On Thursday, a Washington D.C. district court judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Biden administration from firing or disciplining unvaccinated employees.
According to Fox News, both civilian and active-duty military plaintiffs had sued the administration for not granting them religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccines.
“None of the civilian employee plaintiffs will be subject to discipline while his or her request for a religious exception is pending,” District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly declared in a minute order.
Additionally, the judge ruled “active duty military plaintiffs, whose religious exception requests have been denied, will not be disciplined or separated during the pendency of their appeals.”
The court also mandated the Biden administration to file a supplemental notice by noon on Friday demonstrating that they agree that no plaintiff will be terminated or disciplined amid the ongoing ruling.
On Sunday, twenty plaintiffs sued Biden and his administration over the president’s executive order issued last month for federal employees.
“The Biden administration has shown an unprecedented, cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and an utter ineptitude at basic constitutional contours,” the plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Yoder said in a statement to Fox News.
“This combination is dangerous to American liberty,” he argued. “Thankfully, our Constitution protects and secures the right to remain free from religious persecution and coercion. With this order, we are one step closer to putting the Biden administration back in its place by limiting government to its enumerated powers. It’s time citizens and courts said no to tyranny. The Constitution does not need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread.”
The lawsuit comes as more states are taking legal action against the federal mandates.
On the same day as the ruling, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that his state is suing the Biden administration over the vaccine mandates.
The Supreme Court today refused a request by Joe Biden and abortion businesses in Texas to block the Texas abortion ban that has saved thousands of babies from aboritons.
The nation’s highest court agreed to review the pro-abortion lawsuits against the abortion ban and set oral arguments for November 1. That means the ban will stay in place for several more days — likely saving anywhere from 50-100 babies each day from abortions.
The court, in its order, said it would consider the following questions: whether “the state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil action”; and can “the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said the Texas abortion ban should be blocked while the lawsuit continues. She falsely called killing babies in abortions health care and made it appear that pregnant women are harmed if they can’t get abortions — even though abortion harms women in a myriad of ways and mothers who give birth experience more joy and less harm by keeping their baby.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
“The promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking abortion care, who are entitled to relief now,” she wrote. “These women will suffer personal harm from delaying their medical care, and as their pregnancies progress, they may even be unable to obtain abortion care altogether.”
The Supreme Court needs just 4 votes to agree to review a case but five votes to issues a ruling — meaning SCOTUS reached those two thresholds to both review as well as to decide to leave the Texas abortion ban in place. In a prior ruling on the Texas abortion companies’ request to block the ban, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow to to stay in place, with Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals dissenting and saying it should be blocked.
The Texas pro-life group behind the ban celebrated the rule.
“This is a great development for the Pro-Life movement because the law will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day, and because the justices will actually discuss whether these lawsuits are valid in the first place,” Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz told LifeNews.com.
Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed legal papers with the Supreme Court urging it uphold the state’s abortion ban and deny Joe Biden’s demand that SCOTUS block it.
In its argument, Paxton and his team of attorneys say the federal government has no legal standing in the case and no right to overturn the Texas law because it hasn’t suffered any injuries from it:
Federal courts are not “roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Nation’s laws.”
The United States’ lawsuit against Texas is extraordinary in its breadth and consequence, having an impact on precedents that have existed far longer than any right to abortion has been recognized. Nevertheless, the federal government asks this Court to apply the “ad hoc nullification machine” that pushes aside any doctrine of constitutional law that stands in the way of abortion rights.
Specifically, it asks the Court to ignore (among other things) requirements of justiciability, standing, and a cognizable cause of action—all so that the Court can reach the merits of the government’s challenge to Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (SB 8). The Court should decline this request. Under binding case law, the federal government is not adverse to Texas merely because it thinks a Texas law is unconstitutional. And it lacks standing because it has not been injured by SB 8. The federal government cannot get an abortion, and the Constitution does not assign it any special role to protect any putative right to abortion.
Biden’s administration officially asked the Supreme Court to block the Texas abortion ban, which has saved thousands of babies from abortions. Texas had until today to file its legal papers explaining why the Supreme Court should keep the abortion ban in place while the legal challenge proceeds and pro-life groups expect the nation’s highest court to not block the ban for a second time.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that it would not block the ban when it considered a similar request from abortion businesses.
Texas Right to Life Director of Media and Communication Kimberlyn Schwartz told LifeNews she expects Biden to lose his request to block the ban: “We are excited to continue saving hundreds of lives through the Texas Heartbeat Act. However, the battle is not finished. We are confident Texas will ultimately defeat these attacks on our life-saving efforts.”
As LifeNews.com reported late last week, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Biden’s demand to block the ban. Previously, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who was appointed by Barack Obama, sided with the Biden administration’s Justice Department, which sued the state, arguing Texas’ law was unconstitutional because it went against Roe v. Wade.
Then, the 5th Circuit rejected Biden’s demand, voting 2-1 to allow the ban to stay in place as the underlying lawsuit continues. That was the third time it has allowed the law to stay in effect, responding to various pro-abortion legal challenges.
Yesterday, Biden officials called the ban “plainly unconstitutional” even though no right to abortion exists in the Constitution.
“S.B. 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this Court’s precedents,” the DOJ’s filing reads. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.”
“Texas’s insistence that no party can bring a suit challenging S.B. 8 amounts to an assertion that the federal courts are powerless to halt the State’s ongoing nullification of federal law,” the DOJ wrote. “That proposition is as breathtaking as it is dangerous.”
In its previous ruling, the Supreme Court said the pro-abortion groups did not provide sufficient reasons to justify blocking the law.
“The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” the majority wrote. “But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. … In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett made up the majority in the decision. The justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor also wrote separate dissents slamming the court for allowing Texas to restrict abortions.
If the Supreme Court decides to not block the ban, it will likely stay in place until December, when the 5th Circuit has scheduled oral arguments on Biden’s request to block it. That means thousands more unborn children will be saved from aboritons, as many women decide to keep their baby instead of ending their child’s life. Meanwhile, pregnancy centers that provide actual help and support for pregnant women are also experiencing higher numbers of calls and visit and are saving more babies from abortion.
As soon as Judge Pitman issued his decision putting the ban on hold, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed.
“We disagree with the Court’s decision and have already taken steps to immediately appeal it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Paxton wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. “The sanctity of human life is, and will always be, a top priority for me.”
Typically, state governments enforce pro-life laws and, when the laws are challenged, judges can block the states from enforcing them in a preliminary injunction. However, the Texas law leaves enforcement up to individual people. So, judges are considering whether they can stop all private citizens from enforcing the law – especially without allowing private citizens the chance to defend themselves in court first.
Pitman’s order prohibited state court judges and court clerks from accepting lawsuits that the law allows. That made it so some abortion businesses continued killing babies in abortions while others worried they would still not be able to do so legally because the law, even if blocked, still allows lawsuits against anyone killing babies in abortions or assisting them.
Attorneys for Texas said Biden’s Department of Justice is being unfair by asking the court to block “absent third parties” from enforcing the law “without letting them be heard.”
The Texas law went into effect Sept. 1, prohibiting abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks of pregnancy. Thus far, the courts have refused to temporarily block the law, and as many as 3,000 unborn babies already have been spared from abortion.
On Friday, attorneys for the Department of Justice argued that the law is unconstitutional and the federal government has an interest in seeing it blocked.
Then, Judge Pitman issued the ruling they were hoping for and endorsed abortion in the process.
“The United States is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. It is substantially likely that S.B. 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution. That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”
In comments to LifeNews.com, Texas Right to Life blasted the opinion:
The ruling is wildly broad, preventing Texas state officials from enforcing the law, including the shocking order to block every Texas judge and court clerk from even receiving lawsuits filed by citizens against the abortion industry. The provision blocking lawmakers is entirely unnecessary since the language of the Texas Heartbeat Act already prohibits government officials from enforcing the policy. However, Pitman’s effort to obstruct state judges and court clerks from fulfilling their lawful duties is astonishing.
This is the legacy of Roe v. Wade: Judges catering to the abortion industry, crafting a conclusion first and then searching the depths of legal literature for a rationale later.
Pro-Life attorneys are likely to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals immediately, in which we expect a fair hearing.
Until a higher court intervenes, the disappointing reality is that Pitman’s ruling will likely stop the Texas Heartbeat Act from being enforced.
Texas Right to Life maintained that abortionists could still be sued for violating the abortion ban, despite the ruling.
However, even with this ruling, abortionists can still be held liable for any abortions they commit in violation of the law.
The Texas Heartbeat Act states that an individual being sued under the law cannot claim as an affirmative defense that they were acting under the protection of a court order that had since been reversed or overturned:
“Notwithstanding any other law, the following [is] not a defense to an action brought under this section… a defendant’s reliance on any court decision that has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision had not been overruled when the defendant engaged in conduct that violates this subchapter;” (Section 171.208(e)(3), Texas Health and Safety Code)Thus, those who aid or abet abortions, even if currently permitted by this ruling, could eventually be sued for their actions today.
“Texas Right to Life is dedicated to holding the abortion industry accountable to the fullest extent possible under the law. We are confident that the Texas Heartbeat Act will ultimately withstand this legal challenge and succeed where other states’ heartbeat bills have not,” the pro-life group concluded.
The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List also commented to LifeNews on Judge Pitman’s decision.
“The people of Texas speaking through their state legislators acted to protect unborn children with beating hearts, who are as human as you and me,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “The Heartbeat Act is estimated to have saved more than 4,700 babies since it took effect over a month ago. Now an unelected judge has interfered with the clearly expressed will of Texans. For two generations, the U.S. Supreme Court has tied the hands of states to enact laws protecting unborn children and their mothers. It is time to restore this right to the people and update our laws.”
Judge Pitman’s ruling came roughly one month after the law went into effect on Sept. 1. The Supreme Court declined to block its enactment, leaving the law in place while litigation against it continues in lower courts.
“Texas has made clear it does not want to follow the Supreme Court‘s abortion precedents,” federal government attorney Brian Netter said during Friday’s hearing.
He asked the judge to issue an injunction blocking Texas and “all of its officers, employees and agents, including private parties” from suing abortionists who violate the law, CNN reports.
“The state resorted to an unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice that was designed to scare abortion providers and others who might help women exercise their constitutional rights, while skirting judicial review,” Netter said.
However, Will Thompson, an attorney representing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Office, told the judge that the federal government is using “inflammatory rhetoric” to attack the law, and the heartbeat law is not the only legislation that allows private enforcement.
“This is not some kind of vigilante scheme. It’s a scheme that uses the normal and lawful process,” Thompson said.
Netter contended that private citizens really are just acting for the state as a proxy to enforce the law. The judge asked Thompson about this claim.
Afterward, Texas Right to Life slammed the Biden administration’s arguments as “maniacal” and “entirely unprecedented.”
Kimberlyn Schwartz, director of media and communications, summarized the hearing: “Ultimately, the Justice Department is asking the court to toss out all logic and judicial precedent in order to cater to the abortion industry. The Biden administration’s case is desperate and far-fetched, and we expect an impartial court to declare the lawsuit without merit.”
Texas Right to Life encouraged women seeking pregnancy help to visit its website for a list of resources. Find it here.
Polls show Americans support heartbeat laws. An April poll by the University of Texas-Austin found that 49 percent of Texans support making abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, while 41 percent oppose it. In 2019, a national Hill-HarrisX survey also found that 55 percent of voters said they do not think laws banning abortions after six weeks – when an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable – are too restrictive.
About a dozen states have passed heartbeat laws to protect unborn babies from abortion, but Texas is the first to be allowed to enforce its law. Whether the law will remain in effect or ultimately be upheld as constitutional in court remains uncertain, but pro-life leaders are hopeful now that the U.S. Supreme Court has a conservative majority.
Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action, said that when “you add inflation into the mix, consumers are also paying more for products and have less money to spend.”
“In this economic environment,” he continued, “it’s hard to believe that President Biden continues to be hell bent on aggressively making America less energy independent and thus raising energy prices, pushing for a massive spending bill that will raise taxes on overburdened taxpayers, and pursuing mandates that are putting people out of work.”
Meckler said Washington, D.C., “now represents the single greatest threat to the well-being of American families.”
There was a fairly wide gap between the responses of Republicans and Democrats, with a supermajority of Republicans saying they have personally experienced the disruptions.
The poll found 67.7% of Republicans and just 42.4% of Democratic voters say they have personally encountered delays or shortages when attempting to purchase common consumer products.
Among independents, it was 50.6%.
On Monday, about 200,000 shipping containers remained on ships off the coast of Los Angeles, which would take about two weeks to unload, according to Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, North America’s largest.
“There’s product that needs to get out there in super-fast speed,” Seroka told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “Think about the toys, the other Christmas product, and parts and components for factories.”
“I really think there will be a crisis the way we are going, the way we are printing money, the way we are going into inflation,” said Icahn, 85, who is worth an estimated $22 billion.
“If you look around you, you see inflation all around you, and I don’t know how you deal with that in the long term.”
Icahn, a former special adviser to the president on regulatory reform, said he won’t predict the timing. But he believes the market eventually will pay a price for the trillions of dollars in stimulus unleashed by the Federal Reserve and Congress in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CNBC noted that amid an open-ended quantitative easing program, the central bank’s balance sheet swelled by more than $3 trillion.
Personal consumption spending — the statistic used by the Federal Reserve to set its inflation rate targets — rose by $130.5 billion dollars in August. That’s a 4.3% hike, year-over-year, in the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index.
The cost-of-living adjustment set by the Social Security Administration has reached a level not seen since early in President Jimmy Carter’s administration. It will rise 5.9% for 2022, matching the level set in 1977.
The CEO of a producer of frozen meals, Saffron Road, said he is holding extra inventory to compensate for the supply shortages.
“People are hoarding,” Adnan Durrani told Bloomberg News. “What I think you’ll see over the next six months, all prices will go higher.”
Procter & Gamble Co., the Wall Street Journal reported, said Tuesday it will charge more for razors and certain beauty and oral care products. Earlier, the maker of Tide detergent and Crest toothpaste began charging more for staples from diapers to toilet paper.
Biden’s commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, said Tuesday in a CNN interview it should not be “assumed” that there will be more price hikes, insisting “there are pockets of improvement already.”
Powell first fought in combat during the Vietnam War and rose through the military ranks to become the first Black national security adviser during the end of President Ronald Reagan’s second term. He was the first Black, and the youngest, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo
Oct. 18 (UPI) — Former Secretary of State and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell died on Monday due to complications from COVID-19, his family said. He was 84.
“General Colin L. Powell, former U.S. secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, passed away this morning due to complications from COVID-19,” they wrote. “We want to thank the medical staff at Walter Reed National Medical Center for their caring treatment.
“We have lost a remarkable and loving husband, father, grandfather and a great American.”
The family noted that he was fully vaccinated.
Powell first fought in combat during the Vietnam War and rose through the military ranks to become the first Black national security adviser during the end of President Ronald Reagan‘s second term. He was the first Black, and the youngest, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Powell became widely known in the United States following the first Gulf War in 1990. For a time during the 1990s he was often recruited to run for the Republican presidential nomination. He served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005.
‘Migrant Protection Protocols’ introduced in 2019 to help manage incoming illegal aliens
By Bob Unruh Published October 15, 2021 at 12:09pm
President Donald J. Trump walks along the completed 200th mile of new border wall Tuesday, June 23, 2020, along the U.S.-Mexico border near Yuma, Arizona. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)
President Biden used some of his important first hours in office last winter to try to undo President Trump’s largely successful efforts at shutting off the flow of illegal aliens coming into the U.S. across its southern border.
Besides halting plans to continue building physical barriers on the border, Biden dropped President Trump’s “remain-in-Mexico” policy through which those seeking asylum remained in Mexico until hearings before a U.S. immigration court.
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier ruled that was a decision Biden mishandled, and now the president is admitting defeat and plans to reinstate it.
The Daily Mail reports the actual result now will depend on approval from the Mexican government, which has raised some issues U.S. officials say they are trying to address.
“Mexico wants cases to generally conclude within six months and ensure that asylum-seekers have timely and accurate information about hearing dates and times and better access to legal counsel,” the report explained.
The report said Mexico also wants exemptions for “vulnerable populations.”
President Trump introduced what officially is known as “Migrant Protection Protocols” in 2019, and it has affected some 70,000 people who otherwise might have been released into the United States pending their court hearings.
Previously, a federal judge agreed with the states of Texas and Missouri who wanted the plan restored, and ordering the Biden administration to do that.
The judge, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, noted there are procedures that must be followed if Biden actually insists on ending the practice.
Mexico allowed the practice when Trump set it up, and he warned that there could be higher tariffs for a lack of cooperation.
What has followed Biden’s decision to scrap virtually all of President Trump’s border security efforts has been a crisis involving hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens drawn to the border by Biden’s changes.
The result has been border states – and even interior states – flooded with thousands of foreigners who have neither legal standing in the country nor ways to support themselves.
WND reported the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 6-3 decision, ordered the policy reinstated.
Fox News reported the court’s trio of liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – voted to side with the liberal Democrat president.
Missouri and Texas sued Biden over his changes, arguing that the way the policy changed was illegal and that it harmed both border and interior states by promoting illegal immigration.
The United States is in the midst of a “worldview crisis” that impacts every other issue facing the country today, researcher George Barna told a gathering of Christians in Leesburg, VA, on Thursday.
Barna, the senior research fellow for the Center for Biblical Worldview at the Family Research Council and the head of the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, pointed to research from this year showing that only 6 percent of American adults have a biblical worldview – even though 51 percent believe they do. The Cultural Research Center conducted the survey. Ninety-four percent of Americans don’t hold to a biblical worldview.
“A lot of people are walking around America today, self-deceived, about their worldview,” he said.
Barna made the comments during a presentation at Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand Summit while emphasizing that America’s worldview crisis is the “root crisis” of every other political, financial, societal and cultural crisis facing the nation.
“What America is struggling with the most is a worldview crisis,” Barna said. “… It’s the thing that drives all of these other difficulties that we have in America today.”
The worldview crisis, Barna said, has infiltrated the church, where only 21 percent of those who attend an evangelical church have a biblical worldview.
“Part of that relates to the fact that evangelical churches in America do not teach the Bible as often or as deeply as used to be the case,” Barna said.
The dominant worldview in America today is “syncretism,” which involves “picking and choosing” elements from other worldviews, Barna said. The result: Americans’ worldviews often include beliefs that conflict and contradict one another. All total, 88 percent of American adults hold to syncretism, according to data from Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center.
Most Americans, though, don’t realize they embrace a self-contradictory worldview, Barna said.
“We are a superficial nation. We’re more interested in doing than in thinking,” he said. “And so consequently, we’re always looking for the next thing that we need to be accomplishing, the next place we need to go, the next person we need to meet – without sitting down and reflecting on what really matters: What do I really believe?”
America’s worldview crisis, Barna said, must be solved if other problems are to be solved.
“If we don’t solve that crisis, trust me, we are not going to solve any of those other issues,” he said.