(A4e3d5) resistance to anti life laws

04-07-30 As of this date this folder contains 8 items. ******* item 1 ROE VERSUS WADE: 30 YEARS OF LIES ******* item 2 McCORVEY ASKS COURT TO OVERTURN ROE CASE ******* item 3 POLL SHOWS PUBLIC WANTS COURT NOMINEES' ABORTION VIEWS ******* item 4 MEDIA IGNORES CHANGE OF HEART BY ROE AND DOE ******* item 5 CORRECTED VERSION OF DEMERS PRESS RELEASE ******* item 6 BC COURT OF APPEAL HEARING OF DONALD SPRATT CASE FEBRUARY 2, 2004 ******* item 7 COURT TO HEAR "ROE'S" CHALLENGE TO 1973 RULING ******* item 8 PRO-LIFE GROUP CHALLENGES CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW'S ADVERTISING BAN ******************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 1 ROE VERSUS WADE: 30 YEARS OF LIES ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Focus on the Family; January 1, 2003 ******* by Tom Neven ******* [Pro-Life Infonet Note: Tom Neven is editor of Focus on the Family magazine.] ******* Hoist by your own petard -- an old literary expression that means blown up by your own bomb. In 1973 the ACLU and feminist lawyers dropped a bomb on American culture by asking the Supreme Court to legalize abortion on demand. But the two women they used as pawns are now doing something explosive -- trying to take their cases back to the Court to have them overturned. ******* And according to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there's nothing the pro-abortionists can do about it. Rule 60 states that "Upon such terms as are just, a motion can be made by a party and the judgment will be set aside." Basically, the plaintiffs say they know things now that they didn't know before, such as the fact that Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, were based upon lies, the fact of post-abortion trauma suffered by millions of women and the well-documented link between abortion and breast cancer. ******* Taken advantage of ******* Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, and Sandra Cano, the Mary Doe of Doe v. Bolton, are now pro-life Christians. While McCorvey's case was about abortion, even though she lied to her lawyers, Cano's was not remotely associated with the gruesome procedure. ******* In 1970 Cano was a homeless mother of three children who had been taken away. Cano approached the local legal-aid office seeking custody of her children and a divorce from her husband. What she received was something she never requested: the legal right to abort her child. ******* Cano admits she was young, uneducated and na�ve. "I never wanted an abortion. I just wanted my children back," she says. ******* Her legal-aid attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, however, filed the case under false pretenses. Cano says that either Hames forged her signature on the affidavit, or she slipped it in among other papers Cano was told to sign for her divorce. Cano never saw the affidavit that was filed with the Supreme Court, but she says unequivocally, "The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true." ******* "Before my court date, I was instructed not to say anything and just be there," Cano says. "This is the only time I ever made an appearance in court before the Doe decision -- and I never spoke a word." ******* The deception went further. Cano says that a TV interview was basically faked. "They set up the cameras facing my back, and then Margie did all the talking like she was me. It wasn't even my voice." ******* Years later, when Cano tried to have her court records unsealed, she was fought by, of all people, her former attorney, Hames. "At first I couldn't understand why; she knew it was me. But now I understand." ******* The affidavit said that she had applied for an abortion, had been turned down and had therefore sued the state of Georgia. "According to the records, I had applied for an abortion through a panel of nine doctors and nurses at [state-funded] Grady Memorial Hospital," she says. "This is a lie. I contacted the hospital and tried to get my records. At first they said they were there, but when my attorney sent for them, the records disappeared, if they ever really existed." ******* In fact, Cano was against abortion. When told she had "won" her court case, Cano says, "It was like a whole bunch of bricks were put on my shoulders, and it has been that way ever since. I never wanted an abortion. Regardless of the worst state of misery or depression, it would never cross my mind to take the life of a child." ******* Another pawn ******* In 1969 Norma McCorvey was a self-described hippie and often unhappy. "I'd been on the streets since I was 9 or 10," she says. "I often told my mother, 'I wish I could find the person who invented life. I'd slap 'em.' " ******* She was pregnant for the third time -- the second time out of wedlock -- and looked into getting an abortion. The illegal abortion clinic she was referred to was, in the mildest of terms, disgusting. ******* "There was dried blood all over the floor and on the side of this makeshift table," McCorvey says. "There was a grip hanging from the ceiling. I guess that's what the girls would hold on to. This was before they could give them anesthesia. I saw the conditions of the place and went outside to get ill." ******* Eventually, McCorvey was recommended to two young women fresh out of law school, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. She lied to them, saying she had been gang-raped. ******* "They said, 'Well, you know, women have the right to vote,' " McCorvey says. "I'm sitting there and thinking, Well, I may live part time in the streets and part time at my dad's, but I'm not stupid, okay? They were treating me like I was stupid, and I resented that. ******* "Then they said, 'Well, Norma, don't you think women should have rights to their own reproductive organs?' And I'm going, like, yeah. I wasn't real sure what they were talking about, but then you have to understand that I stayed stoned a lot." ******* They told McCorvey that the case was only about Texas' abortion laws. (Ironically, because the case dragged out in the courts, McCorvey never got an abortion. She gave up the baby for adoption.) When she found out that the case had gone all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in legalizing abortion in all 50 states, she was stunned. ******* "I sat in the dining room that night and just kept rereading the newspaper story and drinking -- drinking and thinking," she says. "It made me sad to know that my name, even though it was a pseudonym, would always be connected to the death of children." ******* McCorvey got a straight razor and started cutting her wrists a little at a time. "That didn't work, so I went out and I got as many pills as I could. I took all of them and chased it with a quart of Johnny Walker, thinking I would die, and I wouldn't ever have to talk to Sarah Weddington or Linda Coffee again. But that was not God's plan for me." ******* Silent no more ******* Both women now are in a position to take away some of that shame, particularly since McCorvey became a Christian in the mid-1990s and Cano two years ago. With the help of the Texas Justice Foundation, they are asking the Supreme Court to rehear their cases. (The Foundation is also representing Donna Santa Marie, a 16-year-old girl whose parents forced her to get an abortion -- after her father allegedly punched her in the stomach to try to induce a miscarriage.) ******* Allan Parker, president of the Foundation, says, "They were willing to listen to Norma the first time; they ought to be willing to listen to her again." ******* He is launching a three-phased strategy called Operation Outcry: Silent No More. (See http://www.HelpAfterAbortion.com) ******* "We have filed a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of Norma and Sandra, and thousands of women who have signed our Friend of the Court form, saying they don't agree with Roe v. Wade." ******* In Parker's second phase of litigation, he has sued the Texas Department of Health for not adequately protecting women's health as it relates to abortion. "While this suit can't overturn Roe v. Wade, we want women to be told, 'This is a human life that you're taking. You still have the choice under Roe, but you may suffer severe psychological consequences.' " ******* The third phase of Operation Outcry will be filing the motion to reopen Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, based on the fact that false testimonies were used in both. "I believe that the Supreme Court will take and hear the case," Parker says. "It's a unique, historic opportunity in America where two people who won landmark Supreme Court decisions want to go back." ******* --- Silent No More is a campaign to raise awareness about the negative after-affects of abortion and we need your help! SNM invites women who regret their abortion to participate in events being planned at state capitols and in Washington DC. during the week of January 18th - 25th. Carry a sign, share your testimony, meet one another and help us tell the nation the truth about abortion. SNM needs your voice to be heard to help other hurting women. Register on-line at http://www.HelpAfterAbortion.com or call 800-707-6635 ************************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 2 McCORVEY ASKS COURT TO OVERTURN ROE CASE ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: Pro-Life Infonet; June 17, 2003 ******* Dallas, TX -- Norma McCorvey recanted from her pro-abortion position and quit a job at an abortion facility years ago. Today, the former "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, officially asked a court to begin the process of overturning the infamous Supreme Court bearing her name that legalized abortion. ******* At a press conference Tuesday in Dallas, McCorvey says she regrets her role in the case and is saddened that she was used by aggressive pro-abortion attorneys who wanted more to make abortion legal than to help her with an unexpected pregnancy. ******* "We're getting our babies back,'' a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference along with about 60 women who have had abortions. The expressed their regret at their decisions and held signs that read "I regret my abortion.'' ******* "I want to thank all the wonderful women that are standing here. I'm so sorry that I filed that affidavit [for the Roe case]," McCorvey said. "I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all these deaths will be removed from my shoulders." ******* Allen Parker, the head of the Texas Justice Foundation, a pro-life legal group based in Texas, said he knows of no other major Supreme Court case where the lead plaintiff has asked for the ruling to be overturned. ******* "I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong,'' said Parker. ******* Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt said her group doesn't view the case as a threat to the Roe decision. ******* "We don't expect the court to take it seriously. And the reason is because it was a good decision," she told Reuters. "Roe v. Wade enabled women to participate in the social, financial and political life of this country." ******* The Texas Justice Foundation filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The group represents McCorvey and has more than 1,000 affidavits from women who regret their decisions to have an abortion. ******* Parker said the Supreme Court in 1973 had too little evidence about abortion's negative impact on women's physical and emotional health. The petition includes more than 5,400 pages of evidence. ******* The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion. If the motion is granted, it could pave the way to having the case heard by the Supreme Court. ******* McCorvey was 21-years-old and pregnant for the third time when she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' pro-life statute that prohibited abortion unless necessary to save the life of the mother. The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980. ************************************************************************************************************************* item 3 ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Subject: POLL SHOWS PUBLIC WANTS COURT NOMINEES' ABORTION VIEWS ******* Source: ABC News; June 19, 2003 ******* Washington, DC -- Pro-life and pro-abortion Americans want to know the same thing: Three-quarters in both groups say any nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court should disclose his or her position on abortion before the Senate holds a confirmation vote. ******* As far as what that position should be, the issue remains a divisive one: 50 percent of Americans want a nominee who favors legal abortion, while 43 percent want the next justice to oppose it. No information was provided as to the wording of the question. ******* There's been speculation recently that one or more members of the nine-member court might retire in the next few weeks or months, at the end of its current term. ******* Seventy-three percent of Americans say the next nominee should disclose his or her position about abortion. That includes 75 percent of those who say abortion should be generally legal, and 73 percent of those who say it should be generally illegal. ******* Support for disclosure is broad, including majorities across age, income and education categories. And 57 percent feel strongly about it, including roughly equal numbers of people who favor legal abortion and who oppose it. ******* As noted, 50 percent of Americans say the next nominee should favor legal abortion in all or most cases, while 43 percent say the opposite. Most such views are firm: 69 percent of Americans feel strongly about it, including equal numbers of abortion supporters and opponents. ******* There's a slight difference between the sexes 52 percent of women want a nominee who's generally in favor of legal abortion, compared with 47 percent of men. About 43 percent in both groups want one who's opposed. ******* There's a little greater intensity of feeling on the pro-abortion side among women than among men 37 percent of women "strongly" prefer a nominee who favors legal abortion, compared with 31 percent of men. About the same number of women and men (33 percent and 36 percent respectively) strongly prefer an abortion opponent. ******* Preference for a pro-life nominee runs highest among political conservatives (63 percent), evangelical white Protestants (59 percent) and Republicans (58 percent, including roughly equal numbers of men and women). ******* Preference for a nominee who supports legal abortion is highest among liberals, Democrats and the nonreligious. ******* This ABCNEWS poll was conducted by telephone June 11-15 among a random national sample of 1,029 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation were done by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa. ******* -- We make it easy for you to contribute to the Pro-Life Infonet using your credit card. Point your web browser to https://secure.entango.com/donate/pE6bLWyec4s to make a donation online. ******* To make a contribution via PayPal, email [email protected] for details. ************************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 4 MEDIA IGNORES CHANGE OF HEART BY ROE AND DOE ******* Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 03:12:21 EDT ******* Subject: LifeNews.com Report 9/1/03 #3056 ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" ******* For news updated throughout the day, visit www.LifeNews.com ******* by Kathleen Parker ******* What if the women who helped make abortion-on-demand the law of the land changed their minds? They did. And what if no one cared? Apparently, no one does. Or so one might surmise from the media's inattention to the latest motion filed in federal court seeking to set aside the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 abortion ruling, a reversal of which would return abortion jurisdiction to states. On Monday, Sandra Cano -- "Mary Doe" in the U.S. Supreme Court Doe vs. Bolton abortion case, which was a companion case to the more-famous Roe vs. Wade -- filed a motion in Georgia to vacate the court's ruling. Like Norma McCorvey of Roe vs. Wade, Cano says she regrets her role in helping legalize abortion and wants to "right a wrong." McCorvey filed a similar motion in Texas in June. Her case, which included some 5,400 pages of evidence, was thrown out by the district court within 48 hours, but has been appealed to the 5th Circuit Federal Court. The judge must have been a fast reader. Despite the enormous importance of Cano's motion, the mainstream media have largely ignored it. http://www.lifenews.com/oped13.html ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 5 CORRECTED VERSION OF DEMERS PRESS RELEASE ******* From: "John Hof" ******* Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:03:11 -0700 ******* ITEM: Supreme Court Nixes Bubble Zone Appeal ******* Langley, BC: The Supreme Court of Canada decided it will not hear the appeal of a lower court conviction under British Columbia�s notorious Bubble Zone Legislation. Seven years ago James Roger Demers, a Nelson BC carpenter, held a sign at the entrance to the notorious Every Woman�s abortion clinic in Vancouver. It quoted a United Nations human rights treaty, guaranteeing the inherent right to life of every human being. After observing him for four days, police eventually charged him with breaching the Bubble Zone that forbids any opposition to abortion from being expressed within 50 metres of the abortion facility. ******* John Hof, president of Campaign Life Coalition BC, commenting on this case stated, "The Supreme Court has frequently been accused of being �activist� and making decisions contrary to the wishes of the people of Canada. Today we have a cowardly Supreme Court, afraid to even hear a case that clearly violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." ******* He explained that the lower court decisions on Mr. Demers stated clearly that the case should ultimately be decided by the highest court in the land. "Today that court has abandoned its� responsibility and literally washed its� hands. Freedom of speech is one victim in this case and we have grave concerns for that freedom when some future government decides to crush other "unpopular" opinion," he said. "The other victims will be the thousands of children who will die because no one was allowed to speak for them as the took their final journey into the abortion facility." ******* For further information please call ******* Jim Demers directly at 250-354-9832 (cell) or ******* John Hof at 604-534-4828 or via email at [email protected] ******* For Life, John Hof ******* Campaign Life Coalition BC 4511 Southridge Cr. Langley, BC V3A 4N7 ******* Ph. (604) 534-4828 ******* Fax. (604) 532-9353 ******* email: [email protected] www.clcbc.org ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 6 BC COURT OF APPEAL HEARING OF DONALD SPRATT CASE FEBRUARY 2, 2004 ******* From: "Donald Spratt" ******* To: "Spratt, Donald" ******* Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:26:06 -0800 ******* Dear friends, supporters and interested parties: ******* I'm sending you a short update, below (which I recently sent to the Christian Legal Foundation), regarding my constitutional challenge of the Access to Abortion Services Act, better known as the BC "bubble zone law". ******* As you know, cases move exceedingly slowly through the courts, so there really isn't much new news to report, yet. ******* The very good news is that two talented, freedom loving lawyers, Ron McDonald and Mr. Scott Stenbeck of Lethbridge, AB, have taken up this constitutional case, in defence of life and liberty. ******* On a more personal note, Gloria and I are in New Westminster, where she is still working for Safeway (seeking a transfer to the Dawson Creek store) and I'm in a physiotherapy program for my injured right arm. My bicep tendon snapped off at the elbow on August 2nd, while lifting a patient. I work for the BC Ambulance Service in Tumbler Ridge. It required surgery to repair, and I've been off work ever since. We hope to be residing in Tumbler Ridge full time soon. ******* For further information, you may reach me here in New Westminster at 604-522-4054. ******* Our Tumbler Ridge phone and fax number is 250-242-3000. ******* My main email address is [email protected] ******* Below is an update, followed by an brief overview of the case. ******* Blessings! ******* Don Spratt ********************** Ron McDonald flew to Vancouver (from his home in Lethbridge, AB) for a chambers hearing before the BC Court of Appeal on September 30th. At that hearing, a date was set for a further hearing to be held on February 2, 1004, regarding an application for "leave to appeal." ******* Before Mr. Ron McDonald and Mr. Scott Stenbeck took up the case, there had been all kinds of confusion on my part (and it seems on the part of the registrars office as well) regarding whether I should be filing "notice of appeal" or "notice for leave to appeal". Consequently, they had me file about five different sets of papers (they kept sending me more) before they seemed satisfied that I had finally used the correct forms. No one seemed sure if my appeal was automatic or if I needed to file for "leave to appeal." I needed a lawyer! ******* After contacting Ruth Ross, Executive Director of The Christian Legal Fellowship, and sending in a brief about the case, which she sent out to the membership, lawyers Ron McDonald and Scott Stenbeck of Lethbridge, Alberta came to the rescue. It felt like they lifted a thousand pounds off my shoulders, and I am so grateful! ******* After the September 30th hearing, Mr. McDonald seemed confident that leave to appeal will be granted. However, the result is yet another delay. ******* It was good to meet with Mr. McDonald on that morning and discuss the case face to face for the first time. I am so very thankful that these two accomplished and dedicated freedom loving lawyers have answered the call and stepped up to defend life and liberty for all Canadians, pro bono. ******* However, they need our prayerful support. Any tangible support to cover court and travel costs would be greatly appreciated. ******* If you would like a tax deductible receipt, please make your cheque out to "LIBERATION" and write "Don Spratt legal fund" on the memo line. Please send it to: ******* Liberation,Box 130, Tumbler Ridge, BC, V0C 2W0 ******* Below is a brief overview of this constitutional challenge to the Access to Abortion Services Act: ******* On December 17, 1998 Mr. Spratt carried a cross, a sign quoting the biblical commandment "You shall not murder" and, after being approached by staff, he offered salvation on the basis of repentance from sin (which is preaching the gospel), without any reference to abortion. Mr. Spratt was arrested and later convicted of "protest" and "sidewalk interference" (check out the definition at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/A/96001_01.htm). The Supreme court of BC upheld the lower court decision that in part said "The Access to Abortion Services Act does violate the rights guaranteed by sections 2(a) and (b) of the Charter of Rights. The Act does not violate the rights guaranteed by sections 3, 7, 9 or 15 of the Charter. Under s. 1 of the Charter, the limits imposed by the Act upon the rights guaranteed under ss. 2(a) and (b) of the Charter are reasonable limits that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." ******* Mr. Spratt contends that these limits are not demonstrably justified and that the legislation is ultra vires because in all but its attacks on freedom of _expression and religion, it shadows criminal code law and therefore infringes upon exclusive federal powers, in an attempt to lend legitimacy to what is a veiled attack on historic constitutional and pre-Charter Canadian liberties. He also contends that "these infringements of our Charter rights and contortions in reasoning are the direct result of legislatures and the courts refusing to recognize the obvious scientifically proven personhood and humanity of the pre-born in law. This is reminiscent of the Fugitive Slave Act, a perversion of law by a government heavily invested in slavery and willingly blind to the obvious personhood of African slaves. This dehumanizing tactic of legal sophistry perpetrated against one group always leads to further tyranny against their defenders, and brings the law into disrepute, such as in the Dred Scott decision." ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 7 COURT TO HEAR "ROE'S" CHALLENGE TO 1973 RULING ******* From: [email protected] ******* Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:31:35 EST ******* MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH ******* Panel will consider motion to reverse landmark abortion decision -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******* � 2004 WorldNetDaily.com ******* In a move hailed as a breakthrough by abortion opponents, a federal appeals court agreed to hear oral arguments in an attempt by the original plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade to overturn the landmark decision. ******* Norma McCorvey ******* Norma McCorvey – "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case – wants to reopen the case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion, based on changes in law and new scientific research that make the prior decision "no longer just." ******* As WorldNet Daily reported, a district court ruled it was too late for McCorvey to reopen the case. ******* "Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Dallas Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment." ******* However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments March 2. ******* The Dallas-based Justice Foundation, which is assisting McCorvey, is asking organizations and individuals to participate in 21 days of prayer and fasting for the case, beginning this past Thursday. ******* The group said Sandra Cano, plaintiff in the Doe vs. Bolton companion case, has requested that case be overturned as well. ******* Allan Parker, CEO of the Justice Foundation, said the court's decision to hear oral arguments is "quite a breakthrough," since only about 10 percent of cases filed receive oral arguments and the state of Texas is not opposing the case. ******* McCorvey's attorneys will be the only attorneys arguing, since neither the state nor the district attorney have filed briefs in the case. ******* "There are several issues before the court," Parker said, "whether Roe versus Wade should be overturned; whether to grant the motion based on the evidence that was submitted with the motion; or send the case back to a trial court for a trial; and whether a single judge or a three-judge panel should have heard the case at the trial court level." ******* Last June, Parker contended Judge Godbey misunderstood the motion, arguing the case is about changes in the relevant factual conditions, not a submission of new evidence. ******* One of the most relevant changes in law, he says, is the 1999 "Baby Moses" statute which allows a mother to hand over her child to the care of the state, meaning she no longer is forced to dispose of "unwanted" children by ending a human life. ******* Texas is among 40 states with such legislation, which didn't exist in 1973, Parker notes. ******** Among McCorvey's 5,437 pages of evidence are affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects. ******* "It's a shame that the courts are unwilling to listen to women's testimonies about what abortion does to women," he said. ******* Parker also contended Godbey made an error in his determination of what is a reasonable time within which to reopen a case. ******* Godbey said court opinions are measured in terms of weeks or months, not in decades. ******* But Parker points to the 1997 Agostini v. Felton decision in which the high court used a post-judgment motion by a party to overturn two 12-year-old precedents. ******* McCorvey announced in 1995 she had become a Christian and later launched a pro-life ministry called Roe No More. She told WorldNetDaily two years ago she was "used" by abortion-rights attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure. ******* One of her attorneys in the 1973 case, Sarah Weddington, expressed delight but not surprise at Godbey's decision last June. ******* "It never should have been filed," Weddington told the AP at the time. "Those who filed it got publicity but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved." ******* After announcement of the motion, she received about two dozen offers to help defend the Roe vs. Wade decision. ******* In his plea issued this week, Parker said, "Please continue to pray that the Lord's will be done, for a spirit of justice for the judges, for God's perfect timing, the demonstration of God's mighty power, and that the covenant with death be annulled, the agreement with the grave will not stand." *********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 8 PRO-LIFE GROUP CHALLENGES CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW'S ADVERTISING BAN ******* Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) ******* Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" ******* Madison, WI (LifeNews.com) -- Wisconsin Right to Life has filed a legal challenge to a provision of the controversial McCain-Feingold campaign law, claiming that its ban on certain advertising violates freedom of speech. "Now is the time for organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life to challenge a law that we believe infringes on United States citizens' First Amendment right of freedom of speech," Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said. "The broadcast ban wrongly restricts citizens' ability to learn about and influence on an upcoming vote in Congress," Lyons added. Wisconsin Right to Life argues that the ads do not represent "electioneering," but "constitute bona fide grassroots lobbying." In its suit, Wisconsin Right to Life says it should be allowed to run ads asking Wisconsin residents to contact Wisconsin senators Russell Feingold and Herbert Kohl and urge them to oppose the filibustering of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. *******************************************************************************************************************

Links to other sites on the Web

(A4e3d5b) Campaign Life Coalition Canada web site
(A4e3d5a) Campaign Life Coalition British Columbia web site
(A4e3d5f) (A) home page

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***