Tag: New York

A Sad and Evil Day’: New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby’s Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Editor comment: This bill illustrates the increasing moral depravity of our country. We have so many euphemisms to hide the reality of what is happening. This is not “pro-choice” “reproductive rights” “empowerment of women” but this is murder of innocent babies. This is a brutal taking of a baby’s right to live for what reason? Sexual freedom? Inconvenience of having a child? Indifference to human life? There is no justification for a bill like this and may God have mercy on America as it continues to sink in the muck of evil.

New York legislators cheered and applauded Tuesday night after the state Senate removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing unborn babies to be aborted up until the day of birth.

The Reproductive Health Act passed with a 38-28 vote and was signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).

The law erases New York’s previous limitations on abortion which restricted the fatal procedure past 24 weeks. Supporters say those late-term abortions are being allowed in order to protect the lives of women, but pro-life advocates say that’s just a ruse, pointing out that those late-term babies are clearly viable human lives who could otherwise survive outside the womb.

“RHA is an extreme bill sold to the public saying it merely ‘updates’ New York’s law, which is far from true.  RHA will expand abortion past 24 weeks through birth, make abortion a ‘fundamental right,’ and prohibit all limits, which Roe vs. Wade did *not* do,” New York State Right to Life said in a Facebook post.

Christina Fadden, chair of New York State Right to Life explained further, “RHA has expanded abortion-on-demand in New York past 24 weeks – well past when unborn children feel pain, are viable, and suffer during the course of an abortion – and up to birth. This is inhumane.”

The act states, “every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”

The law also removes abortion from the definition of homicide and New York’s criminal code altogether. Previously, New York law treated the murder of an unborn child in its the third trimester as a felony offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The shocked response has been rolling in across the nation after Democrat lawmakers in the state of New York did the unthinkable Tuesday, legalizing the abortion of unborn babies all the way up until the point of birth.  The response on CBNNews.com has been stunning as more than a million readers simply can’t fathom why any state would allow viable babies to be killed.

Pro-life advocates point out the law is presented under the guise of protecting women’s health, but it permits late-term abortions of unborn babies who could otherwise survive outside the womb.

News of the new law sent shockwaves through the pro-life community. Many are grieving about what it will mean for lost human lives and pointing out the sheer hypocrisies behind what the Left has just done, especially as they try to claim the moral high ground on so many other cultural issues. The stunning developments out of New York appear to be galvanizing the pro-life movement to fight abortion with renewed fervor.

Dr. James Dobson is condemning the NY legislation as barbaric.

“It is not overstating the matter to say I am horrified by the New York State Senate’s vote to pass the euphemistic Reproductive Health Act (RHA). This bill is not about reproductive health at all. It is pure barbarism on a scale rarely seen since the Middle Ages,” Dobson says. “There is a battle raging for millions of lives preordained by God himself, and it is we who must stand for them so that they might have a chance at life.”

MORE: Stunned by NY’s Late-Term Abortion Law? Well, Prepare to Be Stunned Again

Dr. Jack Graham, the pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church, says, “Those who are applauding the passage of New York’s so-dubbed Reproductive Health Act are not celebrating and promoting a step forward in women’s health rights. They are celebrating cold-blooded murder. This act is nothing short of a license to kill unborn babies, even when they could survive outside the womb.”

“That this law was received with such exuberance by so many people should spur us to action, realizing that it has never been more important to defend the sanctity of human life and to fight for those who cannot defend themselves,” he continued.

Former Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) laughed hysterically as they pushed to expand abortion rights in the New York state legislature in early January of 2019.

Janet Morana, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and executive director of @PriestsforLife tweeted:

“As a native New Yorker my heart is broken knowing precious babies can now be killed until birth for any reason. #abortion is nothing less than homicide and to expand its bloody reach on the anniversary of #RoeVWade is a disgrace. #prolife #WakeUpAmerica”

Janet Morana@JanetMorana

“NY Gov. Cuomo wants to regulate potentially poisonous chemicals in cleaning products… But champions the poisoning, dismemberment, and fatality of children in the womb during abortion.”

Alison H.Centofante@AlisonHowardC

But champions the poisoning, dismemberment, and fatality of children in the womb during abortion.

Andrew Cuomo

@NYGovCuomo

I am proposing mandatory labeling on products containing potentially hazardous chemicals.

The more we know about our exposure to chemicals, the more frightening the situation is. Consumers have the right to know what’s inside the products they use.https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-proposal-executive-budget-protect-new-yorkers-unknown-exposure-toxic 

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh blasted the Left for its hypocrisy on the life issue saying: “Trump is literally Hitler,” they said as they celebrated the mass murder of infants.

Matt Walsh

@MattWalshBlog

“Trump is literally Hitler,” they said as they celebrated the mass murder of infants

“How tragic: @NYGovCuomo orders World Trade Center to be lit pink to celebrate new law in New York permitting unborn babies to be killed by abortion up until birth… …while the WTC memorial below bears the names of 11 unborn children who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Susan B. Anthony List

@SBAList

How tragic: @NYGovCuomo orders World Trade Center to be lit pink to celebrate new law in New York permitting unborn babies to be killed by abortion up until birth…

…while the WTC memorial below bears the names of 11 unborn children who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks

And author and pro-life activist Bryan Kemper pointed out another shocking irony on Twitter:

“The Horrors of Auschwitz exhibit is coming to New York to make sure people don’t forget the destruction of life, yet New York just legalized the #Abortion holocaust up to birth. Blood is flowing in our streets as we continue to snuff out life in the womb. #reverseroe #prolife”

Bryan Kemper 🇺🇸@BryanKemper

The Horrors of Auschwitz exhibit is coming to New York to make sure people don’t forget the destruction of life, yet New York just legalized the holocaust up to birth. Blood is flowing in our streets as we continue to snuff out life in the womb.

and http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/hypocrisy-homicide-and-horrors-new-yorks-brand-new-license-to-kill-viable-babies-sparks-intense-outrage
See also: https://beautybeyondbones.com/2019/01/28/andrew-cuomo-nightmare-in-new-york/

NYC bus ads asking ‘Leaving Islam?’ cause a stir

By DEEPTI HAJELA

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK — The questions on the ads aren’t subtle: Leaving Islam? Fatwa on your head? Is your family threatening you?

A conservative activist and the organizations she leads have paid several thousand dollars for the ads to run on at least 30 city buses for a month. The ads point to a website called RefugefromIslam.com, which offers information to those wishing to leave Islam, but some Muslims are calling the ads a smoke screen for an anti-Muslim agenda.

Pamela Geller, who leads an organization called Stop Islamization of America, said the ads were meant to help provide resources for Muslims who are fearful of leaving the faith.

“It’s not offensive to Muslims, it’s religious freedom,” she said. “It’s not targeted at practicing Muslims. It doesn’t say ‘leave,’ it says ‘leaving’ with a question mark.”

Geller said the ad buy cost about $8,000, contributed by the readers of her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and other websites. Similar ads have run on buses in Miami, and she said ad buys were planned for other cities.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said Geller’s ad was reviewed and did not violate the agency’s guidelines.

“The religion in question would not change the determination that the language in the ad does not violate guidelines,” MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz said Wednesday.

All ads are screened, MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said. Most are reviewed by the company that handles the MTA’s advertising opportunities, but some are sent to the MTA for ultimate approval.

Last month, Miami-Dade Transit pulled the ads from 10 buses after deciding they “may be offensive to Islam,” according to The Miami Herald. But the agency decided to reinstall them after reviewing the ads with the county attorney’s office.

The county decided “although they may be considered offensive by some, they do not fall under the general guidelines that would warrant their removal,” Transit spokesman Clinton Forbes told the newspaper.

Glenn Smith, a professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, said discriminating against the ads could result in First Amendment issues for the city.

While people may find the content objectionable, courts have ruled that the First Amendment requires Americans to put up with “a lot of unenlightened and objectionable messages,” he said.

“It’s sort of the price of keeping government out of the marketplace of ideas,” he said.

Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert at UCLA School of Law, said the ads could leave some Muslims reluctant to ride the bus. There could also be a risk that some extremist groups might bomb the buses, although that possibility wouldn’t limit free speech rights, he said.

The agency had received no complaints since the ads went up on May 14, MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said. The 30 or so buses with the ads pass through all five boroughs of the city.

Council member Robert Jackson, a Muslim, said he had not seen the ad. But he questioned the criteria the MTA uses in determining what is appropriate.

He also takes issue with the content. He doesn’t believe anyone is being forced to stay in a religion, especially in America, which was built on religious freedom.

“I think this is a campaign by the extreme right, those that are against the Muslim religion,” he said. “Quite frankly, I would think the average New Yorker would take it for what it’s worth.”

Faiza Ali, of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the ads were based on a false premise that people face coercion to remain with Islam. She said Muslims believe faith that is forced is not true belief.

“Geller is free to say what she likes just as concerned community members are free to criticize her motives,” Ali said.

Geller has a history of speaking out against Muslims, and the ads are “a smoke screen to advance her long-standing history of anti-Muslim bigotry,” Ali said.

Geller said she had no problem with Muslims, but was working to “maintain the separation of mosque and state.” She is also among those speaking out against the building of a mosque and cultural center near ground zero.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/26/1649458/nyc-bus-ads-asking-leaving-islam.html#ixzz0p9pyayCl

Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination

BOSTON — Nancy Gill has worked for the Postal Service for almost 23 years. But because she is married to a woman, she cannot provide the same health benefits to her spouse that her co-workers at the post office can provide for their families.

Ms. Gill, 51, and Marcelle Letourneau, 47, married in Massachusetts in 2004 and are the lead plaintiffs in a suit challenging the federal law — the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA — that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The women, who live in Bridgewater, Mass., are challenging the section that denies marriage-related benefits to same-sex couples, saying they are being denied equal protection under the law.

The case, filed in March 2009, was argued Thursday in Federal District Court here before Judge Joseph L. Tauro. It is the first major challenge to the act and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.

Mary L. Bonauto, director of the civil rights project for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, argued on behalf of the couple and 15 other plaintiffs, calling the case “a classic equal-protection issue.”

Ms. Bonauto said that the purpose of the act was to “show that same-sex marriage was immoral” but that it ended up hurting such couples by making them pay twice for health insurance, for example, or denying them death benefits.

The Obama administration’s Justice Department was in the position of defending the law, just as it had done in a case last year, even though Barack Obama had called during the 2008 presidential campaign for repealing it. Advocates for gay rights have said they have little hope that Mr. Obama will actively seek a repeal, given the political climate and the priority of other issues.

Scott Simpson, arguing for the government on Thursday, opened by acknowledging the administration’s opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its constitutionality.

“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,” Mr. Simpson said. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”

The act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Mr. Simpson, who asked the judge to dismiss the case, said Congress was initially motivated to pass the act because one state, Hawaii, was starting to consider whether to legalize same-sex marriage. And now that five states and the District of Columbia have legalized it, he said, the act spares the government the trouble of keeping track of different laws in different states.

To that argument, Ms. Bonauto told the court, “We’re not talking about mom-and-pop operations here; we’re talking about the federal government.”

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would not legalize same-sex marriage in states that have not done so, but it would give same-sex couples in all states access to benefits and protections available to other married couples.

Outside the courthouse after opening arguments were finished, Ms. Gill said of Mr. Simpson’s assertion that the administration disagreed with the act, “That’s sort of a victory for me because I think the federal government knows that it’s wrong, and I think it’s going to change.”

Ms. Bonauto said she did not view the government as “rolling over.”

“It’s really a question for them of institutional integrity to continue to defend the constitutionality of statutes,” she said. “That’s what they’ve done here.”

A case in California argues that there is a fundamental right for anyone, including same-sex couples, to marry, but the one here is focused more narrowly on the denial of protections and benefits to such couples.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 7, 2010, on page A16 of the New York edition.

// <![CDATA[Courtesy of New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html?ref=us

Two Convicted of Denying Access to Abortion Clinic

For the first time in New York City, federal prosecutors have used the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act to secure a conviction in a case where access was blocked to a clinic that provides abortions.

The prosecutors used the statute, signed into law in 1994, to charge two men who stood in front of an entrance at the Margaret Sanger Center, a clinic operated by Planned Parenthood at the corner of Bleecker and Mott Streets.

The men, Richard R. Dugan and Theodore A. Puckett, were each convicted on Monday of a single count of violating the act after a one-day bench trial conducted in Manhattan by Judge Robert W. Sweet of United States District Court. Each man faces a maximum six-month sentence and a fine of $10,000. Sentencing was scheduled for June 10.

Although the statute had never been used in a criminal prosecution in New York City, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan said prosecutors there had used the measure in 1996 in a civil case.

According to a criminal complaint, Mr. Dugan, 48, of Breaux Bridge, La., and Mr. Puckett, 58, of Normandy, Tenn., blocked staff and patients from using two entrances to the clinic on Dec. 12, 2009, and refused to leave.

During the proceeding on Monday morning, Mr. Dugan, who represented himself, told Judge Sweet: “They were going in there to kill babies, and we were stopping that. So I think the whole case should just be dismissed right now.”

Mr. Puckett told Judge Sweet that he did not recognize the court’s jurisdiction, adding, “I can’t participate in this farce.”

An official in the United States attorney’s office said that the two men obstructed the driveway of a clinic in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., in 1995, and that a judge later issued an injunction barring them from blocking that building.

Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that since 1994 the agency had filed 58 criminal cases across the country related to the FACE act, resulting in 80 convictions. In addition, he said, the department had filed 19 civil suits using the act.

Over the last year or so, groups of several dozen protesters had been showing up on the first Saturday of each month at the clinic on Bleecker Street, said Joan Malin, the president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood in New York City. Members of the crowd have displayed pictures of aborted fetuses, passed out pamphlets and sometimes attempted to dissuade women from entering the premises.

Those protests have generally been peaceful, Ms. Malin said, but Mr. Puckett and Mr. Dugan emerged from such a gathering to block the clinic doors.

Ms. Malin said she hoped the convictions on Monday would send a message.

“I am concerned when people blockade and make it difficult for clients and staff to get in,” she said. “We provide health care services, and for people to obstruct that is wrong.”

Courtesy of the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/nyregion/28clinic.html?ref=us

When Praying Becomes “Disorderly Conduct”

Inside the Issues with Alan Sears


At first glance, what Julian Raven and his friends saw that day in the park in downtown Elmira, New York, doesn’t seem all that unusual. After all, when it comes to public celebrations of homosexual behavior, a lot of Christians – maybe most Christians – like to just close their eyes and hope it will all go away.

Publicity aside, these events aren’t really about tolerance. More often, they are a vivid expression of what homosexual behavior really is, and of the moral destruction that behavior brings to a community that promotes it and the physical destruction it brings to those who practice it. It’s sin, on full display, and like any sin, brought out into the open, it isn’t pretty.

But it is politically correct, and so it’s pretty much par for the course now in many of our largest American cities to give those who practice this behavior high profile opportunities to flaunt it and compel the general citizenry to not only acknowledge, but embrace deviancy.

A lot of Christians don’t know what to do with that – some are embarrassed, some outraged, some confused by their own affections for family members or friends who have themselves embraced homosexual behavior. So, they just look the other way, and even pretend that homosexual behavior is “another way of loving,” and maybe not as harmful to bodies and souls as some folks seem to think.

Julian Raven knew better. With his wife, Gloria, and several friends, he went to the local park where this particular event was happening, and walked in with his head bowed. He wasn’t closing his eyes to something he didn’t want to see – he was praying. He prayed for these lost souls and hurting hearts. He quietly made his way with the others to an area near the main stage, and lay face down on the grass, to pray for those participating in the event around him.

His intercessions were not appreciated. Though promotion for the event made it clear that it was open to everyone, a police sergeant had stopped the Ravens and their friends before they even stepped into the park, telling them they couldn’t go in (to a public park), they couldn’t walk through the (public) area, and they couldn’t talk with anyone in the park about their faith (First Amendment protections notwithstanding).

When Julian and the others walked in anyway, and then lay down to pray, they were arrested and charged with “disorderly conduct.” Seeming to find the conduct that surrounded these prayer warriors irrelevant, an Elmira City Court found all four defendants guilty of disorderly conduct, and each was fined and ordered to pay court costs.

In February, a New York county court dismissed the convictions of three of those arrested with Julian. Now, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, working with local allied attorney Laurence Behr of Buffalo, have submitted an application to appeal Julian’s conviction.  The status of that appeal is now in the hands of state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.

“The county court was correct in dismissing three of the convictions,” says ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. “They never should have happened.  We are hopeful that the New York Court of Appeals will dismiss the fourth. Christians shouldn’t be punished for praying peacefully in public or for peacefully expressing their religious beliefs.”

Please be in prayer for Julian’s case, and for all those across America who are ensnared in homosexual culture, beliefs, and behavior.

New York Educators: Explore homosexuality but not Bible

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A New York school district faces a lawsuit for encouraging students to explore homosexuality while trying to prevent them from studying the Bible.

The action has been brought by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of a student identified only as A.Q. against the Lindenhurst Union Free School District near New York City.

The suit alleges the district allows and encourages homosexuality by providing special services to organizations including the Gay-Straight Alliance, Key Club, Chess Club, Fishing Club and Ski Club. It contends the district illegally has discriminated against students seeking a Bible Club, instead forcing them to apply for permission to use school facilities as an outside group.

“Christian student groups shouldn’t be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “The First Amendment and federal law both prohibit such actions on the basis of religion, and this has been established by years of court precedent.”

The public interest law firm said for more than four months, Lindenhurst High School officials repeatedly have refused to grant official recognition to the club because of its religious nature, despite the presence of other non-curriculum-related student clubs that are given benefits and privileges.

In fact, the lawsuit said, the district refuses to permit members of the Bible Club to use classrooms to meet on the same basis as other clubs. Instead, the students were forced to apply for access permission “as a local community organization.”

Joshua Bolinger, litigation counsel for the ADF, said the Bible Club should be given the same recognition and benefits as other student-led clubs.

Attorney Charles E. Holster III of Mineola is serving as local counsel in the case.

“Defendants have denied a fair opportunity, have discriminated against, and have denied Plaintiff equal access to all school facilities, benefits, and privileges, because of the religious content of the speech and association at Bible Club meetings,” the complaint states.

“Defendants’ conduct cannot be justified by a compelling governmental interest, nor is it narrowly tailored to advance any such interest.”


Neil Lederer

The case claims Supt. Neil Lederer “grants official clubs status to non-curriculum related student clubs” including those addressing “issues involving, among others, promoting respect and dignity for students at LHS; premarital sex, including homosexual behavior; community service; and leadership.”

The district allows students in those groups to hold meetings during non-instructional time, be listed in the yearbook, participate in student club fairs, have access to an adviser, take club field trips, use the public address system and bulletin boards for announcements and participate in fund-raising activities and district funding for student clubs, according to the lawsuit.

However, “Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, Plaintiff the right to official recognition of the Bible Club at LHS, as well as all of the attendant rights, privileges and benefits equal to all other non-curriculum related clubs.”

The lawsuit alleges violation of free speech and equal access requirements as well as viewpoint discrimination.

The school referred WND’s request for comment to a public relations firm, which claimed the district is willing to provide “this group” with space to meet, but it “has not filed the proper application.”

On the same day the new New York case was announced, Liberty Counsel, another prominent public interest law firm dealing with constitutional rights, announced a settlement of a similar case on behalf of Child Evangelism Fellowship against Cobb County School District in Georgia.

The district had a discriminatory policy that denied equal access to religious groups, and Liberty Counsel filed a case in January, requesting an immediate court hearing.

“As the hearing was soon approaching, the district agreed to settle the case and entered into a Consent Decree which the federal court approved on February 4th,” Liberty Counsel said. “Under the settlement, the district will repay CEF the overcharged fees it collected for use of the facilities, pay attorney’s fees and costs, and grant CEF equal access to district facilities, in terms of free use and time of use, as is granted to similar organizations.”

“We are pleased that the school district responded quickly after the lawsuit was filed to settle this case,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder of LC and dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Equal access is the law, and equal access means equal treatment in every respect. Equal access applies to use of the facilities, fees for use, the time of meetings and advertisements for the meetings. Good News Clubs are great for children. The children and the parents are the real winners in this settlement.”

Courtesy of World Net Daily at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88077

NY high school cancels Christian club, lets 60 others remain

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District on behalf of a student who was told that school officials cancelled, without her knowledge, the Christian club she helps lead. School officials claimed that unspecified budget cuts and a lack of student popularity spurred their decision, even though the club had more than 55 student attendees last year and approximately 60 other student clubs, including the Gay-Straight Alliance and Amnesty International, were allowed to continue.

“Christian student groups in public schools shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because they are religious,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “Singling out a religious student club while letting the vast majority of the others remain constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is unconstitutional. In addition, it’s simply false that this club is not popular with students. More than 90 students signed a petition in favor of allowing the club to continue meeting.”

At the beginning of her freshman year at Half Hollow Hills High School East, the student was told that the Ichthus Club, a student-led group where she was one of the leaders, had been cancelled without any advanced notification. Four years earlier, her older brother met strong resistance before the club was finally allowed to form. Once he graduated, the school cancelled the club, even though the existence of clubs is not dependent upon a particular person’s leadership.

Instead, school officials claimed that a budget crunch was a key factor spurring the decision to cancel two or three clubs, including the Ichthus Club, yet officials provided no response when ADF attorneys asked to see evidence in support of their decision. Administration also asserted that the club’s lack of popularity was another reason for its cancellation, even though more than 55 students were on the club’s attendance roll last year.

The student leader worked diligently to negotiate with the administration to keep the club, even offering to cut expenses by meeting every other week and finding a club advisor who would volunteer, but officials and the school board declined the offer.

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit J.P. v. Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Robert W. Dapelo, one of more than 1,600 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is serving as local counsel in the case.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.