In this article, Herb Titus explains the legal proposition that the First Amendment prevents the government from forcing individuals to promote a message with which they do not agree.
The story is told of a grizzled Master Sargent who, reflecting on his years of service, said: “When I joined up, homosexuality was prohibited; now it’s tolerated; and I darn sure am getting out before it’s mandatory.” So it is with respect to homosexual and abortion rights. First, the goal is said to be tolerance. Then, governmental approval and support. Lastly, any pretense of tolerance
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Personhood Oklahoma v. Brittany Mays Barber, et al. in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari.
By striking the proposed initiative amending the Oklahoma constitution by defining “person” as it appears in the state constitution, the court below misused Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Leaders of the pro-life movement in America commonly believe that the only constitutionally sound strategy for restoring the right to life is to take action at the national level. Thus, they have urged the election of pro-life presidents and members of Congress to secure the appointment of pro-life Supreme Court justices, and if necessary, a pro-life amendment to the United States Constitution.
Today, the Supreme Court of North Dakota unanimously reversed a Cass County District Court order that would have dismantled and reconstituted the board of directors of Family Life Services, a Christian pro-life ministry in the Fargo-Morehead community. North Dakota’s high court ruled that the lower court’s order turning Family Life Services over to persons whose religious views met with
Our firm was retained as appellate counsel for a nonprofit, pro-life organization under attack by the Attorney General of North Dakota.
This brief explains the circumstances of the case, as well as the statutory and constitutional issues involved in overreaching by the Attorney General and the North Dakota trial court.
Today our firm filed a Brief for Appellants explaining how the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act violates the First Amendment.
- Page 2 of 2