Firm Foundation

Back when I was an active-duty Air Force Judge Advocate, I regularly counseled military personnel and their dependents concerning the Soldiers & Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, recently amended and renamed as the Servicemen’s Civil Relief Act of 2003.

The Act provides, among other things, that if a service person is sued while serving on active duty and his military duties would make it difficult or impossible to conduct a defense, he can file a motion to have the proceedings stayed until his term of enlistment is completed.

This act provides much-needed protection for the serviceperson who is sued back home in Missouri while he is away serving in Afghanistan.

But until last night when I was reading the Magna Carta, I did not realize that the concept behind the Servicemen’s Civil Relief Act goes back in time at least to the Crusades.

Section 52 of the Magna Carta states in part:

…[W]e shall have respite for the usual crusader’s term; excepting those cases in which a plea was begun or inquest made on our order before we took the cross; when, however, we return from our pilgrimage, or if perhaps we do not undertake it, we will at once do full justice in these matters.

A crusader could be away from home for years with little or no communication from home, and if he returned at all, he might find that his property had been deemed forfeit in a lawsuit of which he had had no knowledge and against which he had been unable to defend. Like the Servicemen’s Relief Act, the provision did not dismiss the lawsuit but rather held it in abeyance until the term of service was finished.

Similarity does not prove relationship, and precedence in time does not prove causation. But it is interesting that this concept goes back at least as early as 1215 AD. If any readers can provide earlier antecedents for this provision, I’d be interested in your results.

Investigative reporters today revealed that the U.S. State Department is using taxpayer funds in a thinly-disguised effort to promote evangelical Christianity in the Middle East.

Two investigative reporters for a leading news network discovered through an anonymous tip that the State Department will spend an estimated $16,000 to send evangelist Franklin Graham on the tour but emphasized that the purpose of Rev. Graham’s tour was not to promote Christianity but rather is “part of a program to promote interfaith tolerance.” The State Department refused to divulge details of his scheduled speeches and meetings but said it would include speaking at churches and “traditional community meetings.”

Even more shocking was breaking news that the State Department is currently funding the construction, renovation, and rehabilitation of at least 26 church structures in Bulgaria, Pakistan, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Egypt, the Maldives, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Serbia, and Montenegro.

The money is being channeled through the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP), but the State Department insists that the purpose of the program is not to advance the Christian religion but rather to promote “heritage preservation” projects in the developing world. Just as one example, in Montenegro U.S. funds are being used to restore and conserve the Shadrvan (Fountain) of the Old Cathedral in Pljevlja. The State Department website insists that without these needed repairs the Cathedral would not be able to perform baptisms. The State Department denied that this funding raises any constitutional issues, because in 2003 a Department of Justice opinion stated that the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause did not preclude federal funds from going to preserve religious structures if they had cultural importance. They also noted that the U.S. Agency for International Development has spent millions of taxpayer dollars reconstructing and financing multiple churches in Cairo and Cyprus, as well as giving computers to pastors and priests in Tajikistan and Mali.

Because this funding has been kept under wraps, constitutional scholars and civil libertarians have been reticent to speak about this apparent abuse of the Establishment Clause, but Rev. Graham’s wife said of opposition to this funding that “It’s not even Christophobia, it’s beyond of Christophobia, it’s hate of Christia…”

– OH WAIT! MY MISTAKE!

The trip at taxpayers’ expense was not by Rev. Franklin Graham, but by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the mosque to be built at Ground Zero; the “Christophobia” remarks were not by Graham’s wife but by Daisy Kahn, wife of Imam Rauf, about “Islamophobia” and “hate of Muslims”; the millions in State Department funds went to build and renovate not churches but mosques and to buy computers not for Christian pastors but for Muslim imams, and the rebuilt fountain was not at a cathedral but at a mosque and was not for baptisms but for ritual ablutions before prayer to Allah.

Does this explain why so-called civil liberties groups have been so silent?

What sorts of messages do the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression protect?

Based upon two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions released yesterday, the courts are saying that the First Amendment (1) prohibits the Utah Highway Patrol Association from commemorating a patrolman killed in the line of duty by erecting a cross by the highway at the place where the death occurred, but (2) protects the right of a public official to falsely claim he had served 25 years in the Marines and received the Medal of Honor.

The first case is American Atheists v. Duncan, in which several professed atheists claimed the placement of the cross by the highway forced them to observe the cross as they drove by, and that seeing cross offended them and therefore violated their constitutional rights. One of the plaintiffs even claimed that he had altered his travel route and had refused to stop at a certain rest area so he would not come into contact with the cross (crossophobia?).

The federal district court in Utah ruled for the defendants, holding that the cross is often used by veterans groups and others as a symbol of the death of a military man, and therefore it is not exclusively a religious symbol and its placement beside a Utah highway is not an establishment of religion.

But the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court conceded that the State allowing the memorial crosses had a secular purpose of honoring deceased highway patrolmen, but the Court also concluded that the crosses have the primary effect of advancing the Christian religion. The Court’s decision was not affected by the fact that the cross is commonly used in veterans’ cemeteries and elsewhere to honor the dead, that several of the crosses were on private property close to the highway, or that those who proposed, designed, and approved the placement of the crosses did not do so to advance Christianity.

Also, the Court was unmoved by another unique fact: the crosses are in the State of Utah, where a substantial majority of the population is Mormon. Mormons believe Christ died on the cross for their sins, but they usually do not use the cross as a symbol, preferring instead to emphasize His resurrection. How, then, can the memorial cross be an endorsement of a religion the majority of Utah residents do not hold? The Court dodged this issue by noting through concurring opinions by various Justices that it might be possible for the state to endorse a minority religion.

The Foundation for Moral Law filed an amicus brief in this case. Assuming this decision is appealed, the Foundation will continue its support of the right of the Utah Highway Patrol Association to use memorial crosses to honor their dead.

Now let’s move to the most liberal of all Circuit Courts, the Ninth. Xavier Alvarez (left) was elected as a Director of the Three Valley Water District Board in California. In 2007, at a meeting with a neighboring water district board, Alvarez stated:

“I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

Except for “I’m still around,” there wasn’t a word of truth in Alvarez’s statement. He never served a day in the marines, was never wounded, and never received the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was convicted, and he appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional violation of the guarantee of free speech.

Admittedly, after reading the decision and the dissent, I have to conclude that the issue raised in this case is more difficult than I thought at first glance. The government has no business determining what is true and what is false, and no one should be punished criminally for expressing opinions about history or politics that are, in the eye of some government official, wrong. Nor should one be punished criminally for having mistakenly said something that turns out to be wrong. But a knowingly false claim of military service seems outside the protection of the First Amendment.

A major reason for freedom of speech is that a free exchange of ideas is most likely to help us reach the truth.  But if the purpose is to help reach the truth, it is difficult to see how knowingly false statements are protected.

The Ninth Circuit stressed that no one was injured by Alverez’s false claim. I strongly disagree. Had the statement been made on a job application or campaign brochure, it would work to the disadvantage of those candidates who had not made the claim. And as Congress stated in passing the Stolen Valor Act, “fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor [and other medals] damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals.”

I hope this decision is appealed, and if it is, the Foundation for Moral Law will likely lend its support to the appeal. And I plan to personally protest by tossing my own Medal of Honor over the White House fence. (Actually I never received a Medal of Honor, but according to the Ninth Circuit that doesn’t seem to matter.)

http://www.abc4.com/media/lib/5/e/d/3/ed353d07-8e97-4852-a5bd-52ac0f6d930e/Story.jpg

We are blessed to announce that a new television spot about the Foundation for Moral Law will debut tomorrow in the Nashville, Tenn. area.  A preview is available on our website here.

A big thank you to Angela Prince and Herd Records for helping us produce and launch this new ad.  And thank you for supporting the Foundation in any way that you can.

If you would like to help us widen the reach of our new TV spot, please consider giving a secure, tax-deductible contribution to help our ministry.

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.