This article discusses our brief in Zubik v. Burwell & Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
Zubik v. Burwell
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell
Today our firm filed a brief supporting a challenge to the contraceptive/abortifacient imposed by Obamacare. Our brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to expand the scope of its review, which is now narrowly limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) issue, to also include the First Amendment issue.
The brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Eberle Communications
Article: Judge Orders Pro-Lifers to Promote Abortion
Herb Titus was quoted in this article about an order from U.S. District
Judge Jeffrey White that would require pro-life centers to post a sign
promoting the state’s abortion services.
Article: New Law Forces Pro-Life Clinics To Promote Abortion
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.
Article: California Forces Christians to Disobey Own Beliefs
Herb Titus was quoted in World Net Daily Article on California law which seeks to order faith-based organizations to refer women to abortionists.
Obamacare Contraception/Abortion Services Mandate Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief
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
Herbert W. Titus, Abortion is NOT Legal!
Herb Titus co-authored this article in 2012 — Abortion is NOT Legal!
Personhood Oklahoma v. Brittany Mays Barber, et al. Amicus Brief for Joyce Meyer Ministries, et al. in the United States Supreme Court
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
Herb Titus Testifies before South Carolina Legislature on Right to Life
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.
State of North Dakota v. Family Life Services, Inc., et al. (Opinion)
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
State of North Dakota v. Family Life Services, Inc., et al. (Reply Brief)
The Attorney General of North Dakota filed a responsive brief to our initial brief in this case. Our firm filed this reply brief to the Attorney Gerneral’s brief.
The statement of the issues in this case from the various parties are also available here.
State of North Dakota v. Family Life Services, Inc., et al.
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.
Joyce Woodall & Concerned Women for America v. Janet Reno
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
- 1
- 2