National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today, we filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of a petition to protect the Crisis Pregnancy Centers in California.  The California Reproductive FACT Act requires these pro-life centers to disseminate to those who seek its services, information explaining the easy availability of taxpayer subsidized abortion.  Our brief explains that this state law violates the Declaration of Independence’s recognition of protected “unalienable rights,” violates the law of our Creator, violates the Constitution’s Free Speech protections, and violates the Free Exercise Clause.  Lastly, we explain that the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding this law has no limiting principle, and therefore could next be used to ban entirely Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the state.

Read More

Article: Whole Woman’s Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence
Article: Justice Thomas Exposes Supreme Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence
Article: Whole Woman’s Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence

Michael Harless Publications

Our article discussing the flawed logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health, and extolling the excellent dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas was published by The American Thinker, and run by CNS News and Restoring Liberty.

Read More

Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

With our brief in Stormans, our firm has now made its 100th filing in the U.S. Supreme Court. Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending a Christian-owned pharmacy from attack by the Washington State Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission due to that pharmacy’s refusal to stock and sell abortifacient drugs.

Read More

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting two Texas laws requiring that abortions be performed only at certain types of facilities by physicians with  hospital admission privileges.   We set out why the pro-abortion petitioners, and the Obama Administration as amicus curiae, misrepresent to the Court its own abortion jurisprudence.  However, even more importantly, our brief explains why Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

Read More

Zubik v. Burwell
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today our firm filed a brief supporting a challenge to the contraceptive/abortifacient imposed by Obamacare.  Our brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to expand the scope of its review, which is now narrowly limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) issue, to also include the First Amendment issue.

Read More

Obamacare Contraception/Abortion Services Mandate Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

The story is told of a grizzled Master Sargent who, reflecting on his years of service, said: “When I joined up, homosexuality was prohibited; now it’s tolerated; and I darn sure am getting out before it’s mandatory.” So it is with respect to homosexual and abortion rights. First, the goal is said to be tolerance. Then, governmental approval and support. Lastly, any pretense of tolerance disappears, and the coercive force of government is used to eliminate any vestige of opposition. The Obamacare contraception/abortion mandate demonstrates that our nation is at the end of phase two, moving into phase three.

Read More

Herb Titus Testifies before South Carolina Legislature on Right to Life

Michael Harless Appearances

Leaders of the pro-life movement in America commonly believe that the only constitutionally sound strategy for restoring the right to life is to take action at the national level. Thus, they have urged the election of pro-life presidents and members of Congress to secure the appointment of pro-life Supreme Court justices, and if necessary, a pro-life amendment to the United States Constitution. There is, however, an alternative strategy available at the state level, without overruling Roe v. Wade and its progeny.

Read More