US District Judge Sam Sparks blocks Texas fetal remains burial rule.
Relevant here, the Supreme Court previously addressed the close relationship between belief and state action in the abortion context: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Casey, 505 U.S. at 851. Although it concluded a state may limit abortion in some circumstances, the Supreme Court stressed it "is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role" and a woman's motherhood decisions "must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society." Id. at 852. On that basis, for more than forty years it has been settled constitutional law that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's basic right to choose an abortion. Jackson Women Health Org., 760 F.3d at 453 (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)). Although a state may regulate a woman's right to an abortion in a manner "consistent with that state's interest in protecting potential life and the health of the mother[,]" it may not impose an "undue burden" on that right. Id. (citing Casey, 505 U.S. at 846). If a statute has "the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice[,]" then it "cannot be considered a permissible means of serv[ice]" even if it furthers a valid state interest. Id. (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 877) (internal quotation omitted).
Richard Branson on meeting Donald Trump
Some years ago, Mr Trump invited me to lunch for a one-to-one meeting at his apartment in Manhattan. We had not met before and I accepted. Even before the starters arrived he began telling me about how he had asked a number of people for help after his latest bankruptcy and how five of them were unwilling to help. He told me he was going to spend the rest of his life destroying these five people.
After Trump's executive order, green card visa holders blocked at airports. Again, the nations targeted are the ones the US bombs or has bombed.
So Trump attacking the media again looks petulant and old school AND like he doesn't believe in freedom of the press. He should be ridiculed, ignored and the press should double down.
Trump told the Mexican president he's going to stop talking about Mexico paying for the wall.
“The concession was detailed in the joint U.S.-Mexico statement after the two leaders had an hour-long phone call, but not in the White House’s version. A White House official said Mr. Trump did indeed agree to stop talking publicly about Mexico paying for the wall, which was one of his most oft-repeated lines that rallied his supporters during the 2016 campaign.”
Democrats weakness- Brains and Eggs.
Baylor University sued-gang rape
Spain's drought reveals lost worlds
Oops. White House was promoting Melania Trump's jewelry
Trump's Divisive "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" that bigot-style, excludes people.
Re: Typo in National Day of Patriotic Devotion?
Dear Mr. Trump:
We are writing on behalf of the more than 26,000 nonreligious members — and growing — of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which works to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.
We observed what appears to be a mistake in your recent proclamation designating the date of January 20 in future as a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion." This proclamation states that there is "no peace where the people do not pray for it." We're sure you intended to say there is "no peace where the people do not work for it." It's self-evident that nothing fails like prayer. We also are sure you would not write a proclamation saying "We are one people . . .", then add language excluding the 80 million American citizens who are nonreligious. Such wording would appear to 0ly equate patriotism with piety, thereby turning believers into insiders and nonbelievers into outsiders.
Religion in government, of course, is not a source of peace, but rather of division and worse. The framers of our godless Constitution, aware of the history of warfare, inquisitions and persecution in the 'Old World' and in many of the original colonies, wisely wanted no part of religion in our government. As a Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin sagely noted:
"There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed . . . Those who made our Constitution saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to prevent such a catastrophe."
—Justice H.S. Orton of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, concurring opinion in Weiss v. the District Board, decided on March 18, 1890
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor