HELP STOP THE FORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THROUGH EXTORTION!
Become an Original Co-sponsor of the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2001
Deadline: March 26th
Dear Colleague:
I will be re-introducing the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), formerly known as H.R. 2057 in the 106thCongress.
PERA frees teachers, school board members, county commissioners, nurses in public hospitals, and all other state and local officials from the fear that they will be held personally and monetarily responsible for damages and attorney's fees because of their expression of religion.
This bill also frees schools, school boards, and county and local government from fear that they will be held responsible for attorney's fees because of the expression of religion by employees. Furthermore, PERA fosters a climate where constitutional law is made through deliberation, not by fear.
PERA does NOT limit anyone's ability to seek injunctive relief (court orders) for perceived violations of the Establishment Clause by state and local government officials. PERA does NOT affect-in any way-claims against the government arising out of the free exercise of religion, free speech, or any other civil right. If you would like to co-sponsor this bill please contact Tom Anderson or Duffy Sabella in my office by Monday, March 26th at x5-4636.
Sincerely,
John N. Hostettler
Member of Congress
I notice that the state of Indiana has been under attack recently, by various operatives from the left. Could this be part of a liberal strategy to infect and destroy a red state?
This article is very interesting:
Indiana Cases Scrutinize Prayer, Planned Parenthood
by Pete Winn, associate editor (Focus on the Family Citizen Link
SUMMARY: Indiana courts weigh prayer by legislators, and an apparent Planned Parenthood cover-up.
The Hoosier State got caught in the cross-hairs of the Culture Wars this week.
First, an Indianapolis judge ruled Tuesday that Planned Parenthood of Indiana must let state officials review the medical records of 84 girls younger than 14 who visited Planned Parenthood clinics.
Then, across town in a separate action, the Indiana affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit asking a federal judge to bar references to Jesus Christ in the daily prayers delivered before the state House of Representatives.
Curt Smith, executive director of the Indiana Family Institute (IFI) in Indianapolis, explained what happened in the Planned Parenthood decision.
"Planned Parenthood filed suit here in Indiana," he said, "trying to restrict the attorney general in his role as our chief Medicaid fraud investigator from finding out what's going on with Medicaid funds for 12 and 13-year-old girls, who have come in for either sexually transmitted disease, or to get birth control.
"A good judge, Judge Ken Johnson, in family court here in Indianapolis, agreed with the attorney general and agreed with a common-sense principle that says, 'We need to protect kids, and particularly when tax dollars are being used, we're not going to allow these kids to be abused.' So the effort did not pay off for Planned Parenthood."
Planned Parenthood of Indiana said it will appeal the ruling, which it called "a fishing expedition."
"This ruling puts everyone's medical privacy at risk, shaking the very foundation of the doctor-patient relationship that is at the heart of good health care," Betty Cockrum, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Indiana told the Indianapolis Star.
But in his ruling, Judge Johnson specifically countered the abortion provider's principal argument when he wrote: "The great public interest in the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure."
Besides, Smith said, Indiana law is very clear on the matter.
"Any sexual contact with someone under 14 is a crime, period," he said. "Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit trying to prevent authorities from investigating what are crimes."
On the other side of Indianapolis, meanwhile, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) filed a federal lawsuit against Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma. The legal group is going after the speaker for allowing prayers in the opening minutes of the session of the House of Representatives -- specifically, prayers which include references to Jesus Christ, to the Blood of Jesus, or which are, to quote the attorneys of the ICLU, "evangelical in nature."
The lawsuit specifically objects to certain Christian phrases -- including "In the strong name of Jesus our Savior," "We pray this in Christ's name," and "I appeal to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- and says they exclude people who are not Christians.
"The suit does not seek to prevent opening the House session with prayers," said ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk in a statement, but his group wants "respect for the beliefs of all Indiana residents and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."
Micah Clark, president of the American Family Association of Indiana, said the suit is really a slap in the face to people of faith -- especially in light of what it asks the government to do.
"I am very concerned," said Clark, "when the government tells people, 'You can pray in front of the statehouse, or before a session, but here's how you have to pray. I think that goes against a minister's free speech rights, and I'm hopeful that the suit will be dismissed.
"What do you expect a legislator or a minister to say when they come and they are asked to give a prayer? Are they supposed to pray only like my 3-year-old, 'God is great, God is good. Now we thank Him for this food?' "
IFI's Curt Smith sees a link between the two cases -- not a direct one, necessarily, but certainly an overarching connection.
"What I see happening is the liberal worldview is on its last legs and the only place they can get any kind of hearing is in the courts," Smith said.
He made this comparison:
"In one part of the courts system, a judge who has common sense, who is a parent, said, 'No. We're not going to protect the privacy of 12- and 13-year-olds who are being sexually abused. They need help. They need a doctor first, and then they need the protection of the state, because something's wrong, and they are being sexually exploited.'
"On the other side of the capital city, the ICLU files in federal court a challenge to these prayers. I think in both cases, the left has been reduced to legal action because they don't have popular political support and they can't sway the executive and legislative branches the way they once could."