World Net Daily reviewed our brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Paxton. This article stressed our argument that judges who do not exhibit “good behavior” while in office are subject to removal.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton
Today we filed an amicus brief supporting efforts by the State of Texas to outlaw unbelievably cruel and barbaric dismemberment abortions.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra
Today we filed an amicus brief in the United Sates Supreme Court on the merits to help protect the Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) of California from a California law which mandates that the CPCs provide information about the availability of abortions. We had earlier filed an amicus brief in support of NIFLA’s petition for certiorari.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, One Nation Under God Foundation, Pass the Salt Ministries, Eberle Associates, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, and The Transforming Word Ministries.
Price v. Chicago
Today we filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the City of Chicago’s buffer zone ordinance, which was designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. Our brief argued that the case should be decided as any other First Amendment case — and the First Amendment rules should not be bent because this case involves an abortion clinic. We discuss how the courts have allowed a separate abortion rights jurisprudence to have precedence over legal principles of general applicability. We also explain that the Chicago ordinance violates the often ignored First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
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.
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
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.
Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman
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.
Although the Pharmacy Commission is a government agency, its steps were largely directed by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.
Our brief explained why the Pharmacy Commission had no basis for its rule narrowly designed to prevent pharmacies from acting on their moral and religious objections to stocking and dispensing certain types of pharmaceuticals. Additionally, our brief demonstrated the real-world consequences of government taking sides in each political debate, so as to render unlawful any resistance to the agenda of a Secular Humanist state.
Article: Abortion Pill Opponents: Jews, Muslims, Christians…”
This article discusses our brief in Zubik v. Burwell & Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
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.
Article: “Supremes Set Date to Decide ‘What is Sin'”
This article discusses our brief in Zubik v. Burwell & Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
Article: Supremes ‘Tilt Playing Field’ in Abortion Pill Arguments
This article discusses our brief in Zubik v. Burwell & Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
Zubik v. Burwell
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell
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.
The brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Eberle Communications Group, Public Advocate of the United States, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, Southwest Prophecy Ministries, Daniel Chapter One, and Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall.
Article: Judge Orders Pro-Lifers to Promote Abortion
Herb Titus was quoted in this article about an order from U.S. District
Judge Jeffrey White that would require pro-life centers to post a sign
promoting the state’s abortion services.
Obamacare Contraception/Abortion Services Mandate Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief
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.
Herbert W. Titus, Abortion is NOT Legal!
Herb Titus co-authored this article in 2012 — Abortion is NOT Legal!
Personhood Oklahoma v. Brittany Mays Barber, et al. Amicus Brief for Joyce Meyer Ministries, et al. in the United States Supreme Court
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Personhood Oklahoma v. Brittany Mays Barber, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari.
By striking the proposed initiative amending the Oklahoma constitution by defining “person” as it appears in the state constitution, the court below misused Planned Parenthood v. Casey to deprive the people of Oklahoma of a power reserved them by the Tenth Amendment. Our amicus brief argues that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted because the petition presents a question of momentous significance to the powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the people. The definition of “person” in the proposed amendment is not repugnant to any provision in the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, the initiative is not outside the powers of the people reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment.
Herb Titus Testifies before South Carolina Legislature on Right to Life
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.
Joyce Woodall & Concerned Women for America v. Janet Reno
Today our firm filed a Brief for Appellants explaining how the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act violates the First Amendment.