who best reflect the beliefs and values they hold dear was supported by the highest court in our country – the United States Supreme Court.

A teacher at a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in Michigan was fired, and she told the school that she had consulted with an attorney and planned to fight back about her job termination.  However, the case went before the Supreme Court, who ruled that the teacher’s case would not move forward.

In the court’s decision, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment ensure that the government will not have a say in whom a religious organization hires or fires.  In his opinion, Roberts said:

“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ” 

Advocates celebrates the decision of the high court, which solidifies the liberties of churches and religious organizations to make decisions that will best serve their congregations and constituents – without fear of governmental interference. 

We have defended countless churches and religious institutions from unconstitutional intrusion by the government into their affairs.  If you, your church, or your religious organization encounter discrimination or violation of your religious freedoms, we are here to help!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Blockbuster Case in Education Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court

Four years ago, Chad Farnan was a high school student at Capistrano High School in Orange County, CA.  Day after day, he would attend his Advanced Placement European History class and have to endure anti-religious statements from his teacher, such as, “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”  Chad realized that this offensive speech was an attack on religion and thus violated his First Amendment rights. He came to Advocates for help, and we have brought this case before several different Courts.  We had a victory in the District Court, where the Judge ruled that this teacher violated the Establishment Clause in at least one instance when he expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.’"

The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which overturned that ruling and said that the teacher was immune from a lawsuit since there was no case like this before.  Then, the Ninth Circuit refused to rule on the constitutionality of the teacher’s conduct as it should have done, leaving future teachers free to discriminate.

We have fought for Chad and his family since the beginning, and we are now taking his case to the highest Court in our nation  ⎼⎼ the U.S. Supreme Court.  Why?  Because we believe that this case is supremely important to establish once and for all that public schools must provide a neutral educational environment.  Although we support the majority of teachers who teach responsibly, we cannot tolerate those public school teachers who abuse their position to force anti-Christian ideology onto our students!

We will be working diligently over the next month preparing our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to accept Chad’s case for review.

Chad, his family, and all of us at Advocates appreciate your prayers and support as we pursue this case further.  Our hope is that this landmark education case will provide powerful precedent for the future.

The 9/11 Cross – Offensive or Inspiring?

Ten years ago on September 11, the most devastating act of terrorism on American soil took place when two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City.  When the rubble fell to the ground, two steel beams remained, and they formed the shape of a cross.

Some would call this a reminder from God – that he endures through tragedy, and that he is with us through all circumstances.  However, one group – The American Atheists – have filed a lawsuit saying that the “the 9/11 Cross” should not be included in a Memorial being constructed on the site of the incident.  They say it is unconstitutional and represents a “mingling of church and state.”  If no other religions or philosophies are represented in the memorial, then they want the cross removed.

The group’s president, Dave Silverman, issued this statement: "The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross.”

This cross was not man-made – the beams fell into this position, and the resulting cross has become a symbol of hope for many people.  We support the inclusion of this cross in the Memorialand Museum being constructed at the site, and we plan to help in the legal battle in whatever way we can.

What do you think?  Should the Cross remain at the 9/11 Memorial Site?  Let your voice be heard – leave your comment on our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/Advocates.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Hemet Free Speech Case Goes to Court

“Free speech” is a revered and often talked about principle enshrined into our Constitution.  It is as much a part of the fabric of American political and social life today as it has been throughout our Nation’s history.  It is, however, a principle that must be vigilantly protected and defended as it is increasingly under attack in today’s culture.  As we seek to do just that, those who are tasked with protecting and defending it often do so at great cost.

            Ultimately, “free speech” is not truly free.  Protecting our constitutional rights by becoming embroiled in a lawsuit takes a great toll on those individuals who are willing to do so despite the costs to their families and everyday life.  Several months ago three individuals began a fight to protect against an erosion of our right to engage in free speech in Hemet, California when they read the Bible out loud in front of the Department of Motor Vehicles and were then arrested.  All three men have subsequently experienced the costs that maintaining truly “free speech” can exact.

The non-monetary costs are enumerable and often difficult to bear.  While we may not all agree with the particular method of sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ used by these three men, it is indisputable that they are carrying a burden for us all. Should we all choose to remain silent in the face of great costs, our rights will slowly erode and diminish to such an extent that we will not be able to speak freely in the public square.

This month, the first round of the court battle that looms ahead occurred in federal district court in Los Angeles, California.  While we don’t agree with the entirety of the Court’s decision as the Court chose to dismiss a portion of the lawsuit, the most significant aspects of the case will move forward. Please be in prayer as this case forges ahead, recognizing that while “free speech” is not free, it is paramount to our ability to spread the Gospel and live our faith out loud.