Category Archives: Pro-Life

The LORD answers SCOTUS


Psalm 12

For the director of music. According to sheminith.
A psalm of David.

Help, Lord, for the godly are no more;
the faithful have vanished from among men.

Everyone lies to their neighbor;
their flattering lips speak with deception.

May the Lord cut off all flattering lips and
every boastful tongue that says,
“We will triumph with our tongues;
we own our lips—who is our master?”

“Because of the oppression of the weak and
the groaning of the needy, I will now arise,”
says the Lord. I will protect them from those
who malign them.

And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.

O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us
from such people forever.

The wicked freely strut about
when what is vile is honored
among men.

The perfect t-shirt for the expectant mom!

From @NARAL:

MT Our ED on “pregnant, parenting & pro-choice”!


h/t Twitchy


Eerie swarm of flying ants at memorial service of Gosnell’s aborted babies

Abortion doctor Kenneth Gosnell

Abortion doctor Kenneth Gosnell

Dana DiFlippo reports for the (Philadelphia) Daily News, June 10, 2015:

The babies killed by Kermit Gosnell died in an unimaginably evil way: Born live in botched, illegal, late-term abortions, they were murdered by a depraved doctor and his untrained staff who used scissors to snip their spinal cords even as they began to wriggle and cry.

So perhaps it’s fitting that a memorial service Wednesday at Laurel Hill Cemetery in East Falls where the so-called Gosnell babies now are buried was accompanied by a plague of locusts. Or rather, a swarm of flying ants.

“It’s almost demonic how they all showed up right now, isn’t it?” whispered one mourner, pinching one flying ant between his fingers as another alighted on his neck.

About 40 anti-abortion and Christian activists gathered under sunny skies to pray over the grave site of 47 cremated fetuses that authorities found in a 2010 raid on Gosnell’s West Philly abortion clinic.

memorial service of Gosnell aborted babiesGosnell, who was convicted in the deaths of three babies and a pregnant patient, is serving life without parole in prison.

The city had held onto the cremains as criminal evidence until Gosnell’s murder trial ended in May 2013. Since then, anti-abortion activists, priests and even Archbishop Charles Chaput have repeatedly asked the city to release the cremains to them for burial, holding occasional rallies and letter-writing campaigns.

Wednesday, Medical Examiner’s Office spokesman Jeff Moran said the cremains were buried at Laurel Hill on Sept. 12, 2013.

The Medical Examiner’s Office buries all remains not claimed by families at Laurel Hill and doesn’t publicly announce it, Moran explained. A few feet from the Gosnell babies’ grave site, a small tombstone marks the spot where 1,500 unclaimed bodies were buried in 2010.

Still, activists who gathered at the scenic, hilly, 78-acre, 179-year-old historic cemetery Wednesday accused city officials of “secretly” burying the Gosnell babies to dodge controversy.

“I would simply say this to the medical examiner and the Philadelphia city government: These children were not unclaimed,” said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, a pastor with Church on the Hill DC in Washington, D.C., and director of the Christian Defense Coalition. “We came for months after months, seeking these children in love. They were not unclaimed. They were wanted, they were desired, they had meaning and purpose. And so even though we are thankful they are not still in the morgue, it is deeply troubling . . . not making this a more public affair.”

Those gathered at Laurel Hill on Wednesday prayed, sang hymns and preached during a news conference and subsequent graveside service that seemed more anti-abortion rally than memorial. Many repeatedly professed the personhood of fetuses and vowed to someday make Philly “an abortion-free city.”

“Try as hard as he might, neither their killer nor his infamy could erase these babies’ humanity,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based conservative Christian nonprofit. “We will use this sacred place to cry, to remember and to say: ‘This ends here.’ ”

Carla Ezell, southeast regional director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, decried the disproportionate rate at which black women get abortions. “It is a plague and a holocaust in our community,” said Ezell, adding that she grew up near Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society at 38th and Lancaster.

Mourners planted white wooden crosses and brought flowers to the grave site, as well as a temporary marker that they aim to replace with a permanent one. They plan to hold a bigger graveside memorial service Sept. 25, during the World Meeting of Families. They have invited Pope Francis to attend.

evidence introduced in Gosnell's trial

evidence introduced in Gosnell’s trial


Good News! Abortions drop by 12% since 2010

abortion is murder2

David Crary reports for The Columbus Dispatch, June 8, 2015, that abortions are down in nearly every state, red or blue, by an average of 12% since 2010, according to an AP survey.

The drop in the number of abortions is most emphatic, of more than 15% in states like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma, where new laws make it harder to have them. But more-liberal states such as New York, Washington and Oregon also had declines of that magnitude, even as they maintained unrestricted access to abortion.

Explanations for the drop include:

  • Pro-aborts attribute it to expanded access to effective contraceptives and a drop in unintended pregnancies. Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards said, “Better access to birth control and sex education are the biggest factors in reducing unintended pregnancies. More restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the need for abortions.”
  • Some pro-lifers say there has been a shift in societal attitudes, with more women choosing to carry their pregnancies to term. United for Life president Charmaine Yoest suggested that the broad decrease in abortions reflects a change in attitudes among pregnant women: “There’s an entire generation of women who saw a sonogram as their first baby picture. There’s an increased awareness of the humanity of the baby before it is born.”
  • One major factor has been a decline in the teen pregnancy rate, which in 2010 reached its lowest level in decades. There’s been no official update since then, but the teen birthrate has continued to drop, which experts say signals a similar trend for teen pregnancies.

The AP obtained the most-recent abortion numbers from the health departments of all 45 states that compile such data on a comprehensive basis. (States not compiling such data are California, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Wyoming.) With one exception, the data was from either 2013 or 2014 — providing a nationwide gauge of abortion trends during a wave of anti-abortion laws that gathered strength starting in 2011.


The pro-abort Guttmacher Institute said a total of 267 abortion restrictions have been enacted in 31 states since 2011. Among them are measures that ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, impose hospital-like physical standards on abortion clinics, and require doctors who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. While some of the new laws have been blocked by lawsuits, most have taken effect, contributing to closure of about 70 abortion clinics in a dozen states since 2010. States with the most closures include Texas with 27, Michigan and Arizona with about 12 and Ohio with at least four. Two clinics closed in Virginia, including one that was the state’s busiest.

The only states with significant increases in abortions since 2010 are Louisiana (12%) and Michigan (18.5%) , which have passed laws intended to restrict abortion. In both Louisiana and in Michigan, the increases were due in part to women coming from other states where new restrictions and clinic closures have sharply limited abortion access. Pro-life groups said many Ohio women are going to Michigan and many Texas women to Louisiana. But Lori Carpentier, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan, said inadequate public funding for family planning is a factor in Michigan’s increase.


Five of the six states with the biggest declines — Hawaii at 30%, New Mexico at 24%, Nevada and Rhode Island at 22%, Connecticut at 21% — have not passed any recent laws to restrict abortion clinics or providers.


Hillary, What A Gal!



Father Linus Clovis on the “Francis Effect”

Father Clovis

Father Clovis

The following long article is from reported on May 22, 2015:

By Father Linus Clovis of Saint Lucia

A crisis is a time of intense difficulty or danger. Medically, it is the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has identified four great crises in the Church: Arianism, the Western Schism, the Reformation and Modernism. This last, which the Church has been fighting for well over a century, has managed to get a stranglehold on the Church ever since the close of the Second Vatican Council. St. Pius X called it the synthesis of all heresies.

For the last half century, the majority of Catholics, entrusting themselves to the vigilance of their pastors, have been fitfully sleeping up until now, when they were rudely awakened by the alarm bells set off by the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family. A future Jerome may well lament that “on awaking, they groan to find themselves modernist.” The drama of the Synod played out in the media with cardinal opposed to cardinal, bishop against bishop, and national conferences of bishops resisting other national conferences, thus appearing as a literal fulfilment of the prophecy made by Our Lady at Akita on October 13, 1973: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… the Church will be full of those who accept compromises.”

Then suddenly, some shepherds began to speak with a strange voice. With stupefying temerity, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, commenting on the “coming out” of a “gay” college football star, told NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “Good for him… I would have no sense of judgment on him…. God bless ya. I don’t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say ‘Bravo’.”

With such statements and actions by prominent and powerful prelates, crowned with the pontifical saw “who am I to judge,” traditional minded bishops, priests and even laity are disarmed and hamstrung. After all, in holding to the traditional Catholic moral teaching and order they would soon be accused of being more Catholic than the pope. This disarming of the clergy and hierarchy constitutes the Francis Effect.

The Pope

Catholics love the pope. Whoever he is, wherever he hails from, he always represents for them an evident and effectual sign of the presence of Christ in the world. Even before Our Lady asked the children at Fatima to pray for the Holy Father, repeating this request at Akita on 13 October, 1973, saying “pray very much for the pope, bishops and priests,” Catholics have prayed for him daily and not only look to him for leadership but also regard him as that firm and sure foundation on which the Church’s teaching authority is built. For Catholics the purity of teaching is so important that it is easier for them to accept the possibility that the ‘pope’ may not, in fact, be the pope than it is for them to believe that a pope could be a teacher of error.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that the “Gospel is handed on in two ways: orally (Sacred Tradition) and in writing (Sacred Scripture) and is continually proclaimed through the apostolic succession (Magisterium).” It goes on to define Sacred Scripture as “the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit,” and consequently, being inspired by God, it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” In paragraph 81, the Catechism affirms that “Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit” and that it is transmitted to the bishops, “the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

Throughout his letters, St. Paul insisted that he had not invented any new doctrine, nor had he deviated from what he himself had received. Regarding the Eucharist, in particular, he stated: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread …” (1 Cor. 11:23), and he went on to warn in verse 29 that “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Even more forcefully, he told the Galatians there are some who want to pervert the gospel of Christ, and so “even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal.1:8).

In regard to the Magisterium or Church’s Teaching Office, the Catechism in paragraph 85 declares that “the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.” Since the Church exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ, it follows that “the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” Moreover, the Catechism in §86 goes on to point out that the “Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

The Magisterium has the authority to bind definitively the consciences of the faithful in regard to matters of faith or morals and does so with dogmatic definitions, as CCC §88 makes clear: “The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”

The Papal Magisterium, according to the teaching of Vatican I (D. 3070), was not established to reveal new doctrine but rather to guard and transmit faithfully the truths of faith entrusted by Christ to His Apostles: “The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter to reveal, by His inspiration, a new doctrine, but to scrupulously guard and make known with fidelity, by His assistance, the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith.”

Whilst the faithful owe obedience to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, the pope himself owes obedience to the Word and Apostolic Tradition and, in so doing, facilitates the faithful in their obedience to him. In a world not dissimilar to that when “for a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law” (2 Chr. 15:3), it is necessary that the pope be wise and clear in his teaching so that those hearing him may avoid the snares of death: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). Pope Felix III, living in a world inimical to the Gospel message, saw the necessity of correcting error and reinforcing truth, saying that an error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.

Pope Francis

Within the first year of his pontificate, Pope Francis had managed to unsettle even the most uncritical of Catholics, who tried desperately to explain away the ambiguity of his words and actions. The fact that the Church’s traditional enemies approve highly of him raises concerns, not least because of the Lord’s warning that “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also” (Jn. 15:18-20).

Catholic concerns increased in proportion to the density of the fog covering the pope’s true position on key issues. It is reported that as archbishop in Buenos Aires, apparently wishing to be loved by all and to please everyone, he would send out mixed signals, “so one day he could make a speech on TV against abortion, and the next day, on the same TV show, bless the pro-abortion feminists in the Plaza de Mayo; can give a wonderful speech against the Masons and, a few hours later, be dining and drinking with them in the Rotary Club.” St. John records that some of Christ’s followers were Pharisees: “many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (Jn. 12:42-43).

To the consternation of Catholics and the satisfaction of the world, Pope Francis, by word and action, has provoked many major controversies, the most egregious of them being the “Who am I to judge?” comment. This pontifical question instantly disarmed all those resisting the incursions of the gay lobby. The Holy Father failed to make the required distinctions, namely, that the Church does not judge persons but that she has the right and duty to judge their actions and teachings. The Church has passed no judgement of the personal morals of even arch-heretics, though she has certainly warned the faithful of the perniciousness of their teachings. In writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul himself sanctions this position: “But rather I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Catholics became even more concerned when the papal utterances seemed to attack the flock, such as the claim that a “supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism” and the complaint that there was too much talk about contraception and abortion. Who, apart from pro-lifers, could this be directed against? Vittorio Messori in his book “The Defense of Every Life” quoted St. John Paul II as saying “It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation (abortion), and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience – the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.” The vast majority of Catholics can testify that the generality of the preachers of the Gospel never broach the issue of contraception or abortion. Yet, about these things St. Paul instructs preachers to “be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2).

The Rabbitgate affair was particularly hard on Catholic mothers worldwide, especially those who, at great personal sacrifice, had given birth to their children. The pope who had said “who am I to judge” now says, “I rebuked a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant eight times, with seven C-sections (cesareans). ‘But do you want to leave seven orphans?’ This is to tempt God! He [Paul VI] speaks of responsible parenthood.” Not content with rebuking this particular woman, he extends it worldwide: “God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and I know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this.”

In the present climate of the pastoral imperative, his position on Humanae vitae, the touchstone of Catholic sexual ethics, is uncertain, especially as there is talk of going beyond what it teaches. Equally alarming is his apparent openness to ‘gay marriage’ in the form of ‘civil unions’. Most troubling of all is his open support for Cardinal Kasper who, at the 2014 Synod, called for admitting remarried divorcees to the Eucharist without them changing their marital status. This cut Catholics to the bone and provoked concerns about the pope’s orthodoxy.

These ambiguous papal utterances cause not only concern but also confusion among Catholics who, for the most part, are fearful of criticising or judging the pope. But here, as above, a distinction needs to be made. It is not the person of the pope that is being judged but rather his actions. It must also be stated that the judgement of his actions is not being done with the intention to cause indignation but on the contrary is being done because his actions are the cause of indignation among the faithful and a threat to their faith.

This judgement on the pontiff can be made on the authority of St. Paul who told the Galatians that “when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straight-forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Gal. 2:11-14).

There is also historical precedent for such judgement on papal actions. The theologians of the University of Paris, cardinals, bishops, and kings opposed John XXII (1316-1334) when, in his Sunday sermons, he incorrectly taught that the Blessed do not see God until after the General Judgement. In the sixteenth century, Melchior Cano, a Spanish theologian at the Council of Trent, warned against obsequiousness regarding the pope: “Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it. … Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.” In our time, the 1983 Code of Canon Law also recognizes the right of the faithful in this regard where it states that “according to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess… the faithful have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…” (§ 212:3).


The Church now faces the spectacle of cardinals and bishops in open conflict with each other over doctrine and pastoral measures. At the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family the leading members of the Church’s hierarchy, with a few notable exceptions, openly and publicly debated the circumnavigation of the very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to institutionalize the sexual revolution in the Church by the admission of remarried divorcees to Holy Communion. If this is accepted, then Clement VII was wrong in his treatment of Henry VIII and the English reformation was unnecessary. Further, why should cohabiting couples and practicing unrepentant homosexuals be denied Holy Communion? There is something déjà vu about all this: “All the leading priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations; and they polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place; but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, till the wrath of the Lord rose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged; he gave them all into his hand” (2 Chron. 36:14-17). With Islam growing in strength, could it in our time provide the remedy comparable to that brought by the Chaldean king?

The Francis Effect is the disarming and silencing of Catholic bishops, priests, and laity. Holding firm to Catholic doctrine and practice seems like an act of disloyalty to the pope, yet to acquiesce is to betray the Church. Catholics ask with Peter, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” (Jn. 6:69). It is imperative that they stay in the Church and stay armed for, if the shepherds have come down like Aaron to join in the Bacchanalia, then the Church needs Levites. “And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.’ And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him” (Ex. 32:25-27). Christ had already warned of this time, saying, “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away, … and many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt. 24:9-13).

The Church is facing crisis; a crisis as grave as that posed by the Arians. Its resolution will bring recovery or death. To achieve the former, Catholics must stay in the Church and stay fully armed. For this, five things are necessary:

First, pray. The battle is the Lord’s. “But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man” (Lk. 21:36). Pray above all for the pope as the early Church prayed unremittingly for Peter (Acts 12:5).

Second, study. Catholics must know the Faith, be familiar with the Scriptures, know the constant teaching of the Church, and understand the principles of moral theology. St. Athanasius stood alone against the world, therefore, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb. 13:7-9).

Third, transmit the Faith by teaching and sharing it within the family, by practicing and praying together and for each other as a family.

Fourth, support each other and all true and authentic Catholic speakers and organizations. The 500 priests who sign an open letter asking that the Synod on the Family promote Catholic doctrine need to be praised and supported by all concerned Catholics.

Fifth, prepare for martyrdom. In the Nobis quoque of the Roman Canon we pray: To us, also, your servants, who, though sinners, hope in your abundant mercies, graciously grant some share and fellowship with your holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas… and all your Saints; admit us, we beseech you, into their company, not weighing our merits, but granting us your pardon, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Court Rules Pro-Life Views Are “Patently Offensive,” Bans Choose Life License Plates in New York

license plate

Life News: A federal appeals court has issued a ruling banning Choose Life license plates in New York state and claimed in its decision that pro-life views are “patently offensive.” The court issued ruling in The Children First Foundation v. Fiala,  which rejects a pro-adoption group’s application to sponsor a “Choose Life” specialty plate with the New York Department of Motor Vehicles.

The appeals court ruling overturned a lower court decision upholding the right of drivers in New York to purchase the pro-life plates.

As the Daily Caller reports:

A new decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals holds that New York’s state government has the right to ban “Choose Life” license plates on the grounds that such a statement is “patently offensive.”

The dispute stems from a now-suspended program offered by New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which allowed private organizations to create custom license plates. If drivers purchased the plates, the purchasing price was split between the DMV and the non-profit.

The Children First Foundation (CFF), an organization promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion, submitted a design for a “Choose Life” license plate, which featured a drawing of two children’s faces in front of a yellow sun.

The proposed plate was rejected, with the DMV citing a policy that allows it to ban “patently offensive” plates in order to prevent incidents of road rageThe “patently offensive” category in U.S. speech is typically related to public obscenity laws, and allows for limitations on things like the public display of pornography or other materials that blatantly violate community standards.

Judge Rosemary Pooler, a Clinton appointee, agreed with New York’s position in her majority opinion. She took this view even though she also ruled that license plates are private speech subject to First Amendment protections. Despite these protections, however, she said that so many New Yorkers could find a plate advocating an anti-abortion position “patently offensive” that the DMV was justified in suppressing the speech.

In a strong dissent, Judge Debra Ann Livingston said the court was essentially granting the New York DMV the right to suppress any viewpoints it did not like.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco decried the decision.

“Pro-adoption organizations should have the same speech rights as any other organization. While the district court affirmed this basic freedom, the circuit court denied free speech in favor of government censorship. The state doesn’t have the authority to target The Children First Foundation specialty plates for censorship based on its life-affirming viewpoint. The state has wrongly gotten away with speech discrimination against our client for more than 10 years. We will review our legal options.

The battle to allow motorists to purchase Choose Life license plates has been going on in the Empire State for years.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of The Children First Foundation in 2004 against state officials who denied its attempt to allow motorists to purchase Choose Life license plates. The New York Department of Motor Vehicles rejected CFF’s design in August 2002 — considering it “too political and controversial” to approve. The organization redesigned the plate, adding the group’s web site to it to better explain its purpose, and the DMV rejected it again.

The state dismissed the attempt to create the plate and said it was rejected in order “to avoid any appearance of governmental support for either side in the divisive national abortion debate.”

Saying its free speech rights were denied, Children First filed suit with assistance from Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and, in January 2005, a federal judge ruled it had sufficiently argued its First Amendment rights would be violated.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s second attempt to ban the plates and allowed the lawsuit to move forward. The DMV eventually suspended review of specialty plates — a move that Elizabeth Rex, president of the Children First Foundation, says was done specifically to block the Choose Life plate.

Guess which license plates the New York DMV does sell that could be labeled “patently offensive”?

National Police Defense Foundation

license plate2


license plate3

War on Terror Veteran

license plate4

Guess the state is ok with the appearance of governmental support for these divisive national debates.