TeaPartyWire.com – Tea Party News by and for Tea Party Members

Recognizing that prior to “viability” a fetus experiences pain during an abortion, and that the Arizona statute does not prohibit abortions
necessary for the health of pregnant women,
the court rejected a challenge to the law.

By Order released on July 30th, Federal District Judge James A. Teilborg declined to hold an Arizona statute limiting abortions during and following the twentieth week of pregnancy unconstitutional. State restrictions such as those imposed by Arizona, but after the beginning of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, had been said to be permissible in Roe v. Wade almost forty years ago. Although I consider the decision appropriate, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade and its progeny, and “no big deal,” others contend that Abortion insanity prevails in Arizona and that Judge Strikes Unprecedented Blow Against Right to Choose. Thus far, I have seen no articles suggesting that he beats his wife or otherwise in furtherance of his war on women imprisons her in a dungeon to prevent her acquisition of women’s health services.

A purported challenge to the statute on an “as applied” basis was not considered because it does not go into effect until August 2nd; in the absence of further legal impediments it will go into effect then.

Roe v. Wade

As early as Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court held that during the first trimester of a pregnancy States can properly regulate access to abortions, including the facilities in which they may be performed and the personnel who may perform them, solely to ensure the health and safety of pregnant women. The Court then observed,

Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

Following the first trimester legitimate State interests in fetal welfare increase and, with the onset of viability, States can prohibit abortions except those necessary for the life and health of pregnant women. In 1973, viability was thought to occur at around the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, i.e., approximately at the end of the second trimester. As to this the Court stated in Roe v. Wade,

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (Emphasis added.)

The Arizona statute

The Arizona statute relies on factors transcending viability, including concerns for the health of pregnant women as well as the ability of twenty week old fetuses to experience pain. Consistently with Roe v. Wade and its progeny, it does not prohibit abortions in cases of medical emergency, defined

as “a condition that, on the basis of the physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Except in a Medical Emergency, a person shall not knowingly perform, induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the probable gestational age of her unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.

The statute continues, “A person who knowingly violates this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor” and “[a] physician who knowingly violates this section commits an act of unprofessional conduct and is subject to license suspension or revocation pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17.”

Findings of the Arizona legislature in enacting the statute included the following:

(1) that abortion “can cause serious both short-term and long-term physical and psychological complications for women;” (2) that abortion “has a higher medical risk when the procedure is performed later in pregnancy. Compared to an abortion at eight weeks of gestation or earlier, the relative risk increases exponentially at higher gestations;” (3) “[t]he incidence of major complications is highest after twenty weeks of gestation;”(4) “[t]he risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks gestation to one per 29,000 abortions at sixteen to twenty weeks and one per 11,000 abortions at twenty-one or more weeks . . . After the first trimester, the risk of hemorrhage from an abortion, in particular, is greater, and the resultant complications may require a hysterectomy, other reparative surgery or a blood transfusion;” (5) “[t]here is substantial and well-documented medical evidence that an unborn child by at least twenty weeks of gestation has the capacity to feel pain during an abortion;” and (6) that the State of Arizona has a legitimate concern in protecting the public’s health and safety, including the health of women who undergo abortions. H.B. 2036, 50th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. § 9(A)(1-7) (Ariz. 2012).

As a result of these findings, the Arizona Legislature stated that it promulgated H.B. 2036 “based on the documented risks to women’s health and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an abortion at [20 weeks] gestational age.” H.B. 2036, 50th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. § 9(B)(1) (Ariz. 2012).

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court had also noted medical evidence that while the incidence of harm to pregnant women due to abortion is less than that due to childbirth during the first trimester, the danger to them from an abortion increases thereafter.

From a legal perspective, the most interesting aspect of the Arizona decision is that it deals with the period between the twentieth and twenty-fourth weeks of pregnancy. Despite the lack of viability — ability to survive outside the womb — there were adequately supported clinical findings that at or even before twenty weeks a fetus experiences pain during an abortion. The most common forms of late-term abortions are described graphically in the decision, quoting liberally from the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007). Uncommon squeamishness is probably unnecessary to experience empathy with a fetus undergoing such an abortion.

It is undisputed in the Record before the Court that the two procedures described in Gonzalez are the non-emergency procedures that would be used to perform an abortion past 20 weeks gestational age. The first, a D&E, is described in Gonzales as follows:

Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as ‘dilation and evacuation’ or ‘D & E’ is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Although individual techniques for performing D & E differ, the general steps are the same.

A doctor must first dilate the cervix at least to the extent needed to insert surgical instruments into the uterus and to maneuver them to evacuate the fetus. The steps taken to cause dilation differ by physician and gestational age of the fetus. A doctor often begins the dilation process by inserting osmotic dilators, such as laminaria (sticks of seaweed), into the cervix. The dilators can be used in combination with drugs, such as misoprostol, that increase dilation. The resulting amount of dilation is not uniform, and a doctor does not know in advance how an individual patient will respond. In general the longer dilators remain in the cervix, the more it will dilate. Yet the length of time doctors employ osmotic dilators varies. Some may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less.

After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.

Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’ body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit. [Internal citations omitted, emphasis added.]

The second, less-commonly used, procedure is a medical induction, where “[t]he doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus.” Id. at 140. In an induction procedure, the fetus is injected with a medication that induces a heart attack. See Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F.Supp.2d 805, 875 (D. Neb. 2004) (describing induction by intracardiac injection); Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. 320 F.Supp.2d 957, 960 (N.D. 2004) (explaining that induction is also known as a “medical abortion” where “drugs are administered to abort the pregnancy”). (Emphasis added.)

As to the ability of a pre-viability fetus to experience pain, Judge Teilborg observed that

the capacity to feel pain during an abortion [arises] by at least twenty weeks gestational age. Defendants presented uncontradicted and credible evidence to the Court that supports this determination. Namely, the Court finds that, by 7 weeks gestational age, pain sensors develop in the face of the unborn child and, by 20 weeks, sensory receptors develop all over the child’s body and the children have a full complement of pain receptors.

This decision is a relatively minor step in acknowledging that State recognition of fetal pain is decisionally significant in abortion cases involving not-yet viable fetuses. However, these observations may portend future evolutionary changes in judicial interpretation:

The parties appear to agree that the fetus most commonly attains viability at 23-24 weeks gestational age. Compare Doc. 2, Exhibit 1 at ¶ 15 (“It is commonly accepted . . . that a normally developing fetus will attain viability at approximately 24 weeks”) with Doc. 25-1, Exhibit 2 at ¶ 17 (“The number of children that are born and survive at 23-28 weeks gestation is common enough now that the term ‘Micro-preemie’ has been coined to describe them and an additional body of neonatal science is focused upon them. As medical science pushes the frontier of fetal ‘viability’ to 23 weeks and perhaps earlier with the advent of artificial wombs and placental support, there is a possibility that a definition of ‘viability’ based upon gestational age will soon be irrelevant.”). As such, the Court focuses on this 3-4 week time frame (while recognizing that this time frame may be even shorter in the future as technology advances to make viability even earlier) and examines H.B. 2036 from that perspective. (Emphasis added.)

Eventually, late term abortions may be defined more expansively than at present and States desiring to do so may be able prohibit them (except when medically necessary for the life and health of the pregnant female). There may then be fewer scenes such as this:

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

Dana Southworth (right) counsels Joaquin and Julia Gonzales on their baby, Carmen, who is not expected to survive after birth. ( Credit: Michael Chow/The Arizona Republic)

By: Alia Beard Rau

Posted: July 29th, 2012

Under a new Arizona abortion law that takes effect Thursday, more babies with fatal fetal defects are expected to be carried to term, even though they will die within minutes, hours or days. But more will also be done to help their families get through the trauma of losing a child.

House Bill 2036 forbids doctors from aborting most fetuses with a gestational age of 20 weeks or older, even in situations where the doctor discovers the fetus has a fatal defect. The law also defines gestational age as beginning on the first day of the woman’s last period, meaning abortions are actually banned starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy — typically about the same time a doctor would perform ultrasounds where most abnormalities are detected.

Eight other states also ban abortions after 20 weeks, but Arizona is the only one with a law that actually pushes the ban back to 18 weeks into the pregnancy.

According to state records, women in Arizona terminate about 100 pregnancies a year after 20 weeks, but it’s unclear how many of those are because of a problem with the pregnancy.

The new law requires doctors to offer information about perinatal hospice services to women considering abortion at any stage of their pregnancy because of a fatal fetal abnormality. It also requires the state to maintain a website list of organizations that provide services.

The two organizations that offer such help, MISS Foundation and Embrace, provide counseling and comfort, help develop birth plans, attend births, organize meals, create mementos, make funeral arrangements and prepare families for every outcome.

The Legislature provided no funding for such services, and volunteers for the two groups, while thrilled the state and doctors will spread the word about the service, worry they’ll be overwhelmed when the law takes effect.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan oversees the waivers. (Credit; Luke Sharrett for The New York Times)

By MOTOKO RICH

Posted: July 6th, 2012

In just five months, the Obama administration has freed schools in more than half the nation from central provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified.

On Friday, the Department of Education plans to announce that it has granted waivers releasing two more states, Washington and Wisconsin, from some of the most onerous conditions of the signature Bush-era legislation. With this latest round, 26 states are now relieved from meeting the lofty — and controversial — goal of making all students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. Additional waivers are pending in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

“The more waivers there are, the less there really is a law, right?” said Andy Porter, dean of the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.

While No Child Left Behind has been praised for forcing schools to become more accountable for the education of poor and minority children, it has been derided for what some regard as an obsessive focus on test results, which has led to some notorious cheating scandals. Critics have also faulted the law’s system of rating schools, which they say labeled so many of them low performing that it rendered the judgment meaningless.

Read More: NYTimes.com

Conservatives are scratching their heads trying to figure out why Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts voted with the four liberal Justices on the Court 5-4 to uphold the constitutionality of the most controversial part of Obamacare. Even swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy voted against it. The Obamacare individual mandate requires all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face jail time or huge monetary penalties.

The majority decision, written by Roberts, characterizes the mandate as a tax permissible under the constitution’s Tax Clause. But what if someone chooses not to buy health insurance, resulting in a penalty of a fine or jail time? How can that be characterized as a tax if you’re not buying anything? The Obamacare law does not even refer to its mandate as a tax. Obama declared in 2009 that his health care law was not a tax. By Roberts characterizing it as such, the reach of Congress’s taxing power has been greatly expanded.

Using the majority’s reasoning, Congress could put in place all kinds of draconian requirements. The possibilities are endless as to what kinds of things could be forced on people by threatening them with an onerous “tax.” This decision essentially authorizes Congress to do almost anything as long as it is labeled a “tax.” Greg Sargent at the Washington Post cites “Broccoli Tyranny,” a phrase coined by New York University law professor Barry Friedman who wrote a brief supporting Obamcare. “They can’t make you eat broccoli, but they can tax you for not eating it,” Friedman says. Obamacare can be distinguished from local and state mandates to attend public schools and pay for public schools, since the Tenth Amendment grants the states powers not specifically granted to the federal government.

The dissent, written by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, argued that the individual mandate is a regulatory penalty, not a tax. They observed that in a few prior cases, the Supreme Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private activity was so onerous as to constitute a penalty. Americans who do not purchase health insurance will be fined up to $1900 per year. If that is not an onerous “tax,” I don’t know what is. The penalty for noncompliance is up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.

Daniel Fisher at Forbes Magazine argues that Roberts was not actually ceding power to Congress, but amassing more power for the Court, reminiscent of the power play by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. By siding with the liberals on the court on the narrow question of whether the mandate was a tax, Roberts was able to assign writing the majority opinion to himself. He then made two two far reaching decisions restricting Congress. He ruled that the individual mandate was not authorized by the Commerce Clause – a setback to liberals, who have vastly expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause to authorize all kinds of government regulations. Roberts reasoned that because it compelled individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, not simply regulating existing commerce, it fell outside of the scope of the Commerce Clause. Roberts also limited a massive expansion of Medicare. While not quite striking it down, he held that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for states that failed to comply with the expansion provisions.

Not all legal scholars think this is a triumph for the judiciary over Congress. Professor Friedman believes using the Tax Clause instead of the Commerce Clause is bad news. He said, “This is far more devastating to federalism and the balance of power between states and the national government,” he says. “You can now tax pretty much anything.” Nick Dranias, a constitutional lawyer, lamented, “It is a turning point in history when the federal government can use the taxing power (the power to destroy) to accomplish regulatory ends denied to it under its enumerated powers.”

There is speculation that Roberts ruled this way in order to help conservatives strategically, to leave Obamacare hanging around Obama’s neck for the upcoming election. By asserting that Obamacare is funded by taxes, it now becomes just another tax increase that the Democrats will have to defend. If it is a tax, it may be the biggest tax increase in history. It is so unpopular it will drive more people out to vote, especially doctors. A Rasmussen poll this month found that 52% of likely voters want Obamacare repealed. Obama is trying to avoid speaking about it in his reelection efforts; this victory puts him in an awkward position. Mitt Romney has said the first thing he will do when he becomes president is sign an Executive Order exempting all 50 states from Obamacare.

Did Roberts rule this way for tactical reasons, or did he sell out to the left? One connected D.C. insider is skeptical of Roberts’ motives and believes he ruled that way because he is just another Washington politician. The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog wondered in May whether Roberts was pressured to uphold the individual mandate.

The problem with “free” health insurance for everyone is that it does not exist. Instead, as has happened in Canada and European countries which have socialized medicine, people are put on waiting lists or lotteries in order to receive treatment. It is not free if you die before receiving it.

NFIB v. Sebelius will go down as one of the most significant rulings coming from the Supreme Court. Instead of continuing 200 years of lumping government expansion of power under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has now turned to the Taxing Clause to authorize massive new regulations. 

Source: WashingtonPost.com

By: Robert Barnes

May 21st, 2012

Has anything changed in the world of campaign finance that might give pause to the five members of the Supreme Court who decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission exactly 28 months ago Monday?

Or, to be more precise, has anything changed in the mind of at least one of them?

The court faces that question in a flurry of contradictory arguments prompted by a decision by the Montana Supreme Court late last year.

In upholding a 100-year-old state law, the Montana justices seemed to be openly defying Citizens United’s holding that the First Amendment grants corporations, and by extension labor unions, the right to spend unlimited amounts of their treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The Supreme Court has already blocked the Montana decision, and the justices may simply set their counterparts in Helena straight by summarily reversing the finding.

But pressure is being applied — by members of Congress and nearly half the states, not to mention Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — to at least let Montana make its argument.

Read More: WashingtonPost.com

Obama citizen-detention plan in trouble

by Bob Unruh @ WND.com

A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.

The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.

Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the president as being in support of terror.

Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.

The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.

Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”

The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.

The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

The opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to,” Titus said.

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote.

“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

Forrest found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of detention based on the language of the statute. She ordered the provision not to be enforced until further proceedings in her court or “remedial” action by Congress that would restore those protections.

During a hearing, Hedges, a longtime international reporter, testified that in connection with his reporting he interviewed members of Hamas, met with leadership and even stayed in their homes.

The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs – or others – are not within [paragraph] 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on 1st Amendment rights as reasonable – and real,” Forrest said.

Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.

Read More: WND.com

Source: WashingtonPost.com

By: Tom Hamburger, Brady Dennis and Jia Lynn Yang

Posted: April 24th, 2012

Wal-Mart, the giant retailer now under fire over allegations of foreign bribery in Mexico, has participated in an aggressive and high-priced lobbying campaign to amend the long-standing U.S. anti-bribery law that the company might have violated.

The push to revisit how federal authorities enforce the statute has been centered at a little-known but well-funded arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where a top executive of Wal-Mart has sat on the board of directors for nearly a decade.

The effort has intensified in the past two years, drawing on the backing of several large companies and trade groups such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, where one of Wal-Mart’s top executives serves as a director. It also has involved high-powered lobbyists, including former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey.

The 1977 law, known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, prohibits U.S. companies from offering fees or gifts to foreign officials to advance corporate interests.

There is no evidence that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico. But even as the company has pledged zero tolerance for corruption around the globe, it has been a party to an effort that, some advocacy groups argue, would eviscerate the Watergate-era anti-corruption statute.

The Justice Department launched an investigation into Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary in December over payments of more than $24 million in bribes to win construction permits there.

A company whistle blower told top corporate officials about the alleged bribes in 2005, The New York Times reported recently. The company launched but then shut down an internal inquiry and then failed to notify the Justice Department or the Securities and Exchange Commission of the allegations as required by law.

Read More: WashingtonPost.com

Dear Fellow Patriots,

On July 1 of next year, a new law will take effect to protect Virginians against abuses of federal power. My Anti-NDAA Detention bill, HB 1160, overwhelmingly passed both houses yesterday afternoon. Together, you and I can claim this incredible victory for Virginia against an ever-encroaching federal government.

Virginia is telling Congress “No Thanks,” to any participation in the unconstitutional “detention” of American citizens without trial, legal counsel, specific charges, or the right to face an accuser as authorized under the 2012 Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama this past December.

This victory would not have been possible without strong grass-roots support for my bill from Virginians of all political backgrounds and persuasions.  I want to thank the many liberty-minded citizens across Virginia who took the time to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to the Governor and Assembly members.

And I am proud of the Assembly’s response.

Virginia is the first state to pass a law which places a legal bar between all state agencies and any federal effort to use Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA to suspend habeas corpus rights which go back centuries.  I hope that Virginia’s enactment of HB 1160 will be replicated in other states.  States still have a significant role and duty to resist federal overreach. In the words of the Richmond Times Dispatch editorial in support of HB 1160, “Congress and the President should be made aware that their contempt for fundamental constitutional rights does not sit well with the American public.”

For Liberty,

Bob Marshall

This Virginia Bill passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate.  The Bill language is written, we have precedent in Virginia, therefore Arizona is next.  The work is done, just push this through your legislature, state by state.   Virginia will help where we can.

Leslie Miller, Howard Mapp, and Judi Myers bow their heads in prayer during a vigil on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Wednesday, April 4, to remember Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old who was shot and killed in Sanford, Fla., on February 26.

Florida lawmakers opposed to Stand Your Ground have formed a task force to investigate the law following the killing of Trayvon Martin. Among its members: prosecutors, judges, and tourism officials.

Source: CSMonitor.com

By: Brad Knickerbocker

Posted: April 5th, 2012

The shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman may or may not be explicitly or legally connected to Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, which allows citizens to use deadly force rather than retreat in the face of a potentially life-threatening encounter.

Read More:CSMonitor.com

Source:Social.PatriotActionNetwork.com

By: By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer

Posted: March 28th, 2012

In the Supreme Court’s final day of arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, the justices wrestled Wednesday with what happens to the law if they strike down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance.

“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.

Source:Social.PatriotActionNetwork.com

A group of security analysts and officials from religious groups gathered Monday to reiterate a point they