Censorship of Student Protest Leads to Lawsuit

Bravo to the 13-year-old Arizona student who sued his principal for violating the teen’s First Amendment rights when he tried to protest abortion on the school campus.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Arizona, have filed a complaint against Shenendehowa Central School District officials and Gowana Middle School’s principal on behalf of a student barred from expressing pro-life views during the national Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity, which is organized by the Stand True ministry of Fredericksburg, Virginia.

The student is asking for a jury trial and permission to hold another silent protest and leaflet campaign at the school on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade court decision.

At school, the teen and two other students wore anti-abortion T-shirts, handed out flyers and wore red tape with the word LIFE across their mouths. Through court documents, they allege the school’s action against them was “humiliating and discriminatory.”

For example, in a school-wide announcement, the principal demanded that students who received a flier forfeit them to school officials. She allowed the student to remain silent, but prohibited him from telling anyone why, and forced him to remove a piece of red tape from his mouth that read “Life.” The principal allegedly said, “Students shouldn’t be thinking about issues like that at your age.” School officials had previously allowed students to engage in free expression on other controversial social issues.

At least a week before the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity was scheduled to take place, the mother of the pro-life student phoned the school district’s superintendent and spoke to a representative about her son’s plans. She left her name and phone number, but was not informed that the event violated any school or district policy.

“The First Amendment does not give school officials authority to pick and choose which speech is allowable and which is not,” said Pastor Parsley. “If a 13-year-old is mature enough to participate in sexual education courses, he certainly should be given the opportunity to express the biblical perspective on the subject.”

Students do not abandon their free speech rights when they step on school property. Frankly, the school’s actions were egregious. Young people should be encouraged to take a stand for righteousness.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Fetal Pain Bill Fails in House

As the 109th Congress concluded last week, Bible believers endured a setback in their battle to protect the sanctity of unborn life. The U.S. House of Representatives failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed for passage of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

The legislation would have required that women undergoing an abortion at least 20 weeks into their pregnancy be informed that an abortion causes pain to their unborn babies. The vote in the House was 250-162 in favor of a move to suspend the rules and pass the legislation. A two-thirds majority was needed for such a procedural move.

Sadly, the vote was the last on a pro-life measure in the 109th Congress. It should be reassuring that 60 percent of the House endorsed the requirement for abortionists to inform women that the procedure may be very painful to the unborn child. Unfortunately, 60 percent support was not enough to make disclosing this critical knowledge a matter of law. The fact that it failed does not bode well for what can be expected next year, when the Congress moves in a new direction – away from life.

“Even animals that are to be slaughtered are first rendered unconscious,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “Yet that same provision is not being afforded to unborn children.”

During floor debate on the bill, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., its chief sponsor, cited expert testimony showing that unborn children have “a developed system of pain perception and response” by 20 to 22 weeks into the pregnancy.

It’s a shame that 40 percent of the men and women representing America in the House of Representatives could not put themselves in the place of those little unborn children who have no voice, no hope and no defense.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

CBS Should Quit Whining and Pay Up

On Nov. 13, CBS filed a formal appeal against a Federal Communications Commission ruling that it had broken the indecency standards by broadcasting the vulgar Super Bowl half-time show in 2004. That was the prime-time “wardrobe malfunction,” which resulted in a bare shot of Janet Jackson airing briefly.

On behalf of 20 affiliate stations in its appeal, the network argued that it had done nothing wrong by broadcasting “an unscripted, unauthorized and unintended long-distance shot of Ms. Jackson’s breast for nine-sixteenths of one second.”
That was nine-sixteenths of a second too long. The FCC is correct to insist that there should be some limits on what can be shown on television when children are likely to be watching.

“The disgusting display in the star-studded lollapalooza in Super Bowl XXXVIII was little more than razzle-dazzle pornography,” said Pastor Rod Parsley, founder and president of the Center for Moral Clarity. “It was viciously defiling and completely inappropriate for television.”

The networks have an obligation to viewers. That commitment was not fulfilled, and the corporation’s weak apology that the nudity was unintentional was insufficient. The network must be the gatekeeper ensuring that offensive material stays off the air.

Consider that singers Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were performing a duet of Timberlake’s song “Rock Your Body.” As the title implies, the song featured many suggestive dance moves by both Timberlake and Jackson. The content alone was inappropriate and opened the door for regrettable circumstances.

As the song reached the final line, “I’m gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” Timberlake pulled off a part of Jackson’s costume, exposing flesh not suitable for the family room. CBS immediately cut to an aerial view of the stadium, but the “malfunction” had already been broadcast.

The FCC had ordered CBS pay a fine of $550,000, an amount that represented the maximum fine at the time of $27,500 against each of the stations. A 30-second advertising spot during the Super Bowl costs $1.5 million. So the fine amounts to barely a slap on the wrist. Congress recently increased the minimum penalty substantially to $325,000 per incident.

This should have sent the broadcasters a message that decent Americans are taking the matter seriously. The FCC is right in looking out for the interests of families – as well as common decency – by fining networks over obscenities. The Jackson incident prompted thousands of calls from outraged viewers, and certainly had no place on a family friendly, internationally-televised sports event.

In its 76-page brief, CBS focused on two main points: One, that the FCC had erratically abandoned its long-time standard that “any fleeting, isolated, or unintended” images are not automatically indecent. And two, that the network as a whole shouldn’t be punished for the actions of undisciplined celebrities in a publicity stunt.

The network also emphasized that the FCC “failed to turn up even a shred of evidence that anyone at CBS participated” in the incident. In a short statement accompanying the appeal, CBS said that it is “seeking a return to the FCC’s previous time-honored practice of more measured indecency enforcement . . .”

A concept of “measured indecency” does not set well with moms and dads trying to raise healthy families. Indecency falls in the “zero tolerance” category. CBS is ignoring the voices of millions of Americans, Congress and the Commission by insisting Janet Jackson’s half-time performance was not indecent. CBS believes there should be no limits on what can be shown on television even during family viewing events like the Super Bowl. The network is wrong.

If the FCC fails to endorse indecency standards, who will?

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Once Again, Liberal Judge Overrules Voters

A day after the Nov. 7 election, a federal judge showed America the value of voters’ wishes by blocking enforcement of a ballot measure designed to crack down on sex offenders. The judge ruled the law was unconstitutional even though voters overwhelmingly approved it.

The so-called Jessica’s Law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, effectively banning parolees from many California communities. It also requires lifetime satellite tracking for some paroled sex criminals upon their release from prison.

More than 70 percent of voters approved the initiative at the ballot box. Just hours after the results were announced, an unidentified sex offender filed a lawsuit, arguing that the measure should apply only to offenders who register after the law was approved.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the measure “is punitive by design and effect” and probably unconstitutional. She issued a temporary restraining order against the law’s residency requirements, saying the plaintiff was likely to prevail. The judge also ordered a hearing scheduled for Nov. 27.

According to the lawsuit, the new law effectively banishes a sex offender “from his home and community for a crime he committed, and paid his debt for, long ago. It is Christian nature to forgive. Forgetting, however, is another matter.

The Center for Moral Clarity commends Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who said the state would defend the law. Research on sex offenders has proven the need for such restrictions, and the will of the people ought to prevail. After all, the law was named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and killed last year by a convicted sex offender.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Time’s Running Out! Sign the PBA Petition Today.

In less than two weeks, on Nov. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments supporting and opposing the federal ban on partial birth abortions. Then the nine justices will decide once and for all if the 2003 federal law banning partial-birth abortion is constitutional.
Click here to sign the CMC petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Partial-birth abortion is nothing more than the torture and murder of innocent babies. The Center for Moral Clarity wants to let the court know how strongly Americans oppose this procedure. Congress enacted the ban, and the President of the United States signed it into law. Now is the time for all of God’s people to make their voices heard.

This case is about public policy, and which branch of government is charged with crafting that policy for the nation. The Center for Moral Clarity firmly believes that American citizens, through their elected representatives in Congress, are the rightful vessels of power to determine public policy decisions. Part of CMC’s mission is to be a voice for Christians on such matters. That’s why CMC submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the ban. Here is an excerpt from that brief:

The American system of government is dependent upon the proper role of its branches. The Legislative body is the policy-making body, making difficult policy decisions for the country after extensive deliberation, debate, and analysis in representing the people. As the Founders of this country and centuries of American jurisprudence attest, the Legislature is in a much better position to serve this role than the Courts. In fact, when a court oversteps into policymaking, it directly restricts the liberty and freedom of The People and their representative body – Congress.

Partial-birth abortion is a deep public policy issue involving many complex issues of life and death, medicine, psychology, societal impacts, and increased callousness, among many other concerns. Congress can properly and fully consider such concerns, in public and through the exchange of ideas. It is their role.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net