Firm Foundation

Last summer, Foundation attorney Col. John Eidsmoe taught a Constitutional Litigation course at Handong International Law School (HILS), which is part of Handong Global University (HGU) in Pohang, South Korea. As Col. Eidsmoe explained in his post about that visit, Handong describes itself as a “worldchanging global Christian university” with a goal of training “honest intellectuals with a Christian world view” and “honest Christian laymen who will change the world through a spirit of love, humility, and service for the glory of God.”

This year, as a continuation of the Foundation’s relationship with Handong, we have hosted several Handong law students through a new internship program at our offices in Montgomery, Alabama–an intern-national program, if you will. These bright Korean students with a heart for the Lord and for serving others come to America—some for the very first time—and give between 1 week to 3 weeks of their time to help us in doing the work that Col. Eidsmoe taught them about last year.

In return, the Handong interns learn more about the U.S. Constitution and our heritage of religious freedom as well as the inter-workings of a nonprofit legal organization. For many of the interns, this is the first time they can so plainly see the necessary connection between God’s law and man’s law—a relationship that has been severely eroded in modern times but is being rediscovered through schools like Handong, Regent University School of Law (my alma mater), and Liberty University School of Law. More practically, we also assist the Handong interns with their goal of taking the bar exam here in America after their graduation from Handong.

Since January of this year, seven (7) Handong students have interned with us, two of whom are pictured below with Judge Roy Moore.  By September we expect to have hosted eleven (11) students total.

JUDGE MOORE WITH HANDONG INTERNS JESSE YUN (L) AND MINWOO SHIN (R)

In addition to acquiring a taste for Korean food, we have been greatly blessed by the work and character of the fine law students from Handong. Our countries and cultures may be quite different, but we serve the same God and have the same desire to see people and laws submitted to the Lordship of Christ. May the students of Handong, and every other law school, strive to “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)

Press Release

The Foundation for Moral Law (FML) in Montgomery, Alabama, founded by Judge Roy Moore, sent a letter yesterday to the Hoover City Board of Education in Hoover, Alabama, encouraging the Board to bring back invocations at its meetings, despite a threatening anti-prayer letter from a liberal secularist group in Washington, D.C.

Read the Foundation’s letter to the Hoover Board of Education here.

Last year the Hoover Board of Education stopped opening its meetings with an invocation, but this year the Board has considered resuming opening prayers. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) recently sent a threatening and baseless letter to the Hoover Board in a disingenuous attempt to claim that such prayers are unconstitutional. In its responsive letter, Judge Roy Moore and the Foundation told the Hoover Board of Education that the Constitution is on the Board’s side and urged it to resume opening prayers with the full freedom of religion that the First Amendment guarantees.  The Board’s next meeting is this Thursday, July 15, 2010.

Judge Roy Moore, President of the Foundation for Moral Law, noted,

“Liberal atheistic groups continue to remove any prayer from any public venue and they are constantly sending threatening letters to undermine local city councils and school boards.  I would trust that the Hoover City Board of Education will realize that it needs the wisdom and guidance of God more than it needs the approval of such groups.”

FML explained in its letter that radical secularist groups routinely send bullying letters to city and county governmental bodies that contain distorted legal claims in the hopes of intimidating local officials into stopping prayers or at least censoring the content thereof.  In fact, the Freedom From Religion Foundation recently threatened the Birmingham City Council over its opening prayers—a letter the FML also opposed. “In reality,” FML assured the Hoover Board of Education, “the law is on your side,” citing the First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding legislative prayer in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).  Additionally, FML noted that the U.S. Supreme Court opens every session with a prayer, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

FML encouraged the Hoover City Schools Board of Education to stand up to AUSCS in its nationwide crusade to remake America into its own radical secularist image.

Press Release

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious liberties legal organization in Montgomery, Alabama, filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit today defending the federal statute creating the National Day of Prayer, 36 U.S.C. § 119.  The Foundation argued that the Wisconsin federal district court that struck down the statute, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation that brought this lawsuit, are wrong in considering the National Day of Prayer to be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Such days of national prayer are not an establishment of religion, they have been officially declared since the time of our first congresses and presidents, and they represent an American philosophy of government that depends on the blessings of Almighty God.

Read the Foundation’s brief in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Barack Obama.

Judge Roy Moore commented on this case:

“How long will we sit quietly by while the President declares an entire month to ‘celebrate’ homosexuality and a federal judge prohibits one day in the year to pray to God?  From the Revolution in 1776 to the Civil War, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 our Country has always turned to God in prayer during times of national crisis.  It is absolutely absurd for a federal judge to think that she can arrogantly declare the National Day of Prayer established in 1952 unconstitutional.  Such hypocrisy reflects the delusion of federal court judges across our land who place themselves above the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and above the God upon Whom they took their Oath of Office.”

The Foundation argues, as it does in every amicus brief, that the courts should decide this case based upon the text of the First Amendment as it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its ratification—not based upon the latest rendition of a judicially-invented “test.”  When the plain text is applied to this case, it becomes apparent that the National Day of Prayer statute does not create an official “establishment of religion” simply by encouraging people to pray on a particular day.

Presidents throughout our history—including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln—have called on the American people to pray to God.  Likewise, Congress has called for national days of prayer, including the Congress that passed the language of the First Amendment.  Ironically, the federal courts of our land open their sessions with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” yet one federal district court has decided that Congress cannot encourage the American people to observe an official day of asking God for the same thing.  The First Amendment was designed to protect religious freedom, not to empower the federal courts to suppress it.

The Foundation urges the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision of the Wisconsin district court and hold that the National Day of Prayer statute is constitutional.

Press Release

Evangelist Michael Marcavage of Repent America, through his attorneys at the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious liberties legal organization led by Judge Roy Moore, filed a petition for certiorari review in the U.S. Supreme Court today, urging the Court to review his “disorderly conduct” conviction for peacefully preaching the gospel with a megaphone in Salem, Mass. on Halloween night 2007. As the Foundation argued in the lower courts, Marcavage’s petition explains that he had a right under the Salem city code to preach the gospel with a megaphone until 10:00 p.m., but that Salem police confiscated his megaphone and arrested him at 8:30 p.m. that night.  (See the video of his arrest here.)

Click here to read Marcavage’s petition to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Ben DuPré of the Foundation for Moral Law stated, “The Salem police clearly overstepped their authority when they grabbed Michael Marcavage’s megaphone.  He was peacefully preaching the Christian gospel to a crowd that needed to hear it, even if they did not like it.”  Although the Massachusetts courts have insisted the police were just trying to prevent any potential safety risk, DuPré said that the Supreme Court’s free speech cases don’t allow that excuse: “The Supreme Court has rejected the so-called heckler’s veto as a reason to silence a speaker.  In this case, there was only an imaginary or future heckler, not a real one.  So we believe the Court will seriously consider granting review of this case and righting the constitutional wrongs Michael suffered in Salem.”

Marcavage argues in his petition that the police censorship was a violation of his constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protections of the laws.  He also argues that his right to due process of law was violated because the trial court found him guilty for the confiscation of the megaphone even though the prosecutor never argued that the confiscation was the basis for the charge; rather, the prosecutor focused on Marcavage’s evangelism conduct earlier in the evening.

Marcavage’s conviction was affirmed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on Dec. 23, 2009, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declined to hear the case on March 31, 2010. (Read Marcavage’s appellate brief filed in the Mass. Appeals Court here.)

Today, 29 June 2010, marks the passing of an era—the death of U.S. Senator Henry Clay in 1852.

The son of a Baptist pastor, Clay was born 12 April 1777 during America’s War for Independence. Clay was 10 years old when the Constitutional Convention took place. Without attending law school, he studied for the law while working for George Wythe. As his law practice succeeded, he entered the Kentucky Legislature and then then the United States Congress, serving as the Speaker of the House and also as Secretary of State. But he was most famous for his role as a United States Senator, where he was known as the Great Compromiser. Trying to save the Union from dissolution, he repeatedly tried to mediate conflict between two giants, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun. Senator Clay played a major role in the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850, hoping to avoid dissolution of the Union and armed conflict. Calhoun died in 1850, Webster and Clay in 1852. Perhaps it was merciful that they did not live to see the failure of their efforts to preserve peace.

But there was another side to Henry Clay, one which may reveal the true source of his strength. Years ago, I attended a Christian Legal Society conference in Lexington, Kentucky. One night I left the hotel and walked through town, and came upon an historical marker:

MAIN STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH MARKER (hmdb.org)

It reads:

MAIN STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Built on this site in 1842. The 16-day Campbell-rice debate on Christian Baptism, Etc. was held here Nov 1843, Hon. Henry Clay, Presiding.

The debate pitted two prominent church leaders, Church of Christ Pastor Alexander Campbell vs. Presbyterian Pastor N.L. Rice, and encompassed not only baptism but also church creeds and the operation of the Holy Spirit. The transcript of the debate is over 900 pages in length and was widely read throughout the country. And the moderator of this debate was U.S. Senator Henry Clay.

How many U.S. Senators today would have the theological acumen, let alone the spiritual interest and dedication, to moderate a 16-day theological debate? Most would say they are too busy. Very few history books even mention this debate, but in the annals of eternity it may last and shine as gold, silver and precious stones long after his political accomplishments have crumbled as wood, hay and stubble. Rest in peace, Senator Clay. You are not forgotten.

“Our Montgomery location has recently closed.”

So reads the website for Beacon Women’s Center, one of two abortion clinics in Montgomery, Ala.  We are thrilled to report that, as of this week, this 27-year-old abortion mill has been shut down for multiple and repeated violations of the health code.

Ever since the Alabama Dept. of Public Health decided in 2006 to start enforcing the health code and annually inspect Alabama’s abortion clinics, one after another of the death mills have been either closed or placed on probation.  Beacon was placed on probation in 2006 primarily for, as I wrote then, “a multitude of violations that show the staff at that clinic either do not know or do not care about basic medical record-keeping, sanitary requirements, or narcotics prescription requirements.”  (See this post for details.)  It looks like things at Beacon have only been downhill since and, as a result of their most recent inspections, Summit Medical has agreed in a consent decree signed June 8 to surrender their license and close their bloody doors.

If the name Summit rings a bell, it’s because it was at another Summit clinic in Birmingham—Summit Medical Center—that a 6-pound dead baby was born to a woman given abortion drugs by a nurse.  The public outrage at such a horrible episode led to that Summit clinic’s closure as well as the re-institution of the ADPH’s annual inspections of abortion clinics.  That was in 2006.

Now with the closure of Beacon in 2010, the infamous Summit clinics are now gone from Alabama. In fact, as if to demonstrate that it’s the almighty dollar and not women’s health that Summit seeks, Montgomery residents are being referred by Summit’s website and phone answering service to their Atlanta office rather than the other abortion clinic in Montgomery.  Summit is telling people to take the “short 2.5 hour drive” (that’s one-way) to Atlanta rather than go across town.  Whatever keeps the money coming, apparently.  Athough why any woman would want to darken the deadly doors of any Summit clinic is beyond me.

The fact is that most woman seeking an abortion probably have no idea, and most probably do not care, about just how derelict a particular abortion clinic may be in its legal, medical, and regulatory duties.  The pro-abortionists, after all, have continued to trumpet “safe, legal, and rare” abortions, even when what they really want is the legal part; “safe” and “rare” are good for public consumption but bad for any business of death. But it is the ADPH’s job to care how safe they are being done and to act, and we commend them for taking action here to finally close one of the worst offenders—even if a little too late for our liking.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant and we hope ADPH keeps up the inspections that, around the state, continue to reveal just how dark and dirty abortion clinics can be.

Keep reading if you want to arm yourself with some of the details of Beacon’s transgressions.  It will help you communicate the inherent health dangers to a woman considering an abortion and perhaps show you what to look for at your local death mill.

The most recent ADPH deficiency report on Beacon—and the last one, thank God—is a 68-page whopper that confirms what an unsanitary and unlawful chop-shop it really was.  The report  includes everything from failure to report suspected sex abuse of minors to failure to obtain proper legal consent to failure to comply with many requirements of the Women’s Right to Know Act (offering information for informed consent, ultrasounds, etc.). One employee admitted she’d never shown any patient the video they are supposed to offer. Beacon’s recovery room chairs were torn with protruded foam and their sanitary practices were incredibly sloppy. They were understaffed and their records of nearly everything were shoddy, incomplete, or simply missing. From check-in to recovery and follow-up, Beacon staff and management flagrantly violated the health code and criminal law—even right in front of ADPH inspectors—in their single-minded drive to make a buck and destroy a baby.

If you have the time, I urge you to read through the entire report to see the depth and breadth of Beacon’s disdain for law, limb, and health.  Here are some lowlights:

• No clinic policy handbook. Beacon was repeatedly asked for its policies and procedures on numerous visits by ADPH, but none was ever produced. (p.8)
• Failure, and ignorant of duty, to report possible sex abuse. “There was no documentation the Center reported a 14 year old who was pregnant by a 16 year old. Employee Identifiers # 1 and # 2 were unable to locate policies and procedures for the Center and EI # 2 acknowledged she had no policy for when or to whom to report abuse or neglect of a minor. The Center had no policies for parental consent and mandatory reporting consistent with state law. EI # 7, the Medical Director and physician performing surgical abortions, was unsure of the required reporting requirements.” (p. 10-11)
• Failure to offer ultrasounds. Beacon failed to offer an ultrasound to many patients, although they were instructed to initial the form to state that they had. (p. 12)
• Failure to offer “Did You Know” video—ever. For example, “During an interview with EI# 2 on 1/27/10 at 3:10 PM, she verified she had not offered the patients the opportunity to view the video and she had been instructed to give only the books. EI# 2 stated she had never offered the video to patients.” (p. 13) Though never offered the video, patients were instructed to initial that they had.
• Failure to abide by 24-hour waiting period. (p. 15)
• Unsanitary recovery room. “[C]hairs in the recovery room were noted to be an infection control risk with foam showing on each chair.” (p. 39) “Of the three recovery room patients observed, the Center staff failed to clean medical equipment that came in direct contact with patients skin and wash their hands after direct patient contact per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.” (p. 50)
• No medical waste pick-up. Since May of 2009, Beacon had no medical waste disposal service and was simply dumping such waste in its regular dumpster. (pp. 55-57)

There is much, much more, of course, most of it reflecting poor recordkeeping of follow-up calls and drug administration or waste. What strikes the careful reader is how the cavalier attitude toward the law and regulations is evident from the abortionist/medical director on down.  These many violations were hardly the failure of simply a low-level employee or two; it was systemic and literally evident to ADPH inspectors in the practice of the abortionist himself.  And if he was so careless in view of the ADPH, imagine what he was (and is) like with patients when no one is watching.

A woman going for an abortion should remember that she is not seeking health care—she is seeking death care, the death of her child. And as the abortionist and staff at Beacon so coldly demonstrated, a man or woman whose job is to destroy life is hardly going to be bothered with little annoyances like health regulations and criminal law.  No abortion clinic is ever a safe place for the child and, as we have seen, for the mother, too.

Until abortion is illegal and rare, agencies like ADPH must have the “teeth” and, if necessary, the public pressure upon them to inspect clinics and enforce the health regulations in place.  As the last four years of inspections in Alabama have shown, holding abortion clinics accountable to basic medical standards is too high a standard for many of them to meet.  After all, the only “safe” abortion clinic is a closed one.

Press Release

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious liberties legal organization in Montgomery, Alabama, filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit today defending prayers offered before meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina. In a suit brought by the ACLU, a federal trial court held that the County’s prayer policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because, essentially, too many prayers mentioned Jesus Christ and were therefore “sectarian.” The County is now appealing that ruling.

Read the Foundation’s brief in Joyner v. Forsyth County.

Judge Roy Moore noted about this case:

“Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court opens with ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court,’ and despite the fact that both houses of Congress open with prayer every morning, the ACLU still brought a lawsuit stopping prayer before meetings in Forsyth County, North Carolina. What’s worse is that a federal judge has gone along with the radical secular agenda. Forsyth County, and the rest of the country, prays because we need the wisdom and guidance of God—certainly much more than we need the ACLU and judicial activists on the bench.”

The Foundation brief explains that the Framers of the Constitution, through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, meant to prevent the establishment of a national denomination; but they did not intend to stop prayer and other acknowledgments of God. Prayers at county meetings did not fall within the definition of a “law respecting an establishment of religion” under the First Amendment. Moreover, when judges start deciding what prayers are “sectarian” and what are not, the judiciary is engaging in theological and philosophical questions outside its jurisdiction or expertise. Prayers offered at public meetings do not coerce anyone and, instead, respect those who believe prayer is good for our society and government.

Alabama Judge Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law, together with Col. Ron Ray and First Principles Press, filed an amicus curiae brief in the Kentucky Court of Appeals on behalf of 35 Kentucky Senators defending a Homeland Security Act that declared that “[t]he safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” After the radical American Atheists group filed suit against the law, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court ruled the law to be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and a violation of the Kentucky Constitution. The case is now on appeal to the state appeals court.

Go to http://www.morallaw.org/archive20100511.htm to see the press release and read the Kentucky Senators’ Brief.

Firm Foundation was crippled by several problems over the past week, including an apparent virus attack. We apologize for any adverse consequences you may have suffered, too. Our main site and blog have since been moved to a more secure server to better avoid future problems of this sort. Thank you for your patience during our “sick leave.”

One would think a group that calls itself the Military Religious Freedom Foundation would be in favor of religious freedom in the military, right?

Why, then, does the MRFF claim “victory” when the military rescinds an invitation to Rev. Franklin Graham to address a Pentagon Day of Prayer breakfast? They objected to Graham’s invitation and demanded that it be canceled, because Graham had spoken critically of Islam.

Specifically, Graham had said Islam has enslaved people and suppressed women, and “is a very evil and wicked religion.” Graham emphasized his love for Muslims as people, but “as a minister … I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.” He further stated that he “wants Muslims to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins.”

Military spokesman Col. Tom Collins said Graham’s remarks were “not appropriate” — not factually incorrect but inappropriate — because “”We’re an all-inclusive military. We honor all faiths. … Our message to our service and civilian work force is about the need for diversity and appreciation of all faiths.”

An “all-inclusive military” that practices “diversity and appreciation of all faiths”? How about a blindfolded military that, because of orders from higher up the chain of command, refuses to face the reality of the enemy we are fighting?

During World War II, would this “all-inclusive military” have disinvited a speaker who had criticized the horrors of Nazism? Or during the Korean War and the War in Vietnam, would the Pentagon have rescinded an invitation to a speaker who had denounced Communism?

Note that the Pentagon canceled Graham’s invitation, not because of anything he was expected to say at the prayer breakfast, but because of statements he had made in the past. This sends a clear message to pastors: Be careful what you say, and don’t ever make politically-incorrect statements about a group the White House favors, or you can forget about ever speaking at a prayer breakfast. In First Amendment jurisprudence we might call that a “chilling effect” on free speech.

As one of the best-known and most-respected religious leaders in the world today, Graham was a natural choice for the prayer breakfast. His father, the Rev. Billy Graham, had spoken for presidents of both parties and all persuasions. His son, Army Captain Edward Graham, was wounded in Iraq and is currently serving in Afghanistan.

In fairness to the military spokesmen, this decision probably came from the top of the chain of command. But it is further evidence that the armed forces are being used as a tool to further the Administration’s ideological goals, and further that the armed forces are becoming increasingly hostile to evangelical Christian.

As an old soldier who served 23 years as an Air Force Judge Advocate and who is currently serving as a State Defense Force Chaplain, I am outraged that the Pentagon has caved in to the demands of political correctness. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was enacted as a shield to protect religious freedom, not a hammer to suppress it. Unfortunately, it is being used as a hammer.