Statements by James Baker

Statements by James Baker 11/21/00

 Text of statement by former Secretary of State James Baker regarding Tuesday's decision by the Florida Supreme Court extending the state's deadline for accepting vote tallies. Transcription provided by eMediaMillWorks, Inc.:   –––  Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  At Monday's oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court, Justice Harding asked a key question about Florida's electoral laws and standards. He said, "Is it right to change the rules in the middle of the game?"  The Florida Supreme Court and some Democratic county electoral boards have decided to do just that. In keeping with Section 4 of Article II of the United States Constitution, Florida's legislature enacted a detailed statutory system for voting, for recounting, and for certifying results of elections. This statutory system reflects careful decisions about the separation of powers among various branches of government. It also strikes a balance between Florida's interests in achieving finality, and in permitting multiple recounts by various methods.  Today, Florida's Supreme Court rewrote the legislature's statutory system, assumed the responsibilities of the executive branch, and sidestepped the opinion of the trial court as the finder of fact.  Two weeks after the election, that court has changed the rules, and has invented a new system for counting the election results. So one should not now be surprised if the Florida legislature seeks to affirm the original rules.  In addition, the Gore campaign is working to try to change the counting rules and standards in the three counties that are still manually recounting so as to overcome Governor Bush's continuing lead after all of the counts and recounts.  Statistical experts have indicated that, based on the results so far, unless the counting standards are changed, there won't be enough votes to overcome Governor Bush's lead. So they now argue that a punch card vote should count even if there appears to be only an indentation.  This is, of course, is the famous dimpled chad.  And at least one of the Democratic-controlled county election boards has already decided to use this new standard and the others are considering it.  No hole in the ballot is necessary, not even one loose corner is necessary, not even seeing any light through the ballot is necessary. Even if a voter decided not to make a choice because he or she could not decide between two closely competitive candidates, the Democratic county election boards can divine a choice based on an apparent indentation.  This new standard for manual recounts directly contradicts a guideline issued on November 2, 1990, by Theresa LePore, the Democratic supervisor of elections for Palm Beach County. In that statement, Ms. LePore wrote, and I quote, "but a chad that is fully attached, bearing only an indention, should not be counted as a vote," close quote.  All of this is unfair and unacceptable. It is not fair to change the election laws of Florida by judicial fiat after the election has been held. It is not fair to change the rules and standards governing the counting or recounting of votes after it appears that one side has concluded that is the only way to get the votes it needs. And it is also not fair to refuse the count, even once, the ballots of many of our servicemen and women overseas. It is simply not fair, ladies and gentlemen, to change the rules, either in the middle of the game, or after the game has been played.  Therefore we intend to examine and consider whatever remedies we may have to correct this unjust result.  QUESTION: Secretary Baker, first of all, can you be more specific about what the Bush team might do now in the way of an appeal or some other challenge? And second of all, when you alluded to the Florida legislature, what relief would you seek from the Florida legislature?  BAKER: Well, I'm not suggesting that we are seeking relief – (that) we've made a decision to seek relief from the Florida legislature. But it does occur to me that the Supreme Court has pretty well rewritten the Florida electoral code even though they disclaim, in the opinion, that they intend to do so. And so I would not be surprised to see the legislature want to, perhaps, take action to get back to the original statutory provisions that were in place initially.  I cannot tell you specifically tonight what additional actions Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney might authorize.  There are some actions that we can take. And as I indicated in my statement, I think it's incumbent upon us to consider and examine whatever remedies are available to us to reverse what we consider to be an unjust result.  Yes?  QUESTION: If the legislature...  BAKER: Just a minute; I've got a question right here.  QUESTION: If the legislature takes this up, would the Bush campaign support that, condone it?  BAKER: Depends on what they take up.  QUESTION: But if they take up a remedy as, I guess, I've heard some members talk about setting the standard. Earlier a state senator said that he felt the Supreme Court was essentially trying to undo what the legislature did.  BAKER: I think that ...  QUESTION: And that's what you're saying.  BAKER: I think the legislature – some people in the legislature – probably feel that the court has undone the statutory provisions that were laid out in compliance with the U.S. Constitution for the conduct of the election in Florida.  QUESTION: So if the Republican-controlled legislature then writes a bill that would redo it, would the Bush campaign support and endorse that?  BAKER: Well, I think we'd have to see what the bill said before I could answer that question for you. We'd have to see what it said. I can't give you a carte blanche answer here today.  Yes?  QUESTION: If you're behind on Sunday at 5 p.m., if the vote total puts you behind, would you not accept those results?  BAKER: Well, I don't know. I'm going to give you the same answer that you've been getting from the Gore campaign for, since the 8th of November: All options have to remain on the table. We have to see what the situation is at that time.  Yes, sir.  QUESTION: As ... pointed out, you've been involved in many presidential campaigns; this one looks like it's ending in a court room. I wonder, you think that's a sign of the times, and is that troubling to you?  BAKER: Yes, it does a little bit; it troubles me as I indicated right here in this room on November the 8th. But I've never been involved in any that were quite as much of a dead heat as this one. But I think it is, I think it is troubling.  On the other hand, we are a resilient nation and our Constitution and laws provide for remedies and actions and procedures in the event that a very close election like this happens. And therefore, I think it's important that we look at those and examine them and consider whether or not to move on any one or more of them.  

Back to The Covenant News

Text of Florida Supreme Court Decision

Text of Florida Supreme Court Decision

 Supreme Court of Florida  Nos. SC00-2346, SC00-2348 & SC00-2349  PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, Petitioner,  vs.  KATHERINE HARRIS, etc., et al., Respondents.  VOLUSIA COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, et al., Appellants,  vs.  KATHERINE HARRIS, etc., et al., Appellees.  FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Appellant,  vs.  KATHERINE HARRIS, etc., et al., Appellees.  (November 21, 2000)  PER CURIAM.  We have for review two related trial court orders appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the orders to be of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court (Case Numbers SC00- 2348 and SC00-2349). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the orders of the trial court.  I. FACTS  A. The Election  On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, the State of Florida, along with the rest of the United States, conducted a general election for the President of the United States. The Division of Elections (“Division”) reported on Wednesday, November 8, that George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had received 2,909,135 votes, and Albert Gore Jr., the Democratic candidate, had received 2,907,351 votes. Because the overall difference in the total votes cast for each candidate was less than one-half of one percent of the total votes cast for that office (i.e., the difference was 1,784 votes), an automatic recount was conducted pursuant to section 102.141(4), Florida Statutes. The recount resulted in a substantially reduced figure for the overall difference between the two candidates.  In light of the closeness of the election, the Florida Democratic Executive Committee on Thursday, November 9, requested that manual recounts be conducted in Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia Counties pursuant to section 102.166, Florida Statutes (2000). Pursuant to section 102.166(4)(d), the county canvassing boards of these counties conducted a sample manual recount of at least one percent of the ballots cast. Initial manual recounts demonstrated the following: In Broward County, a recount of one percent of the ballots indicated a net increase of four votes for Gore; and in Palm Beach County, a recount of four sample precincts yielded a net increase of nineteen votes for Gore. Based on these recounts, several of the county canvassing boards determined that the manual recounts conducted indicated “an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election.” Based on this determination, several canvassing boards voted to conduct countywide manual recounts pursuant to section 102.166(5)(c).  B. The Appeal Proceedings  Concerned that the recounts would not be completed prior to the deadline set forth in section 102.111(1), Florida Statutes (2000), requiring that all county returns be certified by 5 p.m. on the seventh day after an election, the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, pursuant to section 106.23, Florida Statutes (2000), sought an advisory opinion from the Division of Elections, requesting an interpretation of the deadline set forth in sections 102.111 and 102.112. The Division of Elections responded by issuing Advisory Opinion DE 00-10, stating that absent unforseen circumstances, returns from the county must be received by 5 p.m. on the seventh day following the election in order to be included in the certification of the statewide results.  Relying upon this advisory opinion, the Florida Secretary of State (the Secretary) issued a statement on Monday, November 13, 2000, that she would ignore returns of the manual recounts received by the Florida Department of State (the Department) after Tuesday, November 14, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. The Volusia County Canvassing Board (the Volusia Board) on Monday, November 13, 2000, filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and the candidates and the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (the Palm Beach Board), among others, were allowed to intervene. In its suit, the Volusia Board sought a declaratory judgment that it was not bound by the November 14, 2000, deadline and also sought an injunction barring the Secretary from ignoring election returns submitted by the Volusia Board after that date.  The trial court ruled on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, that the deadline was mandatory but that the Volusia Board may amend its returns at a later date and that the Secretary, after “considering all attendant facts and circumstances,” may exercise her discretion in determining whether to ignore the amended returns. Later that day, the Volusia Board filed a notice of appeal of this ruling to the First District Court of Appeal, and the Palm Beach Board filed a notice of joinder in the appeal.  Subsequent to the circuit court’s order, the Secretary announced that she was in receipt of certified returns (i.e., the returns resulting from the initial recount) from all counties in the State. The Secretary then instructed Florida’s Supervisors of Elections (Supervisors) that they must submit to her by 2 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2000, a written statement of “the facts and circumstances” justifying any belief on their part that they should be allowed to amend the certified returns previously filed. Four counties submitted their statements on time. After considering the reasons in light of specific criteria, the Secretary on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, rejected the reasons and again announced that she would not accept the amended returns but rather would rely on the earlier certified totals for the four counties. The Secretary further stated that after she received the certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, she would certify the results of the presidential election on Saturday, November 18, 2000.  On Thursday, November 16, 2000, the Florida Democratic Party and Albert Gore filed a motion in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida, seeking to compel the Secretary to accept amended returns. After conducting a hearing, the court denied relief in a brief order dated Friday, November 17, 2000. That day, both the Democratic Party and Gore appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which consolidated the appeals with the Volusia Board’s appeal already pending there, and certified both of the underlying trial court orders to this Court based on the Court’s “pass-through” jurisdiction. By orders dated Friday, November 17, 2000, this Court accepted jurisdiction, set an expedited briefing schedule, and enjoined the Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission (Commission) from certifying the results of the presidential election until further order of this Court.  II. GUIDING PRINCIPLES  Twenty-five years ago, this Court commented that the will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases:  The real parties in interest here, not in the legal sense but in realistic terms, are the voters. They are possessed of the ultimate interest and it is they whom we must give primary consideration. The contestants have direct interests certainly, but the office they seek is one of high public service and of upmost importance to the people, thus subordinating their interest to that of the people. Ours is a government of, by and for the people. Our federal and state constitutions guarantee the right of the people to take an active part in the process of that government, which for most of our citizens means participation via the election process. The right to vote is the right to participate; it is also the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard. We must tread carefully on that right or we risk the unnecessary and unjustified muting of the public voice. By refusing to recognize an otherwise valid exercise of the right of a citizen to vote for the sake of sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify that right.  Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259, 263 (Fla. 1975) (emphasis added). We consistently have adhered to the principle that the will of the people is the paramount consideration. Our goal today remains the same as it was a quarter of a century ago, i.e., to reach the result that reflects the will of the voters, whatever that might be. This fundamental principle, and our traditional rules of statutory construction, guide our decision today.  III. ISSUES  The questions before this Court include the following: Under what circumstances may a Board authorize a countywide manual recount pursuant to section 102.166(5); must the Secretary and Commission accept such recounts when the returns are certified and submitted by the Board after the seven day deadline set forth in sections 102.111 and 102.112?  IV. LEGAL OPINION OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS  The first issue this Court must resolve is whether a County Board may conduct a countywide manual recount where it determines there is an error in vote tabulation that could affect the outcome of the election. Here, the Division issued opinion DE 00-13, which construed the language “error in vote tabulation” to exclude the situation where a discrepancy between the original machine return and sample manual recount is due to the manner in which a ballot has been marked or punched.  Florida courts generally will defer to an agency’s interpretation of statutes and rules the agency is charged with implementing and enforcing. Florida courts, however, will not defer to an agency’s opinion that is contrary to law. We conclude that the Division’s advisory opinion regarding vote tabulation is contrary to law because it contravenes the plain meaning of section 102.166(5).  Pursuant to section 102.166(4)(a), a candidate who appears on a ballot, a political committee that supports or opposes an issue that appears on a ballot, or a political party whose candidate’s name appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the County Board for a manual recount. This request must be filed with the Board before the Board certifies the election results or within seventy-two hours after the election, whichever occurs later. Upon filing the written request for a manual recount, the canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. The decision whether to conduct a manual recount is vested in the sound discretion of the Board. If the canvassing board decides to authorize the manual recount, the recount must include at least three precincts and at least one percent of the total votes cast for each candidate or issue, with the person who requested the recount choosing the precincts to be recounted. If the manual recount indicates an “error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election,” the county canvassing board “shall”:  (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;  (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or  (c) Manually recount all ballots.  § 102.166(5)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added).  The issue in dispute here is the meaning of the phrase "error in the vote tabulation" found in section 102.166(5). The Division opines that an “error in the vote tabulation” only means a counting error resulting from incorrect election parameters or an error in the vote tabulating software. We disagree.  The plain language of section 102.166(5) refers to an error in the vote tabulation rather than the vote tabulation system. On its face, the statute does not include any words of limitation; rather, it provides a remedy for any type of mistake made in tabulating ballots. The Legislature has utilized the phrase "vote tabulation system" and "automatic tabulating equipment" in section 102.166 when it intended to refer to the voting system rather than the vote count. Equating "vote tabulation" with "vote tabulation system" obliterates the distinction created in section 102.166 by the Legislature.  Sections 101.5614(5) and (6) also support the proposition that the "error in vote tabulation" encompasses more than a mere determination of whether the vote tabulation system is functioning. Section 101.5614(5) provides that "no vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board." Conversely, section 101.5614(6) provides that any vote in which the Board cannot discern the intent of the voter must be discarded. Taken together, these sections suggest that "error in the vote tabulation" includes errors in the failure of the voting machinery to read a ballot and not simply errors resulting from the voting machinery.  Moreover, section 102.141(4), which outlines the Board's responsibility in the event of a recount, states that the Board "shall examine the counters on the machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast in each precinct in which the office or issue appeared on the ballot and determine whether the returns correctly reflect the votes cast." § 102.141, Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). Therefore, an “error in the vote tabulation” includes a discrepancy between the number of votes determined by a voter tabulation system and the number of voters determined by a manual count of a sampling of precincts pursuant to section 102.166(4).  Although error cannot be completely eliminated in any tabulation of the ballots, our society has not yet gone so far as to place blind faith in machines. In almost all endeavors, including elections, humans routinely correct the errors of machines. For this very reason Florida law provides a human check on both the malfunction of tabulation equipment and error in failing to accurately count the ballots. Thus, we find that the Division’s opinion DE 00-13 regarding the ability of county canvassing boards to authorize a manual recount is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  Having concluded that the county canvassing boards have the authority to order countywide manual recounts, we must now determine whether the Commission must accept a return after the seven-day deadline set forth in sections 102.111 and 102.112 under the circumstances presented.  V. THE APPLICABLE LAW  The abiding principle governing all election law in Florida is set forth in article I, section 1, Florida Constitution:  SECTION 1. Political power.–All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.  Art. I, § 1, Fla. Const. The constitution further provides that elections shall be regulated by law:  SECTION 1. Regulation of elections.–All elections by the people shall be by direct and secret vote. General elections shall be determined by a plurality of votes cast. Registration and elections shall, and political party functions may, be regulated by law; however, the requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters.  Art. VI, § 1, Fla. Const. (emphasis added).  The Florida Election Code (“Code”), contained in chapters 97–106, Florida Statutes (2000), sets forth specific criteria regulating elections. The Florida Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state and is charged with general oversight of the election system. The Supervisor of Elections (“Supervisor”) in each county is an elected official and is charged with appointing two Election Boards for each precinct within the county prior to an election. Each Election Board is composed of inspectors and clerks, all of whom must be residents of the county, and is charged with conducting the voting in the election, counting the votes, and certifying the results to the Supervisor by noon of the day following the election. The County Canvassing Board (“Canvassing Board” or “Board”), which is composed of the Supervisor, a county court judge, and the chair of the board of county commissioners, then canvasses the returns countywide, reviews the certificates, and transmits the returns for state and federal officers to the Florida Department of State (“Department”) by 5:00 p.m. of the seventh day following the election. No deadline is set for filing corrected, amended, or supplemental returns.  The Elections Canvassing Commission (“Canvassing Commission” or “Commission”), which is composed of the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Division of Elections, canvasses the returns statewide, determines and declares who has been elected for each office, and issues a certificate of election for each office as soon as the results are compiled. If any returns appear to be irregular or false and the Commission is unable to determine the true vote for a particular office, the Commission certifies that fact and does not include those returns in its canvass. In determining the true vote, the Commission has no authority to look beyond the county’ s returns. A candidate or elector can “protest” the returns of an election as being erroneous by filing a protest with the appropriate County Canvassing Board. And finally, a candidate, elector, or taxpayer can “contest” the certification of election results by filing a post-certification action in circuit court within certain time limits and setting forth specific grounds.  VI. STATUTORY AMBIGUITY  The provisions of the Code are ambiguous in two significant areas. First, the time frame for conducting a manual recount under section 102.166(4) is in conflict with the time frame for submitting county returns under sections 102.111 and 102.112. Second, the mandatory language in section 102.111 conflicts with the permissive language in 102.112.  A. The Recount Conflict  Section 102.166(1) states that "any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn written protest." The time period for filing a protest is "prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever is later.  Section 102.166(4)(a), the operative subsection in this case, further provides that, in addition to any protest, "any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot . . . or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount" accompanied by the “reason that the manual recount is being requested.” Section 102.166(4)(b) further provides that the written request may be made prior to the time the Board certifies the returns or within seventy-two hours after the election, whichever occurs later:  (4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates’ names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.  (b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.  § 102.166, Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added).  A Board “may” authorize a manual recount and such a recount must include at least three precincts and at least one percent of the total votes cast for the candidate. The following procedure then applies:  (5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:  (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;  (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or  (c) Manually recount all ballots.  (6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.  (7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:  (a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.  (b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter’s intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter’s intent.  § 102.166, Fla. Stat. (2000).  Under this scheme, a candidate can request a manual recount at any point prior to certification by the Board and such action can lead to a full recount of all the votes in the county. Although the Code sets no specific deadline by which a manual recount must be completed, logic dictates that the period of time required to complete a full manual recount may be substantial, particularly in a populous county, and may require several days. The protest provision thus conflicts with section 102.111 and 102.112, which state that the Boards “must” submit their returns to the Elections Canvassing Commission by 5:00 p.m. of the seventh day following the election or face penalties. For instance, if a party files a pre-certification protest on the sixth day following the election and requests a manual recount and the initial manual recount indicates that a full countywide recount is necessary, the recount procedure in most cases could not be completed by the deadline in sections 102.111 and 102.112, i.e., by 5:00 p.m. of the seventh day following the election.  B. The “Shall” and “May” Conflict  In addition to the conflict in the above statutes, sections 102.111 and 102.112 contain a dichotomy. Section 102.111, which sets forth general criteria governing the State Canvassing Commission, was enacted in 1951 as part of the Code and provides as follows:  102.111 Elections Canvassing Commission.–  (1) Immediately after certification of any election by the county canvassing board, the results shall be forwarded to the Department of State concerning the election of any federal or state officer. The Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Division of Elections shall be the Elections Canvassing Commission. The Elections Canvassing Commission shall, as soon as the official results are compiled from all counties, certify the returns of the election and determine and declare who has been elected for each office. In the event that any member of the Elections Canvassing Commission is unavailable to certify the returns of any election, such member shall be replaced by a substitute member of the Cabinet as determined by the Director of the Division of Elections. If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified.  § 102.111, Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added).  The Legislature in 1989 revised chapter 102 to include section 102.112, which provides that returns not received after a certain date “may” be ignored and that members of the County Board “shall” be fined:  102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of State; penalties.–  (1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after the certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.  (2) The department shall fine each board member $200 for each day such returns are late, the fine to be paid only from the board member’s personal funds. Such fines shall be deposited into the Election Campaign Financing Trust fund, created by s. 106.32.  (3) Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals.  § 102.112, Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added).  The above statutes conflict. Whereas section 102.111 is mandatory, section 102.112 is permissive. While it is clear that the Boards must submit returns by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following the election or face penalties, the circumstances under which penalties may be assessed are unclear.  VII. LEGISLATIVE INTENT  Legislative intent–as always–is the polestar that guides a court’s inquiry into the provisions of the Florida Election Code. Where the language of the Code is clear and amenable to a reasonable and logical interpretation, courts are without power to diverge from the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Code. As noted above, however, chapter 102 is unclear concerning both the time limits for submitting the results of a manual recount and the penalties that may be assessed by the Secretary. In light of this ambiguity, the Court must resort to traditional rules of statutory construction in an effort to determine legislative intent.  First, it is well-settled that where two statutory provisions are in conflict, the specific statute controls the general statute. In the present case, whereas section 102.111 in its title and text addresses the general makeup and duties of the Elections Canvassing Commission, the statute only tangentially addresses the penalty for returns filed after the statutory date, noting that such returns “shall” be ignored by the Department. Section 102.112, on the other hand, directly addresses in its title and text both the “deadline” for submitting returns and the “penalties” for submitting returns after a certain date; the statute expressly states that such returns “may” be ignored and that dilatory Board members “shall” be fined. Based on the precision of the title and text, section 102.112 constitutes a specific penalty statute that defines both the deadline for filing returns and the penalties for filing returns thereafter and section 102.111 constitutes a non-specific statute in this regard. The specific statute controls the non- specific statute.  Second, it also is well-settled that when two statutes are in conflict, the more recently enacted statute controls the older statute. In the present case, the provision in section 102.111 stating that the Department “shall” ignore returns was enacted in 1951 as part of the Code. On the other hand, the penalty provision in section 102.112 stating that the Department “may” ignore returns was enacted in 1989 as a revision to chapter 102. The more recently enacted provision may be viewed as the clearest and most recent expression of legislative intent.  Third, a statutory provision will not be construed in such a way that it renders meaningless or absurd any other statutory provision. In the present case, section 102.112 contains a detailed provision authorizing the assessment of fines against members of a dilatory County Canvassing Board. The fines are personal and substantial, i.e., $200 for each day the returns are not received. If, as the Secretary asserts, the Department were required to ignore all returns received after the statutory date, the fine provision would be meaningless. For example, if a Board simply completed its count late and if the returns were going to be ignored in any event, what would be the point in submitting the returns? The Board would simply file no returns and avoid the fines. But, on the other hand, if the returns submitted after the statutory date would not be ignored, the Board would have good reason to submit the returns and accept the fines. The fines thus serve as an alternative penalty and are applicable only if the Department may count the returns.  Fourth, related statutory provisions must be read as a cohesive whole. As stated in Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992), "all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole. Where possible, courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with another." In this regard we consider the provisions of section 102.166 and 102.168.  Section 102.166 states that a candidate, political committee, or political party may request a manual recount any time before the County Canvassing Board certifies the results to the Department and, if the initial manual recount indicates a significant error, the Board “shall” conduct a countywide manual recount in certain cases. Thus, if a protest is filed on the sixth day following an election and a full manual recount is required, the Board, through no fault of its own, will be unable to submit its returns to the Department by 5:00 p.m. on the seventh day following the election. In such a case, if the mandatory provision in section 102.111 were given effect, the votes of the county would be ignored for the simple reason that the Board was following the dictates of a different section of the Code. The Legislature could not have intended to penalize County Canvassing Boards for following the dictates of the Code.  And finally, when the Legislature enacted the Code in 1951, it envisioned that all votes cast during a particular election, including absentee ballots, would be submitted to the Department at one time and would be treated in a uniform fashion. Section 97.012(1) states that it is the Secretary’s responsibility to “[o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws.” Chapter 101 provides that all votes, including absentee ballots, must be received by the Supervisor no later than 7 p.m. on the day of the election. Section 101.68(2)(d) expressly states that “the votes on absentee ballots shall be included in the total vote of the county.” Chapter 102 requires that the Board submit the returns by 5 p.m. on the seventh day following the election.  The Legislature thus envisioned that when returns are submitted to the Department, the returns “shall” embrace all the votes in the county, including absentee ballots. This, of course, is not possible because our state statutory scheme has been superseded by federal law governing overseas voters; overseas ballots must be counted if received no later than ten days following the election (i.e., the ballots do not have to be received by 7 p.m. of the day of the election, as provided by state law). In light of the fact that overseas ballots cannot be counted until after the seven day deadline has expired, the mandatory language in section 102.111 has been supplanted by the permissive language of section 102.112.  Further, although county returns must be received by 5 p.m. on the seventh day following an election, the "official results" that are to be compiled in order to certify the returns and declare who has been elected must be construed in pari materia with section 101.5614(8), which specifies that "write-in, absentee and manually counted results shall constitute the official return of the election." (Emphasis added.)  Under this statutory scheme, the County Canvassing Boards are required to submit their returns to the Department by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following the election. The statutes make no provision for exceptions following a manual recount. If a Board fails to meet the deadline, the Secretary is not required to ignore the county’s returns but rather is permitted to ignore the returns within the parameters of this statutory scheme. To determine the circumstances under which the Secretary may lawfully ignore returns filed pursuant to the provisions of section 102.166 for a manual recount, it is necessary to examine the interplay between our statutory and constitutional law at both the state and federal levels.  VIII. THE RIGHT TO VOTE  The text of our Florida Constitution begins with a Declaration of Rights, a series of rights so basic that the founders accorded them a place of special privilege. The Court long ago noted the venerable role the Declaration plays in our tripartite system of government in Florida:  It is significant that our Constitution thus commences by specifying those things which the state government must not do, before specifying certain things that it may do. These Declarations of Rights . . . have cost much, and breathe the spirit of that sturdy and self-reliant philosophy of individualism which underlies and supports our entire system of government. No race of hothouse plants could ever have produced and compelled the recognition of such a stalwart set of basic principles, and no such race can preserve them. They say to arbitrary and autocratic power, from whatever official quarter it may advance to invade these vital rights of personal liberty and private property, “Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.”  State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 347 (Fla. 1929). Courts must attend with special vigilance whenever the Declaration of Rights is in issue.  The right of suffrage is the preeminent right contained in the Declaration of Rights, for without this basic freedom all others would be diminished. The importance of this right was acknowledged by the authors of the Constitution, who placed it first in the Declaration. The very first words in the body of the constitution are as follows:  SECTION 1. Political power.–All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.  Art. I., § 1, Fla. Const. (emphasis added). The framers thus began the constitution with a declaration that all political power inheres in the people and only they, the people, may decide how and when that power may be given up.  To the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral process, those laws are valid only if they impose no “unreasonable or unnecessary” restraints on the right of suffrage:  The declaration of rights expressly states that “all political power is inherent in the people.” Article I, Section 1, Florida Constitution. The right of the people to select their own officers is their sovereign right, and the rule is against imposing unnecessary and unreasonable "restraints on that right". . . . Unreasonable or unnecessary restraints on the elective process are prohibited.  Treiman v. Malmquist, 342 So. 2d 972, 975 (Fla. 1977) (emphasis added). Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens’ right to vote:  Generally, the courts, in construing statutes relating to elections, hold that the same should receive a liberal construction in favor of the citizen whose right to vote they tend to restrict and in so doing to prevent disfranchisement of legal voters and the intention of the voters should prevail when counting ballots . . . . It is the intention of the law to obtain an honest expression of the will or desire of the voter.  State ex rel. Carpenter v. Barber, 198 So. 49, 51 (Fla. 1940). Courts must not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of election laws: The laws are intended to facilitate and safeguard the right of each voter to express his or her will in the context of our representative democracy. Technical statutory requirements must not be exalted over the substance of this right.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the authority of the Florida Secretary of State to ignore amended returns submitted by a County Canvassing Board may be lawfully exercised only under limited circumstances as we set forth in this opinion. The clear import of the penalty provision of section 102.112 is to deter Boards from engaging in dilatory conduct contrary to statutory authority that results in the late certification of a county’s returns. This deterrent purpose is achieved by the fines in section 102.112, which are substantial and personal and are levied on each member of a Board. The alternative penalty, i.e., ignoring the county’s returns, punishes not the Board members themselves but rather the county’s electors, for it in effect disenfranchises them.  Ignoring the county’s returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns are submitted to the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two ways: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process. In either case, the Secretary must explain to the Board her reason for ignoring the returns and her action must be adequately supported by the law. To disenfranchise electors in an effort to deter Board members, as the Secretary in the present case proposes, is unreasonable, unnecessary, and violates longstanding law.  Allowing the manual recounts to proceed in an expeditious manner, rather than imposing an arbitrary seven-day deadline, is consistent not only with the statutory scheme but with prior United States Supreme Court pronouncements:  Indiana has found, along with many other States, that one procedure necessary to guard against irregularity and error in the tabulation of votes is the availability of a recount. Despite the fact that a certificate of election may be issued to the leading candidate within 30 days after the election, the results are not final if a candidate's option to compel a recount is exercised. A recount is an integral part of the Indiana electoral process and is within the ambit of the broad powers delegated to the States by Art. I, s 4.  Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 25 (1972)(footnotes omitted).  In addition, an accurate vote count is one of the essential foundations of our democracy. The words of the Supreme Court of Illinois are particularly apt in this case:  The purpose of our election laws is to obtain a correct expression of the intent of the voters. Our courts have repeatedly held that, where the intention of the voter can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from his ballot, that intention will be given effect even though the ballot is not strictly in conformity with the law. . . . The legislature authorized the use of electronic tabulating equipment to expedite the tabulating process and to eliminate the possibility of human error in the counting process, not to create a technical obstruction which defeats the rights of qualified voters. This court should not, under the appearance of enforcing the election laws, defeat the very object which those law are intended to achieve. To invalidate a ballot which clearly reflects the voter's intent, simply because a machine cannot read it, would subordinate substance to form and promote the means at the expense of the end.  The voters here did everything which the Election Code requires when they punched the appropriate chad with the stylus. These voters should not be disfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, simply because the chad they punched did not completely dislodge from the ballot. Such a failure may be attributable to the fault of the election authorities, for failing to provide properly perforated paper, or it may be the result of the voter's disability or inadvertence. Whatever the reason, where the intention of the voter can be fairly and satisfactorily ascertained, that intention should be given effect.  Pullen v. Milligan, 561 N.E.2d 585, 611 (Ill. 1990)(citations omitted).  IX. THE PRESENT CASE  The trial court below properly concluded that the County Canvassing Boards are required to submit their returns to the Department by 5:00 p.m. of the seventh day following the election and that the Department is not required to ignore the amended returns but rather may count them. The court, however, erred in holding that the Secretary acted within her discretion in prematurely rejecting any amended returns that would be the result of ongoing manual recounts. The Secretary’s rationale for rejecting the Board’s returns was as follows:  The Board has not alleged any facts or circumstances that suggest the existence of voter fraud. The Board has not alleged any facts or circumstances that suggest that there has been substantial noncompliance with the state’s statutory election procedures, coupled with reasonable doubt as to whether the certified results expressed the will of the voters. The Board has not alleged any facts or circumstances that suggest that Palm Beach County has been unable to comply with its election duties due to an act of God, or other extenuating circumstances that are beyond its control. The Board has alleged the possibility that the results of the manual recount could affect the outcome of the election if certain results obtain. However, absent an assertion that there has been substantial noncompliance with the law, I do not believe that the possibility of affecting the outcome of the election is enough to justify ignoring the statutory deadline. Furthermore, I find that the facts and circumstances alleged, standing alone, do not rise to the level of extenuating circumstances that justify a decision on my part to ignore the statutory deadline imposed by the Florida Legislature.  Letter from Katherine Harris to Palm Beach Canvassing Board (Nov. 15, 2000)(emphasis added).  We conclude that, consistent with the Florida election scheme, the Secretary may reject a Board’s amended returns only if the returns are submitted so late that their inclusion will preclude a candidate from contesting the certification or preclude Florida’s voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process. The Secretary in the present case has made no claim that either of these conditions apply at this point in time.  The above analysis is consistent with State ex rel. Chappell v. Martinez, 536 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1988), wherein the Court addressed a comparable recount issue. There, the total votes cast for each of two candidates for a seat in the United State House of Representatives were separated by less than one- half of one percent; the county conducted a mandatory recount; the Board’s certification of results was not received by the Department until two days after the deadline, although the Board had telephoned the results to the Department prior to the deadline; and the unsuccessful candidate sued to prevent the Department from counting the late votes. The Court concluded that the will of the electors supersedes any technical statutory requirements:  [T]he electorate’s effecting its will through its balloting, not the hypertechnical compliance with statutes, is the object of holding an election. “There is no magic in the statutory requirements. If they are complied with to the extent that the duly responsible election officials can ascertain that the electors whose votes are being canvassed are qualified and registered to vote, and that they do so in a proper manner, then who can be heard to complain the statute has not been literally and absolutely complied with?”  Chappell, 536 So. 2d at 1008-09 (quoting Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259, 267 (Fla. 1975)).  X. CONCLUSION  According to the legislative intent evinced in the Florida Election Code, the permissive language of section 102.112 supersedes the mandatory language of section 102.111. The statutory fines set forth in section 102.112 offer strong incentive to County Canvassing Boards to submit their returns in a timely fashion. However, when a Board certifies its returns after the seven- day period because the Board is acting in conformity with other provisions of the Code or with administrative rules or for other good cause, the Secretary may impose no fines. It is unlikely that the Legislature would have intended to punish a Board for complying with the dictates of the Code or some other law.  Because the right to vote is the pre-eminent right in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, the circumstances under which the Secretary may exercise her authority to ignore a county’s returns filed after the initial statutory date are limited. The Secretary may ignore such returns only if their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two ways: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the certification of election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process. In either such case, this drastic penalty must be both reasonable and necessary. But to allow the Secretary to summarily disenfranchise innocent electors in an effort to punish dilatory Board members, as she proposes in the present case, misses the constitutional mark. The constitution eschews punishment by proxy.  As explained above, the Florida Election Code must be construed as a whole. Section 102.166 governs manual recounts and appears to conflict with sections 102.111 and 102.112, which set a seven day deadline by which County Boards must submit their returns. Further, section 102.111, which provides that the Secretary “shall” ignore late returns, conflicts with section 102.112, which provides that the Secretary “may” ignore late returns. In the present case, we have used traditional rules of statutory construction to resolve these ambiguities to the extent necessary to address the issues presented here. We decline to rule more expansively, for to do so would result in this Court substantially rewriting the Code. We leave that matter to the sound discretion of the body best equipped to address it -- the Legislature.  Because of the unique circumstances and extraordinary importance of the present case, wherein the Florida Attorney General and the Florida Secretary of State have issued conflicting advisory opinions concerning the propriety of conducting manual recounts, and because of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy that will allow a fair and expeditious resolution of the questions presented here.  Accordingly, in order to allow maximum time for contests pursuant to section 102.168, amended certifications must be filed with the Elections Canvassing Commission by 5 p.m. on Sunday, November 26, 2000 and the Secretary of State and the Elections Canvassing Commission shall accept any such amended certifications received by 5 p.m. on Sunday, November 26, 2000, provided that the office of the Secretary of State, Division of Elections is open in order to allow receipt thereof. If the office is not open for this special purpose on Sunday, November 26, 2000, then any amended certifications shall be accepted until 9 a.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000. The stay order entered on November 17, 2000, by this Court shall remain in effect until the expiration of the time for accepting amended certifications set forth in this opinion. The certificates made and signed by the Elections Canvassing Commission pursuant to section 102.121 shall include the amended returns accepted through the dates set forth in this opinion.  It is so ordered. No motion for rehearing will be allowed.  WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.  Three Cases Consolidated:  Case No. SC00-2346  Original Proceeding - Prohibition  Denise D. Dytrych, Palm Beach County Attorney, and James C. Mize, Jr., Andrew J. McMahon and Gordon Selfridge, Assistant Palm Beach County Attorneys, West Palm Beach, Florida; and Bruce Rogow and Beverly A. Pohl of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,  for Petitioners  Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel, and Kerey Carpenter, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida; and Joseph P. Klock, Jr., Jonathan Sjostrom, Victoria L. Weber, John W. Little, III, Donna E. Blanton, Gabriel E. Nieto, Elizabeth C. Daley, Arthur R. Lewis, Jr. and Elizabeth J. Maykut of Steel, Hector & Davis, LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Elections Canvassing Commission; Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, pro se, Paul F. Hancock, Deputy Attorney General, and George Waas, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Cecile Luttmer Dykas, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Terrell C. Madigan, Harold R. Mardenborough, Jr., Christopher Barkas and Matt Butler of McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida,  for Respondents  Barry Richard of Greenberg, Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Michael A. Carvin of Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, PLLC, Washington, DC; Benjamin L. Ginsberg of Patton, Boggs, LLP, Washington, DC; Alex M. Azar II of Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, DC; George J. Terwilliger, III and Timothy E. Flanigan of White & Case, LLP, Washington, DC; and R. Ted Cruz, Bush-Cheney Recount Committee, Austin, Texas,  for Honorable George W. Bush, Intervenor  Edward A. Dion, County Attorney for Broward County, Norman M. Ostrau, Deputy County Attorney, Andrew J. Meyers, Chief Appellate Counsel, and Tamara M. Scrudders and Jose Arrojo, Assistant County Attorneys, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Samuel S. Goren, James A. Cherof and Michael D. Cirullo of Josias, Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,  for The Broward County Canvassing Board and Jane Carroll, as Broward  County Supervisor of Elections, Intervenors  Case No. SC00-2348  Appeal of Judgment of Circuit Court, in and for Leon County, Terry P. Lewis,  Judge, Case No. 00-2700 - Certified by the District Court of Appeal,  First District, Case Nos. 1D00-4467/1D00-4501  Denise D. Dytrych, Palm Beach County Attorney, and James C. Mize, Jr., Andrew J. McMahon and Gordon Selfridge, Assistant Palm Beach County Attorneys, West Palm Beach, Florida; Bruce Rogow and Beverly A. Pohl of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Canvassing Board for Palm Beach County; and W. Dexter Douglass of the Douglass Law Firm, Tallahassee, Florida; John D.C. Newton, II of Berger Davis & Singerman, Tallahassee, Florida; Mitchell W. Berger of Berger Davis & Singerman, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Armonk, New York; Karen Gievers, of Karen Gievers, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Lyn Utrecht and Eric Kleinfeld of Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht and MacKinnon, Washington, DC; Andrew J. Pincus and Ronald A. Klain, Washington, DC; and Laurence Tribe, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Albert A. Gore, Jr. and Florida Democratic Party,  Appellants  Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel, and Kerey Carpenter, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida; and Joseph P. Klock, Jr., Jonathan Sjostrom, Victoria L. Weber, John W. Little, III, Donna E. Blanton, Gabriel E. Nieto, Elizabeth C. Daley, Arthur R. Lewis, Jr. and Elizabeth J. Maykut of Steel, Hector & Davis LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Elections Canvassing Commission,  for Appellees  Case No. SC00-2349  Appeal of Judgment of Circuit Court, in and for Leon County, Terry P. Lewis,  Judge, Case No. 00-2700 - Certified by the District Court of Appeal,  First District, Case Nos. 1D00-4506  W. Dexter Douglass of the Douglass Law Firm, Tallahassee, Florida; John D.C. Newton, II of Berger Davis & Singerman, Tallahassee, Florida; Mitchell W. Berger of Berger Davis & Singerman, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Armonk, New York; Karen Gievers, of Karen Gievers, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Lyn Utrecht and Eric Kleinfeld of Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht and MacKinnon, Washington, DC; Andrew J. Pincus and Ronald A. Klain, Washington, DC; and Laurence Tribe, Cambridge, Massachusetts,  for Appellants  Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel, and Kerey Carpenter, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida; and Joseph P. Klock, Jr., Jonathan Sjostrom, Victoria L. Weber, John W. Little, III, Donna E. Blanton, Gabriel E. Nieto, Elizabeth C. Daley, Arthur R. Lewis, Jr. and Elizabeth J. Maykut of Steel, Hector & Davis, LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Elections Canvassing Commission,  for Appellees   

Back to The Covenant News

H.R. 4811 U.N. International Family Planning FY 2001 Congressional Roll Call Vote #546 (2000)

How Your Congressman Voted
On International Family Planning

The House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 4811, making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001

A ‘Yea’ vote is a vote for the largest abortion funding bill in U.S. history

H.R. 4811 Roll Call Vote No. 546 Tally

 Voted Yea: 307  Voted Nay: 101  Not Voting: 24   ALABAMA  Voted Yea: Sonny Callahan (R-AL-1); Robert Cramer (D-AL-5); Spencer Bachus (R-AL-6); Earl Hilliard (D-AL-7).  Voted Nay: Terry Everett (R-AL-2); Bob Riley (R-AL-3); Robert Aderholt (R-AL-4)    ALASKA  Voted Yea: Don Young (R-AK-AL).  ARIZONA  Voted Yea: Ed Pastor (D-AZ-2); Jim Kolbe (R-AZ-5).  Voted Nay: Matt Salmon (R-AZ-1); Bob Stump (R-AZ-3); J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ-6).    Not Voting: John Shadegg (R-AZ-4).    ARKANSAS  Voted Yea: Vic Snyder (D-AR-2); Jay Dickey (R-AR-4).  Voted Nay: Marion Berry (D-AR-1); Asa Hutchinson (R-AR-3).   CALIFORNIA  Voted Yea: Mike Thompson (D-CA-1); Doug Ose (R-CA-3); Robert Matsui (D-CA-5); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6); George Miller (D-CA-7); Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-8); Barbara Lee (D-CA-9); Ellen Tauscher (D-CA-10); Tom Lantos (D-CA-12); Anna Eshoo (D-CA-14); Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-16); Sam Farr (D-CA-17); George Radanovich (R-CA-19); Calvin Dooley (D-CA-20); William Thomas (R-CA-21); Lois Capps (D-CA-22); Elton Gallegly (R-CA-23); Brad Sherman (D-CA-24); Howard McKeon (R-CA-25); Howard Berman (D-CA-26); James Rogan (R-CA-27); David Dreier (R-CA-28); Henry Waxman (D-CA-29); Xavier Becerra (D-CA-30); Matthew Martinez (D-CA-31); Julian Dixon (D-CA-32); Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-33); Grace Flores Napolitano (D-CA-34); Maxine Waters (D-CA-35); Steven Kuykendall (R-CA-36); Juanita Millender-McDonald(D-CA-37); Steve Horn (R-CA-38); Edward Royce (R-CA-39); Jerry Lewis (R-CA-40); Joe Baca (D-CA-42); Ken Calvert (R-CA-43); Mary Bono (R-CA-44); Loretta Sanchez (D-CA-46); Ron Packard (R-CA-48); Brian Bilbray (R-CA-49); Bob Filner (D-CA-50).  Voted Nay: Wally Herger (R-CA-2); John Doolittle (R-CA-4); Richard Pombo (R-CA-11); Fortney Stark (D-CA-13); Gary Condit (D-CA-18); Gary Miller (R-CA-41); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-45); Christopher Cox (R-CA-47); Randy Cunningham (R-CA-51); Duncan Hunter (R-CA-52).   Not Voting: Tom Campbell (R-CA-15).  COLORADO  Voted Yea: Diana DeGette (D-CO-1); Mark Udall (D-CO-2).  Voted Nay: Scott McInnis (R-CO-3); Bob Schaffer (R-CO-4); Joel Hefley (R-CO-5); Thomas Gerard Tancredo (R-CO-6).   CONNECTICUT  Voted Yea: John Larson (D-CT-1); Sam Gejdenson (D-CT-2); Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3); Christopher Shays (R-CT-4); James Maloney (D-CT-5); Nancy Johnson (R-CT-6).  DELAWARE  Voted Yea: Michael Castle (R-DE-AL).  FLORIDA  Voted Yea: Corrine Brown (D-FL-3); Tillie Fowler (R-FL-4); Karen Thurman (D-FL-5); Michael Bilirakis (R-FL-9); C.W. Young (R-FL-10); Jim Davis (D-FL-11); Mark Foley (R-FL-16); Carrie Meek (D-FL-17); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18); Robert Wexler (D-FL-19); Peter Deutsch (D-FL-20); Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL-21); E. Clay Shaw (R-FL-22).  Voted Nay: Joe Scarborough (R-FL-1); F. Allen Boyd (D-FL-2) Cliff Stearns (R-FL-6); Charles Canady (R-FL-12); Dan Miller (R-FL-13); Porter Goss (R-FL-14); David Weldon (R-FL-15).   Not Voting: John Mica (R-FL-7); Bill McCollum (R-FL-8); Alcee Hastings (D-FL-23).  GEORGIA  Voted Yea: Jack Kingston (R-GA-1); Sanford Bishop (D-GA-2); Cynthia McKinney (D-GA-4); John Lewis (D-GA-5); Johnny Isakson (R-GA-6); John Linder (R-GA-11).  Voted Nay: Michael Collins (R-GA-3); Bob Barr (R-GA-7); Saxby Chambliss (R-GA-8); Nathan Deal (R-GA-9); Charles Norwood (R-GA-10).  HAWAII  Voted Yea: Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-1); Patsy Mink (D-HI-2).  IDAHO  Voted Yea: Mike Simpson (R-ID-2).  Not Voting: Helen Chenoweth (R-ID-1).  ILLINOIS  Voted Yea: Bobby Rush (D-IL-1); Jesse Jackson (D-IL-2); William Lipinski (D-IL-3); Luis Gutierrez (D-IL-4); Rod Blagojevich (D-IL-5); Henry Hyde (R-IL-6); Danny Davis (D-IL-7); Philip Crane (R-IL-8); Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-9); John Edward Porter (R-IL-10); Jerry Weller (R-IL-11); Jerry Costello (D-IL-12); Judy Biggert (R-IL-13); Thomas Ewing (R-IL-15); Lane Evans (D-IL-17); Ray LaHood (R-IL-18); John Shimkus (R-IL-20).  Voted Nay: Donald Manzullo (R-IL-16); David Phelps (D-IL-19).  INDIANA  Voted Yea: Peter Visclosky (D-IN-1); Mark Souder (R-IN-4); Steve Buyer (R-IN-5); Dan Burton (R-IN-6); Edward Pease (R-IN-7); Baron Hill (D-IN-9); Julia Carson (D-IN-10).  Voted Nay: Tim Roemer (D-IN-3); John Hostettler (R-IN-8).  Not Voting: David McIntosh (R-IN-2).  IOWA  Voted Yea: Jim Leach (R-IA-1); Jim Nussle (R-IA-2); Leonard Boswell (D-IA-3); Greg Ganske (R-IA-4); Tom Latham (R-IA-5).  KANSAS  Voted Yea: Dennis Moore (D-KS-3).  Voted Nay: Jerry Moran (R-KS-1); Jim Ryun (R-KS-2); Todd Tiahrt (R-KS-4).  KENTUCKY  Voted Yea: Anne Northup (R-KY-3); Ken Lucas (D-KY-4); Harold Rogers (R-KY-5); Ernest Lee Fletcher (R-KY-6).  Voted Nay: Edward Whitfield (R-KY-1); Ron Lewis (R-KY-2).  LOUISIANA  Voted Yea: W.J. Tauzin (R-LA-3); Jim McCrery (R-LA-4); John Cooksey (R-LA-5); Richard Baker (R-LA-6).  Voted Nay: David Vitter (R-LA-1); William Jefferson (D-LA-2).  Not Voting: Chris John (D-LA-7).  MAINE  Voted Yea: Thomas Allen (D-ME-1); John Baldacci (D-ME-2).  MARYLAND  Voted Yea: Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD-1); Robert Ehrlich (R-MD-2); Benjamin Cardin (D-MD-3); Albert Wynn (D-MD-4); Steny Hoyer (D-MD-5); Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD-6); Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7); Constance Morella (R-MD-8).  MASSACHUSETTS  Voted Yea: John Olver (D-MA-1); Richard Neal (D-MA-2); Barney Frank (D-MA-4); Marty Meehan (D-MA-5); John Tierney (D-MA-6); Edward Markey (D-MA-7); Michael Capuano (D-MA-8); Joe Moakley (D-MA-9).  Not Voting: James McGovern (D-MA-3); William Delahunt (D-MA-10).  MICHIGAN  Voted Yea: Vernon Ehlers (R-MI-3); Dave Camp (R-MI-4); James Barcia (D-MI-5); Fred Upton (R-MI-6); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI-8); Dale Kildee (D-MI-9); David Bonior (D-MI-10); Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI-11); Sander Levin (D-MI-12); Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI-15); John Dingell (D-MI-16).  Voted Nay: Peter Hoekstra (R-MI-2); Nick Smith (R-MI-7); Lynn Rivers (D-MI-13).  Not Voting: Bart Stupak (D-MI-1); John Conyers (D-MI-14).  MINNESOTA  Voted Yea: Gil Gutknecht (R-MN-1); David Minge (D-MN-2); Jim Ramstad (R-MN-3); Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN-5).  Voted Nay: Bill Luther (D-MN-6); Collin Peterson (D-MN-7); James Oberstar (D-MN-8).  MISSISSIPPI  Voted Yea: Roger Wicker (R-MS-1); Bennie Thompson (D-MS-2).  Voted Nay: Charles Pickering (R-MS-3); Ronnie Shows (D-MS-4); Gene Taylor (D-MS-5).  MISSOURI  Voted Yea: William Clay (D-MO-1); Ike Skelton (D-MO-4); Karen McCarthy (D-MO-5); Kenny Hulshof (R-MO-9).  Voted Nay: Roy Blunt (R-MO-7); Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO-8).  Not Voting: James Talent (R-MO-2); Richard Gephardt (D-MO-3); Pat Danner (D-MO-6).  MONTANA  Voted Yea: Rick Hill (R-MT-AL).  NEBRASKA  Voted Yea: Doug Bereuter (R-NE-1); Lee Terry (R-NE-2).  Voted Nay: Bill Barrett (R-NE-3).  NEVADA  Voted Yea: Shelley Berkley (D-NV-1); James Gibbons (R-NV-2).  NEW HAMPSHIRE  Voted Yea: John Sununu (R-NH-1); Charles Bass (R-NH-2).  NEW JERSEY  Voted Yea: Robert Andrews (D-NJ-1); Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ-2); Jim Saxton (R-NJ-3); Christopher Smith (R-NJ-4); Marge Roukema (R-NJ-5); Frank Pallone (D-NJ-6); William Pascrell (D-NJ-8); Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9); Donald Payne (D-NJ-10); Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11); Rush Holt (D-NJ-12); Robert Menendez (D-NJ-13).  Not Voting: Bob Franks (R-NJ-7).  NEW MEXICO  Voted Yea: Heather Wilson (R-NM-1); Joe Skeen (R-NM-2); Tom Udall (D-NM-3).  NEW YORK  Voted Yea: Michael Forbes (D-NY-1); Peter King (R-NY-3); Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4); Gary Ackerman (D-NY-5); Joseph Crowley (D-NY-7); Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-8); Anthony David Weiner (D-NY-9); Edolphus Towns (D-NY-10); Major Owens (D-NY-11); Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-12); Vito Fossella (R-NY-13); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14); Charles Rangel (D-NY-15); Jose Serrano (D-NY-16); Nita Lowey (D-NY-18); Sue Kelly (R-NY-19); Benjamin Gilman (R-NY-20); Michael McNulty (D-NY-21); John Sweeney (R-NY-22); Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY-23); John McHugh (R-NY-24); James Walsh (R-NY-25); Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-26); Thomas Reynolds (R-NY-27); Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY-28); John LaFalce (D-NY-29); Jack Quinn (R-NY-30); Amo Houghton (R-NY-31).  Not Voting: Rick Lazio (R-NY-2); Gregory Meeks (D-NY-6); Eliot Engel (D-NY-17).  NORTH CAROLINA  Voted Yea: Eva Clayton (D-NC-1); Bob Etheridge (D-NC-2); David Price (D-NC-4); Richard Burr (R-NC-5); Howard Coble (R-NC-6); Mike McIntyre (D-NC-7); Cass Ballenger (R-NC-10); Charles Taylor (R-NC-11); Melvin Watt (D-NC-12).  Voted Nay: Walter Jones (R-NC-3); Robin Hayes (R-NC-8); Sue Myrick (R-NC-9).  NORTH DAKOTA  Voted Yea: Earl Pomeroy (D-ND-AL).   OHIO  Voted Yea: Rob Portman (R-OH-2); Tony Hall (D-OH-3); Michael Oxley (R-OH-4); Paul Gillmor (R-OH-5); Ted Strickland (D-OH-6); David Hobson (R-OH-7); John Boehner (R-OH-8); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9); Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH-11); John Kasich (R-OH-12); Thomas Sawyer (D-OH-14); Deborah Pryce (R-OH-15); Ralph Regula (R-OH-16); James Traficant (D-OH-17); Bob Ney (R-OH-18); Steven LaTourette (R-OH-19).  Voted Nay: Steve Chabot (R-OH-1); Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10).  Not Voting: Sherrod Brown (D-OH-13).  OKLAHOMA  Voted Yea: J.C. Watts (R-OK-4).  Voted Nay: Tom Coburn (R-OK-2) Wes Watkins (R-OK-3) Ernest Istook (R-OK-5) Frank Lucas (R-OK-6).  Not Voting: Steve Largent (R-OK-1).  OREGON  Voted Yea: David Wu (D-OR-1); Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3); Darlene Hooley (D-OR-5).  Voted Nay: Greg Walden (R-OR-2) Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4).  PENNSYLVANIA  Voted Yea: Bob Brady (D-PA-1); Chaka Fattah (D-PA-2); Robert Borski (D-PA-3); Tim Holden (D-PA-6); Curt Weldon (R-PA-7); Jim Greenwood (R-PA-8); Bud Shuster (R-PA-9); Don Sherwood (R-PA-10); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA-11); John Murtha (D-PA-12); Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA-13); William Coyne (D-PA-14); George Gekas (R-PA-17); Mike Doyle (D-PA-18); William Goodling (R-PA-19); Frank Mascara (D-PA-20); Philip English (R-PA-21).  Voted Nay: Pat Toomey (R-PA-15); Joseph Pitts (R-PA-16).  Not Voting: Ron Klink (D-PA-4) John Peterson (R-PA-5).  RHODE ISLAND  Voted Yea: Patrick Kennedy (D-RI-1) Robert Weygand (D-RI-2).  SOUTH CAROLINA  Voted Yea: John Spratt (D-SC-5) James Clyburn (D-SC-6).  Voted Nay: Mark Sanford (R-SC-1); Floyd Spence (R-SC-2); Lindsey Graham (R-SC-3); Jim DeMint (R-SC-4).  SOUTH DAKOTA  Voted Nay: John Thune (R-SD-AL).  TENNESSEE  Voted Yea: Zach Wamp (R-TN-3); Bob Clement (D-TN-5); Bart Gordon (D-TN-6); Ed Bryant (R-TN-7); Harold Ford (D-TN-9).  Voted Nay: William Jenkins (R-TN-1); John Duncan (R-TN-2); Van Hilleary (R-TN-4); John Tanner (D-TN-8).  TEXAS  Voted Yea: Jim Turner (D-TX-2); Pete Sessions (R-TX-5); Nicholas Lampson (D-TX-9); Lloyd Doggett (D-TX-10); Kay Granger (R-TX-12); Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX-15); Silvestre Reyes (D-TX-16); Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18); Charles Gonzalez (D-TX-20); Lamar Smith (R-TX-21); Henry Bonilla (R-TX-23); Martin Frost (D-TX-24); Ken Bentsen (D-TX-25); Richard Armey (R-TX-26); Solomon Ortiz (D-TX-27); Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX-28); Gene Green (D-TX-29); Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30).  Voted Nay: Max Sandlin (D-TX-1); Sam Johnson (R-TX-3); Ralph Hall (D-TX-4); Joe Barton (R-TX-6); Bill Archer (R-TX-7); Kevin Brady (R-TX-8); Chet Edwards (D-TX-11); William Thornberry (R-TX-13); Ron Paul (R-TX-14); Charles Stenholm (D-TX-17); Larry Combest (R-TX-19); Tom DeLay (R-TX-22).  UTAH  Voted Nay: James Hansen (R-UT-1); Merrill Cook (R-UT-2); Christopher Cannon (R-UT-3).  VERMONT  Voted Yea: Bernard Sanders (I-VT-AL).  VIRGINIA  Voted Yea: Owen Pickett (D-VA-2); Bobby Scott (D-VA-3); Norman Sisisky (D-VA-4); Thomas Bliley (R-VA-7); James Moran (D-VA-8); Rick Boucher (D-VA-9); Frank Wolf (R-VA-10); Thomas Davis (R-VA-11).  Voted Nay: Virgil Goode (D-VA-5); Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-6).  WASHINGTON  Voted Yea: Jay Inslee (D-WA-1); Jack Metcalf (R-WA-2); Brian Baird (D-WA-3); Doc Hastings (R-WA-4); George Nethercutt (R-WA-5); Norman Dicks (D-WA-6); Jennifer Dunn (R-WA-8); Adam Smith (D-WA-9).  Voted Nay: Jim McDermott (D-WA-7).  WEST VIRGINIA  Voted Yea: Alan Mollohan (D-WV-1).  Voted Nay: Nick Rahall (D-WV-3).  Not Voting: Robert Wise (D-WV-2).  WISCONSIN  Voted Yea: Paul Ryan (R-WI-1); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-2); Jerry Kleczka (D-WI-4); Thomas Barrett (D-WI-5); Thomas Petri (R-WI-6); David Obey (D-WI-7); Mark Green (R-WI-8).  Voted Nay: Ronald Kind (D-WI-3); F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI-9).  WYOMING  Voted Nay: Barbara Cubin (R-WY-AL).  

House Consideration Of Conference Report

Waiving Points Of Order Against Conference Report On H.R. 4811, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001 (House of Representatives – October 25, 2000)

[Page: H10833]

Ms. KILPATRICK.
…With the international family planning language set, with the $420 million appropriation there to help family planning for women all over the world, it is a major effort. I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for working closely and hard on that.

[Page: H10836]

Mrs. MALONEY.
…This conference report is the first time in 5 years that this body has increased funding for international family planning. Just 5 years ago, we spent $200 million more a year to save women’s lives. With the increase in this bill today, raising USAID funding to $425 million from $385 million last year, we are taking the first step to restoring our commitment to the life-saving resources international family planning provides to some of the world’s poorest women.

[Page: H10840]
Mr. STARK. …This bill also includes no restrictions on international family planning activities for non-profit organizations. I’m not sure why my anti-abortion colleagues have allowed this bill to proceed, but I’m thankful that this body has begun to realize that we cannot force our own personal morality on other people. I hope that in the future this body will continue on this path and support a woman’s right to choose.

H.R. 4811
Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001

Sec. 598. Family Planning
The conference agreement provides a ceiling of $425,000,000 for population planning activities or other population assistance but prohibits any of such funds from being obligated or expended until February 15, 2001. The managers believe this will afford adequate time for the exercise of the authority of the President under the Foreign Assistance Act and other law to determine what terms and conditions, if any, should be imposed on assistance for population planning and other population activities.

Back to The Covenant News

Film Festival – Controversy and Hope: San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival Expected to Draw More than 1,200 to Second Annual Event


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                October 26, 2005

Christian Film Festival

Controversy and Hope: San Antonio
Independent Christian Film Festival

Expected to Draw More than 1,200 to Second Annual Event

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS October 26 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — Vision Forum Ministries is pleased to host the second annual San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and Jubilee Awards to be held on October 27-29, 2005 at the Lila Cockrell Theatre and Gonzalez Convention Center in San Antonio, Texas. The 2005 festival will feature more than forty independent Christian films on four screens over a three-day span. The “Best of Festival” winner will receive the $10,000 Grand Prize Jubilee Award.

“The mission of the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival is to encourage Christian filmmakers to neither retreat from society, nor to synthesize with paganism — but to do God’s work, God’s way, from the ground-level up,” explained Doug Phillips, the festival’s founder. “We are urging filmographers to force the antithesis between cultural righteousness and cultural evil.”

Last year’s inaugural festival drew more than seven hundred attendees, including filmmakers from England and Scotland. More than twelve hundred are expected to attend this year’s event.

“We are pleased that the call to take a stand for Christ in the critical arena of film has resonated with filmmakers across the globe,” remarked Phillips, “What this festival showcases is a groundswell of interest on the part of aspiring Christian filmographers to chart a new path and to define success using a biblical criteria — not to accept the scraps from Hollywood’s table.” “Our film festival is controversial,” continued Phillips, “not because it seeks to be avant-garde or push the envelope of visual acceptability. It is controversial, because it dares to proclaim that the Lordship of Christ applies to our methodologies as well as our ends. It is controversial, not because of the offensive things you will see, but because of what you will not see.”

In addition to the film screenings, the festival will offer workshops with seasoned filmographers, including veteran producer Geoff Botkin, adventure cinematographer David Rasmussen, and composer Ron Owen, who wrote the score for Beyond the Gates of Splendor. Bible teacher R.C. Sproul, Jr. and radio host Kevin Swanson will also address the gathering.

Festival attendees will be treated to outdoor entertainment at the River Walk’s enchanting Arneson River Theatre with dramatic presentations by narrator and actor, George Sarris, and rousing ballads with maritime balladeer, Charlie Zahm.

While some may not agree with the standards advanced at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, organizers believe the event provides a forum of hope for Christian filmographers. “Those who take part in the festival you will not only hear a message of hope,” explained Phillips, “but they will witness the fruits of the hopeful — men and women laboring to advance the crown rights of Christ in a medium of defining significance for twenty-first century Christians.”

Festival passes are $125 for adults, $100 for students. Passes allow access to all the festival events. Space is limited. For more information on the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and Jubilee Awards, please visit the festival Web site at: www.independentchristianfilms.com.

CONTACT:
Wesley Strackbein
Vision Forum Ministries
press@visionforum.org
Phone: (210) 340-5250, ext. 222
www.independentchristianfilms.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

USA TODAY.com Nation – Top Stories – Covenant News

CovenantNews.com

Home Page | AP | FOX | USA TODAY | Washington Post | NY Times | MSNBC | CBS News


Pro-Life News

Court News Report

Freedom of Speech

Politics

Abominations

USA TODAY Headlines

The latest top news headlines from USATODAY, updated continuously from Covenant News Wire sources. Refresh page for the most recent news.

Support Covenant News; Visit Our Advertisers

Support Covenant News; Visit Our Advertisers


©2006 The Covenant News

Suggested Links

The American View

Institute on the Constitution

Problems After
RU-486?
Call Attorney
and Sue!

_________


House Roll Call #121 — 5/16/01 Passage of H.R. 1646 – Covenant News

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR U.S. HOUSE ROLL CALL 121
[107th Congress — 2001]

H.R. 1646        RECORDED VOTE        16-MAY-2001        6:48  PM
To authorize appropriations setting the Department of State budget for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes.
Funding The United Nations With Your Tax Dollars
A YES vote approved the annual Foreign Ops give-away of taxpayer $dollars$ to the United Nations, and for many other activities in and for other countries.

QUESTION:  On Passage    352  to  73
BILL TITLE:  Foreign Relations Authorization Act, For Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

POLITICAL PARTY DISTRIBUTION
Clerk’s Official Alphabetical List Of The 107th U.S. House Of Representatives

AYES NOES PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 180 36   3
DEMOCRAT 172 35   3
INDEPENDENT   2    
TOTALS 352 73   6


Jump to Alpha Listing                   Jump to Bottom

BY STATE / DISTRICT / CONGRESSMAN

ALABAMA
INDIANA cont’d
NORTH CAROLINA cont’d
1 Callahan (R)     YES 9 Hill (D)     YES 6 Coble (R)     YES
2 Everett (R)     NO 10 Carson, Julia (D)     NO 7 McIntyre (D)     YES
3 Riley (R)     YES
IOWA
8 Hayes (R)     YES
4 Aderholt (R)      YES 1 Leach (R)     YES 9 Myrick (R)     YES
5 Cramer (D)     YES 2 Nussle (R)     YES 10 Ballenger (R)     YES
6 Bachus (R)     YES 3 Boswell (D)     YES 11 Taylor, Charles (R)     YES
7 Hilliard (D)     YES 4 Ganske (R)     YES 12 Watt (D)     YES
ALASKA
5 Latham (R)     YES
NORTH DAKOTA
1 Young, Don (R)     YES
KANSAS
1 Pomeroy (D)     YES
ARIZONA
1 Moran, Jerry (R)     NO
OHIO
1 Flake (R)     NO 2 Ryun, Jim (R)     YES 1 Chabot (R)     YES
2 Pastor (D)     YES 3 Moore (D)     YES 2 Portman (R)     YES
3 Stump (R)     YES 4 Tiahrt (R)     YES 3 Hall, Tony (D)     YES
4 Shadegg (R)     YES
KENTUCKY
4 Oxley (R)     YES
5 Kolbe (R)     YES 1 Whitfield (R)     YES 5 Gillmor (R)     YES
6 Hayworth (R)     YES 2 Lewis, Ron (R)     YES 6 Strickland (D)     YES
ARKANSAS
3 Northup (R)     YES 7 Hobson (R)     YES
1 Berry (D)     NO 4 Lucas, Ken (D)     YES 8 Boehner (R)     YES
2 Snyder (D)     YES 5 Rogers, Harold (R)     YES 9 Kaptur (D)     YES
3 Hutchinson (R)     YES 6 Fletcher (R)     YES 10 Kucinich (D)     NO
4 Ross (D)     YES
LOUISIANA
11 Jones, Stephanie (D)     NO
CALIFORNIA
1 Vitter (R)     YES 12 Tiberi (R)     YES
1 Thompson, Mike (D)     YES 2 Jefferson (D)     YES 13 Brown, Sherrod (D)     YES
2 Herger (R)     YES 3 Tauzin (R)     YES 14 Sawyer (D)     YES
3 Ose (R)     YES 4 McCrery (R)     YES 15 Pryce, Deborah (R)     YES
4 Doolittle (R)     NO 5 Cooksey (R)     YES 16 Regula (R)     YES
5 Matsui (D)     YES 6 Baker (R)     YES 17 Traficant (D)     YES
6 Woolsey (D)     YES 7 John (D)     YES 18 Ney (R)     YES
7 Miller, George (D)     YES
MAINE
19 LaTourette (R)     YES
8 Pelosi (D)     YES 1 Allen (D)     YES
OKLAHOMA
9 Lee (D)     NO 2 Baldacci (D)     YES 1 Largent (R)     YES
10 Tauscher (D)     NO
MARYLAND
2 Carson, Brad (D)     YES
11 Pombo (R)     NO 1 Gilchrest (R)     YES 3 Watkins (R)     NO
12 Lantos (D)     YES 2 Ehrlich (R)     YES 4 Watts (R)     YES
13 Stark (D)     NO 3 Cardin (D)     YES 5 Istook (R)     YES
14 Eshoo (D)     YES 4 Wynn (D)     YES 6 Lucas, Frank (R)     NO
15 Honda (D)     YES 5 Hoyer (D)     YES
OREGON
16 Lofgren (D)     YES 6 Bartlette (R)     YES 1 Wu (D)     YES
17 Farr (D)     YES 7 Cummings (D)     NO 2 Walden (R)     YES
18 Condit (D)     YES 8 Morella (R)     YES 3 Blumenauer (D)     YES
19 Radanovich (R)     YES
MASSACHUSETTS
4 DeFazio (D)     NO
20 Dooley (D)     YES 1 Olver (D)     YES 5 Hooley (D)     YES
21 Thomas (R)     YES 2 Neal (D)     YES
PENNSYLVANIA
22 Capps (D)     YES 3 McGovern (D)     YES 1 Brady, Robert (D)     Not Voting
23 Gallegly (R)     YES 4 Frank (D)     YES 2 Fattah (D)     YES
24 Sherman (D)     YES 5 Meehan (D)     YES 3 Borski (D)     Not Voting
25 McKeon (R)     YES 6 Tierney (D)     YES 4 Hart (R)     YES
26 Berman (D)     YES 7 Markey (D)     YES 5 Peterson, John (R)     YES
27 Schiff (D)     YES 8 Capuano (D)     YES 6 Holden (D)     YES
28 Dreier (R)     YES 9 Moakley (D)     YES 7 Weldon, Curt (R)     YES
29 Waxman (D)     YES 10 Delahunt (D)     YES 8 Greenwood (R)     YES
30 Becerra (D)     YES
MICHIGAN
9 *Unlisted Position* (Shuster-R)
31 Solis (D)     NO 1 Stupak (D)     YES 10 Sherwood (R)     YES
32 *Unlisted Position* (Dixon-D) 2 Hoekstra (R)     YES 11 Kanjorski (D)     YES
33 Roybal-Allard (D)     YES 3 Ehlers (R)     YES 12 Murtha (D)     YES
34 Napolitano (D)     YES 4 Camp (R)     YES 13 Hoeffel (D)     YES
35 Waters (D)     YES 5 Barcia (D)     YES 14 Coyne (D)     YES
36 Harman (D)     YES 6 Upton (R)     NO 15 Toomey (R)     YES
37 Millender-McDonald (D)     YES 7 Smith, Nick (R)     YES 16 Pitts (R)     YES
38 Horn (R)     YES 8 Rogers, Mike (R)     YES 17 Gekas (R)     YES
39 Royce (R)     NO 9 Kildee (D)     YES 18 Doyle (D)     YES
40 Lewis, Jerry (R)     YES 10 Bonior (D)     NO 19 Platts (R)     YES
41 Miller, Gary (R)     YES 11 Knollenberg (R)     NO 20 Mascara (D)     YES
42 Baca (D)     YES 12 Levin (D)     YES 21 English (R)     YES
43 Calvert (R)     YES 13 Rivers (D)     YES
RHODE ISLAND
44 Bono (R)     YES 14 Conyers (D)     NO 1 Kennedy, Patrick (D)     YES
45 Rohrabacher (R)     NO 15 Kilpatrick (D)     NO 2 Langevin (D)     YES
46 Sanchez (D)     YES 16 Dingell (D)     YES
SOUTH CAROLINA
47 Cox (R)     YES
MINNESOTA
1 Brown, Henry (R)     YES
48 Issa (R)     NO 1 Gutknecht (R)     YES 2 Spence (R)     YES
49 Davis, Susan (D)     YES 2 Kennedy, Mark (R)     YES 3 Graham (R)     YES
50 Filner (D)     NO 3 Ramstad (R)     YES 4 DeMint (R)     YES
51 Cunningham (R)     YES 4 McCollum (D)     YES 5 Spratt (D)     YES
52 Hunter (R)     YES 5 Sabo (D)     Not Voting 6 Clyburn (D)     YES
COLORADO
6 Luther (D)     YES
SOUTH DAKOTA
1 DeGette (D)     NO 7 Peterson, Collin (D)     YES 1 Thune (R)     YES
2 Udall, Mark (D)     NO 8 Oberstar (D)     YES
TENNESSEE
3 McInnis (R)     NO
MISSISSIPPI
1 Jenkins (R)     YES
4 Schaffer (R)     NO 1 Wicker (R)     YES 2 Duncan (R)     NO
5 Hefley (R)     NO 2 Thompson, Bennie (D)     NO 3 Wamp (R)     YES
6 Tancredo (R)     NO 3 Pickering (R)     YES 4 Hilleary (R)     YES
CONNECTICUT
4 Shows (D)     YES 5 Clement (D)     YES
1 Larson, John (D)     YES 5 Taylor, Gene (D)     NO 6 Gordon (D)     YES
2 Simmons (R)     YES
MISSOURI
7 Bryant (R)     YES
3 DeLauro (D)     YES 1 Clay (D)     NO 8 Tanner (D)     NO
4 Shays (R)     YES 2 Akin (R)     NO 9 Ford (D)     YES
5 Maloney, James (D)     YES 3 Gephardt (D)     YES
TEXAS
6 Johnson, Nancy (R)     YES 4 Skelton (D)     YES 1 Sandlin (D)     YES
DELAWARE
5 McCarthy, Karen (D)     YES 2 Turner (D)     YES
1 Castle (R)     NO 6 Graves (R)     YES 3 Johnson, Sam (R)     YES
FLORIDA
7 Blunt (R)     NO 4 Hall, Ralph (D)     YES
1 Scarborough (R)     YES 8 Emerson (R)     NO 5 Sessions (R)     YES
2 Boyd (D)     YES 9 Hulshof (R)     YES 6 Barton (R)     YES
3 Brown, Corrine (D)     YES
MONTANA
7 Culberson (R)     YES
4 Crenshaw (R)     YES 1 Rehberg (R)     YES 8 Brady, Kevin (R)     YES
5 Thurman (D)     YES
NEBRASKA
9 Lampson (D)     YES
6 Stearns (R)     NO 1 Bereuter (R)     YES 10 Doggett (D)     YES
7 Mica (R)     YES 2 Terry (R)     YES 11 Edwards (D)     YES
8 Keller (R)     YES 3 Osborne (R)     YES 12 Granger (R)     YES
9 Bilirakis (R)     YES
NEVADA
13 Thornberry (R)     YES
10 Young, Bill (R)     YES 1 Berkley (D)     YES 14 Paul (R)     NO
11 Davis, Jim (D)     YES 2 Gibbons (R)     YES 15 Hinojosa (D)     YES
12 Putnam (R)     NO
NEW HAMPSHIRE
16 Reyes (D)     YES
13 Miller, Dan (R)     YES 1 Sununu (R)     NO 17 Stenholm (D)     YES
14 Goss (R)     YES 2 Bass (R)     YES 18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D)     YES
15 Weldon, Dave (R)     NO
NEW JERSEY
19 Combest (R)     NO
16 Foley (R)     YES 1 Andrews (D)     YES 20 Gonzalez (D)     YES
17 Meek (D)     YES 2 LoBiondo (R)     YES 21 Smith, Lamar (R)     Not Voting
18 Ros-Lehtinen (R)     YES 3 Saxton (R)     YES 22 DeLay (R)     YES
19 Wexler (D)     YES 4 Smith, Christopher (R)     YES 23 Bonilla (R)     YES
20 Deutsch (D)     YES 5 Roukema (R)     YES 24 Frost (D)     YES
21 Diaz-Balart (R)     YES 6 Pallone (D)     YES 25 Bentsen (D)     YES
22 Shaw (R)     Not Voting 7 Ferguson (R)     YES 26 Armey (R)     YES
23 Hastings, Alcee (D)     YES 8 Pascrell (D)     YES 27 Ortiz (D)     YES
GEORGIA
9 Rothman (D)     YES 28 Rodriguez (D)     YES
1 Kingston (R)     YES 10 Payne (D)     NO 29 Green, Gene (D)     YES
2 Bishop (D)     YES 11 Frelinghuysen (R)     YES 30 Johnson, E. Bernice (D)     YES
3 Collins (R)     YES 12 Holt (D)     YES
UTAH
4 McKinney (D)     NO 13 Menendez (D)     YES 1 Hansen (R)     YES
5 Lewis, John (D)     YES
NEW MEXICO
2 Matheson (D)     YES
6 Isakson (R)     YES 1 Wilson (R)     YES 3 Cannon (R)     YES
7 Barr (R)     NO 2 Skeen (R)     YES
VERMONT
8 Chambliss (R)     YES 3 Udall, Tom (D)     YES 1 Sanders (I)     NO
9 Deal (R)     YES
NEW YORK
VIRGINIA
10 Norwood (R)     YES 1 Grucci (R)     YES 1 Davis, Jo Ann (R)     YES
11 Linder (R)     YES 2 Israel (D)     YES 2 Schrock (R)     YES
HAWAII
3 King (R)     YES 3 Scott (D)     YES
1 Abercrombie (D)     YES 4 McCarthy, Carolyn (D)     YES 4 *Unlisted Position* (Sisisky-D)
2 Mink (D)     YES 5 Ackerman (D)     YES 5 Goode (I)     NO
IDAHO
6 Meeks (D)     NO 6 Goodlatte (R)     YES
1 Otter (R)     NO 7 Crowley (D)     YES 7 Cantor (R)     YES
2 Simpson (R)     YES 8 Nadler (D)     YES 8 Moran, James (D)     NO
ILLINOIS
9 Weiner (D)     YES 9 Boucher (D)     YES
1 Rush (D)     YES 10 Towns (D)     YES 10 Wolf (R)     YES
2 Jackson, Jesse (D)     NO 11 Owens (D)     YES 11 Davis, Tom (R)     YES
3 Lipinski (D)     YES 12 Velazquez (D)     YES
WASHINGTON
4 Gutierrez (D)     YES 13 Fossella (R)     YES 1 Inslee (D)     NO
5 Blagojevich (D)     YES 14 Maloney, Carolyn (D)     YES 2 Larsen, Rick (D)     YES
6 Hyde (R)     YES 15 Rangel (D)     YES 3 Baird (D)     NO
7 Davis, Danny (D)     NO 16 Serrano (D)     YES 4 Hastings, Doc (R)     YES
8 Crane (R)     YES 17 Engel (D)     YES 5 Nethercutt (R)     YES
9 Schakowsky (D)     YES 18 Lowey (D)     YES 6 Dicks (D)     NO
10 Kirk (R)     YES 19 Kelly (R)     YES 7 McDermott (D)     NO
11 Weller (R)     YES 20 Gilman (R)     YES 8 Dunn (R)     YES
12 Costello (D)     YES 21 McNulty (D)     YES 9 Smith, Adam (D)     YES
13 Biggert (R)     YES 22 Sweeney (R)     YES
WEST VIRGINIA
14 Hastert (R) SPEAKER 23 Boehlert (R)     YES 1 Mollohan (D)     NO
15 Johnson, Timothy (R)     YES 24 McHugh (R)     YES 2 Capito (R)     YES
16 Manzullo (R)     YES 25 Walsh (R)     YES 3 Rahall (D)     NO
17 Evans (D)     YES 26 Hinchey (D)     YES
WISCONSIN
18 LaHood (R)     NO 27 Reynolds (R)     YES 1 Ryan, Paul (R)     YES
19 Phelps (D)     YES 28 Slaughter (D)     NO 2 Baldwin (D)     YES
20 Shimkus (R)     YES 29 LaFalce (D)     YES 3 Kind (D)     YES
INDIANA
30 Quinn (R)     YES 4 Kleczka (D)     NO
1 Visclosky (D)     YES 31 Houghton (R)     YES 5 Barrett (D)     YES
2 Pence (R)     NO
NORTH CAROLINA
6 Petri (R)     NO
3 Roemer (D)     NO 1 Clayton (D)     YES 7 Obey (D)     YES
4 Souder (R)     YES 2 Etheridge (D)     YES 8 Green, Mark (R)     YES
5 Buyer (R)     YES 3 Jones, Walter (R)     NO 9 Sensenbrenner (R)     NO
6 Burton (R)     YES 4 Price, David (D)     YES
WYOMING
7 Kerns (R)     NO 5 Burr (R)     YES 1 Cubin (R)     Not Voting
8 Hostettler (R)     NO


Back to Top                  Jump to Bottom

BY CONGRESSMAN / ALPHABETICAL
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

— AYES    352 —
Abercrombie Granger Nussle
Ackerman Graves Oberstar
Aderholt Green, Gene (TX) Obey
Allen Green, Mark (WI) Olver
Andrews Greenwood Ortiz
Armey Grucci Osborne
Baca Gutierrez Ose
Bachus Gutknecht Owens
Baker Hall, Tony (OH) Oxley
Baldacci Hall, Ralph (TX) Pallone
Baldwin Hansen Pascrell
Ballenger Harman Pastor
Barcia Hart Pelosi
Barrett Hastings, Alcee (FL) Peterson, Collin (MN)
Bartlett Hastings, Doc (WA) Peterson, John (PA)
Barton Hayes Phelps
Bass Hayworth Pickering
Becerra Herger Pitts
Bentsen Hill Platts
Bereuter Hilleary Pomeroy
Berkley Hilliard Portman
Berman Hinchey Price, David (NC)
Biggert Hinojosa Pryce, Deborah (OH)
Bilirakis Hobson Quinn
Bishop Hoeffel Radanovich
Blagojevich Hoekstra Ramstad
Blumenauer Holden Rangel
Boehlert Holt Regula
Boehner Honda Rehberg
Bonilla Hooley Reyes
Bono Horn Reynolds
Boswell Houghton Riley
Boucher Hoyer Rivers
Boyd Hulshof Rodriguez
Brady, Kevin (TX) Hunter Rogers, Harold (KY)
Brown, Corrine (FL) Hutchinson Rogers, Mike (MI)
Brown, Sherrod (OH) Hyde Ros-Lehtinen
Brown, Henry (SC) Isakson Ross
Bryant Israel Rothman
Burr Istook Roukema
Burton Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX) Roybal-Allard
Buyer Jefferson Rush
Callahan Jenkins Ryan, Paul (WI)
Calvert John Ryun, Jim (KS)
Camp Johnson, Nancy (CT) Sanchez
Cannon Johnson, Timothy (IL) Sandlin
Cantor Johnson, E. Bernice (TX) Sawyer
Capito Johnson, Sam (TX) Saxton
Capps Kanjorski Scarborough
Capuano Kaptur Schakowsky
Cardin Keller Schiff
Carson, Brad (OK) Kelly Schrock
Chabot Kennedy, Mark (MN) Scott
Chambliss Kennedy, Patrick (RI) Serrano
Clayton Kildee Sessions
Clement Kind (WI) Shadegg
Clyburn King Shays
Coble Kingston Sherman
Collins Kirk Sherwood
Condit Kolbe Shimkus
Cooksey LaFalce Shows
Costello Lampson Simmons
Cox Langevin Simpson
Coyne Lantos Skeen
Cramer Largent Skelton
Crane Larsen, Rick (WA) Smith, Nick (MI)
Crenshaw Larson, John (CT) Smith, Christopher (NJ)
Crowley Latham Smith, Adam (WA)
Culberson LaTourette Snyder
Cunningham Leach Souder
Davis, Susan (CA) Levin Spence
Davis, Jim (FL) Lewis, Jerry (CA) Spratt
Davis, Jo Ann (VA) Lewis, John (GA) Stenholm
Davis, Tom (VA) Lewis, Ron (KY) Strickland
Deal Linder Stump
Delahunt Lipinski Stupak
DeLauro LoBiondo Sweeney
DeLay Lofgren Tauzin
DeMint Lowey Taylor, Charles (NC)
Deutsch Lucas, Ken (KY) Terry
Diaz-Balart Luther Thomas
Dingell Maloney, James (CT) Thompson, Mike (CA)
Doggett Maloney, Carolyn (NY) Thornberry
Dooley Manzullo Thune
Doyle Markey Thurman
Dreier Mascara Tiahrt
Dunn Matheson Tiberi
Edwards Matsui Tierney
Ehlers McCarthy, Karen (MO) Toomey
Ehrlich McCarthy, Carolyn (NY) Towns
Engel McCollum Traficant
English McCrery Turner
Eshoo McGovern Udall, Tom (NM)
Etheridge McHugh Velazquez
Evans McIntyre Visclosky
Farr McKeon Vitter
Fattah McNulty Walden
Ferguson Meehan Walsh
Fletcher Meek (FL) Wamp
Foley Menendez Waters
Ford Mica Watt (NC)
Fossella Millender-McDonald Watts (OK)
Frank Miller, Dan (FL) Waxman
Frelinghuysen Miller, Gary (CA) Weiner
Frost Miller, George (CA) Weldon, Curt (PA)
Gallegly Mink Weller
Ganske Moakley Wexler
Gekas Moore Whitfield
Gephardt Morella Wicker
Gibbons Murtha Wilson
Gilchrest Myrick Wolf
Gillmor Nadler Woolsey
Gilman Napolitano Wu
Gonzalez Neal Wynn
Goodlatte Nethercutt Young, Don (AK)
Gordon Ney Young, Bill (FL)
Goss Northup
Graham Norwood


Back to Top

— NOES    73 —
Akin Inslee Pombo
Baird Issa Putnam
Barr Jackson, Jesse (IL) Rahall
Berry Jones, Walter (NC) Roemer
Blunt Jones, Stephanie (OH) Rohrabacher
Bonior Kerns Royce
Carson, Julia (IN) Kilpatrick Sanders
Castle Kleczka Schaffer
Clay Knollenberg Sensenbrenner
Combest Kucinich Slaughter
Conyers LaHood Solis
Cummings Lee Stark
Davis, Danny (IL) Lucas, Frank (OK) Stearns
DeFazio McDermott Sununu
DeGette McInnis Tancredo
Dicks McKinney Tanner
Doolittle Meeks (NY) Tauscher
Duncan Mollohan Taylor, Gene (MS)
Emerson Moran, Jerry (KS) Thompson, Bennie (MS)
Everett Moran, James (VA) Udall, Mark (CO)
Filner Otter Upton
Flake Paul Watkins
Goode Payne Weldon, Dave (FL)
Hefley Pence
Hostettler Petri

— NOT VOTING    6 —
Borski Cubin Shaw
Brady, Robert (PA) Sabo Smith, Lamar (TX)


Back to Top                   Back to Ayes


Bush holds funds on family planning

The Washington Times
www.washtimes.com


Bush holds funds on family planning

Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 7/23/2002


�����The Bush administration said yesterday that it will not pay the $34 million Congress has earmarked for U.N. family-planning programs overseas, a population-control initiative that conservative groups say tolerates abortions and forces sterilizations in China.
�����State Department officials said the decision to withhold money from the U.N. Population Fund, known as UNFPA, was based on information collected during a May investigation that revealed some of the funding was inadvertently used to support such practices.
�����"While the U.N. is not knowingly involved in these programs of coercion, they support and work with agencies that are involved in that," said Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman.
�����House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, hailed the decision sought by conservative groups, who lobbied intensely against the program.
�����"American tax dollars shouldn't fund a program that carries out the systematic destruction of innocent human life by performing forced abortions and sterilizing women against their will," he said.
�����Democrats, meanwhile, railed against it.
�����"It's perfectly clear that Karl Rove would rather appease the president's right wing than provide health care to women around the world," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Democrat.
�����UNFPA officials said they were shocked by the U.S. government's decision and that they have never been "involved in coercion in China or anywhere else in the world."
�����"We've always been staunch supporters of international human rights particularly women's rights," said UNFPA spokesman Sterling Scruggs.
�����Mr. Boucher said the $34 million Congress appropriated in December 2001 will instead be spent through the U.S. Agency for International Development and noted that this will bring to $480.5 million the total spent by the United States this year on population programs worldwide.
�����He said the State Department's decision complies with a 1985 law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment that prohibits U.S. funding to any organization that the president determines supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.
�����President Bush was pleased with the decision, said White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McLellan. It denies federal funds for the program reinstated under President Clinton. Presidents Reagan and George Bush had withheld the funding based on that prohibition.
�����The announcement yesterday came after the administration's fact-finding team sent to China in May determined that the funding should be released to the UNFPA. Their report, released yesterday, found no evidence that the UNFPA knowingly participated in programs of coercion. It did find coercion still exists in China, both in law and in practice.
�����Mr. Boucher said the department's legal analysis found that while the UNFPA may not "knowingly" support coercion, it inadvertently does so because computers, data-processing equipment, vehicles and other support supplied by the UNFPA are used by government officials to impose fines and other punishments on women who violate China's population policy.
�����"UNFPA is helping improve the administration of the local family planning offices that are administering the fees and other penalties that are effectively coercing women to have abortions," the legal analysis says.
�����Chinese Embassy spokesman Xie Feng said yesterday that Beijing was disappointed by the decision.
�����"We are very regretful that the donations or the money United States ought to put to this fund has been stopped," Mr. Xie said. "We hope that this decision will be changed because it's not good for the U.N. cooperation, and it's also not true to facts."

The Washington Times National Weekly Edition


Sell the Washington Times National Weekly Edition in your store!

Pastors enter sodomite debate

Pastors Enter Marriage Debate

      Four area evangelical leaders reluctantly step forward to oppose gay marriage, saying it runs against their core values

      They were reluctant to talk to a reporter and had to be persuaded to allow a photo to be taken. They would rather stay within their church communities and out of the public eye.

      But, instead, four evangelical pastors from the Portland area have gingerly stepped into the public arena to oppose gay marriage.

      Among other things, they are part of an informal group considering launching a ballot measure that, if passed by Oregon voters, would bar the state from recognizing any marriage that is not between a man and a woman.

      Ballot fights over gay rights are nothing new to Oregonians. But these pastors regard themselves as different from Oregon Citizens Alliance leader Lon Mabon, who has mounted one high-profile crusade after another against anything he sees as promoting the societal acceptance of homosexuality.

      Instead, these pastors say they have largely stayed on the sidelines of gay-rights issues as they’ve ministered to congregations that run into the thousands of members.

      Their decision to step into the political fray speaks volumes about how strongly so many evangelicals feel about preserving the traditional definition of marriage — and why this is an issue likely to become as prominent and hard-fought as abortion.

      “Our primary focus is to minister to people to help them build solid, positive lives,” said Ray Cotton, senior pastor of New Hope Community Church near Clackamas Town Center. “We’re not here to be against anyone. But when you take a value of our faith that is such a core value, we feel like we have to stand up.”

      Cotton and three other pastors participated in an interview Friday arranged by Tim Nashif, a veteran political consultant who helped found the Oregon Family Council, a group that publishes a Christian voting guide. Nashif is advising an informal group of pastors that recently filed four versions of a proposed ballot measure barring gay marriage.

      Nashif said the pastors aren’t sure whether they’ll go ahead with an initiative. In part, that’s because it would be difficult to gather the signatures needed by July 2 to qualify it for the November ballot. He said they could also get involved in urging the Oregon Legislature to act, or support President Bush’s attempt to amend the federal Constitution to ban gay marriage.

      They sharply distinguished between marriage and other issues involving how gay relationships are treated legally. None expressed great hostility toward Vermont-style civil-union laws, which provide many of the legal benefits of marriage for gays.

      “I would not be a promoter of civil unions, but I would not be antagonistic either,” said James E. Martin, senior pastor of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in North Portland. “It would be like other issues: Just let it go.”

      Frank Damazio, pastor of City Bible Church, which has a congregation of more than 4,000 in two locations in the Portland area, said he had never bothered to delve into the legal fine points of civil unions.

      They seemed like “a very fair thing to do, personally,” Damazio said, but he objected after deciding that gay activists had the “intention all along to use this as a stepping stone to get a full definition of marriage.”

      4,000-year history

      That, the pastors said, runs full force against the basic beliefs they have preached for years. While there are disputes about the meaning of the biblical injunctions against homosexuality, the pastors argue that the Bible consistently defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

      And this definition has served society well for “thousands of years through every civilization and millions of marriages,” said Damazio, adding that he worries about generations of children growing up in gay households.

      “Whether I was religious or not,” he said, “I would find that pretty amazing that we would take a 4,000-year-old book and civilization and say, . . . ‘We’re going to do something different.’ That’s pretty heavy.”

      Although nearly all legal scholars say that no church would be forced to marry gays in any case, the pastors don’t buy that. “I don’t believe that people will stand for you saying, ‘I’m not going to marry you because you are a same-sex couple,’ ” Martin said. “I know that’s going to bring lawsuits.”

      Supporters of gay marriage say it’s a simple matter of equality that also provides a host of societal benefits. They say it can offer a model for monogamy and provide more stability and acceptance for children of gay couples.

      Prepared for criticism

      But the pastors dispute those arguments by raising their own objections to homosexuality. They insist it is a lifestyle that anyone can leave under the right circumstances. Dick Iverson, a retired pastor who now heads Ministers Fellowship International, said he’s counseled several people who have left homosexual relations for heterosexual marriage.

      Endorsing gay marriage runs “totally contrary to what we believe will bring hope and help to people,” he said.

      The pastors say they know those views will bring them heavy criticism. And that’s one reason they say they are reluctant to enter this battle.

      “The moment we step in and say, ‘This is what the Bible says,’ we get, ‘Oh you hateful, mean-spirited people. You hate people; you want to deny civil rights,’ ” Martin said. “I want them to know we’re not against anything. We’re for marriage.”

      In the same fashion, the pastors say they’ve tried to shore up marriage by working to reduce the incidence of divorce in their congregations and by helping single parents and their children.

      The pastors said they hope they won’t be seen as a divisive force, like Mabon often was with his initiatives. Cotton, for one, called Mabon’s measures “hurtful.”

      But on marriage, the pastors said they are convinced that the majority of the public supports them.

      “I think on the definition of marriage now, you’re not going to find people budge much,” Damazio said. “I think people are going to draw lines. They’re going to stand up and say, ‘This will not be changed.'”

    

Back to Covenant News

Abortion Is NOT Legal!


Abortion Is NOT Legal!


By Herbert W. Titus, JD, and Christine Ross


The Covenant News ~ December 17, 2005


    The following article by Herbert W. Titus, JD, and Christine Ross first appeared in the May/June ‘99 issue of “Life Advocate” magazine.

The mainstream media tell us that the Supreme Court legalized abortion with its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The media also tell us that there is nothing we can do about it because Roe v. Wade is the “law of the land.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is not legal in America! Recognition of this fact is the first step for the pro-life movement in its campaign to turn back the murderous scourge on innocent babies. Indeed, heart disease (738,781 deaths per year) is not the number one cause of death in the United States – abortion is, at well over a million deaths per year.

Article VI of our nation’s founding document declares that “[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States.. .made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties…made…under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.”

What is clearly missing from this Constitutional list of supreme laws is a court opinion. This was not an oversight. Our Constitution’s writers knew that a court opinion could never be law; much less the supreme law of the land. This is especially true if that court opinion contradicted the Constitution itself.

As can be plainly seen from the Constitutional text, a statute enacted by Congress is the supreme law of the land only if made “pursuant to” (in conformity with) the Constitution. If a statute passed by the people’s representatives is not law unless it conforms to the Constitution, then how can a court opinion decided by unelected judges be given a higher status?

When Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review-the right of the court to review a statute to see if it conformed to the Constitution-he said that the written Constitution was just as binding on the courts as it was on Congress. Marshall, then, did not establish the supremacy of judges over the Constitution-but the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress, the President and the courts.

Our Founding Fathers resoundingly rejected the idea of judicial supremacy. They did not empower judges to usurp a power, rightfully belonging to the people and thereby become a law unto themselves. That is why they put the Constitution in writing-so that the original founding laws and principles would not be mistaken or forgotten. In this way they believed that the Constitution would become the fixed law of the land.

Just a little more than 100 years ago, the American people knew that Supreme Court opinions did not become the law for the whole country, but bound only the parties to the case. That is why Abraham Lincoln rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in the infamous Dred Scott case. Lincoln knew that even though the Court declared-in the name of the Constitution that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect, that ruling was not the law of the land.

What has happened to America since the days of Lincoln?

Things began to change when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ascended to the Supreme Court. He introduced the idea that law changed with changing times, and that it was the business of judges to make the necessary changes.

Holmes’s evolutionary philosophy of law soon transformed the Constitution from a document of fixed rules and principles to one reflecting the latest court pronouncements. In this way, the judges became the nation’s supreme lawmakers, displacing the Congress and legislatures on matters ranging from abortion to pornography.

But judges have no right to make law. Their job is to discover the law, state it and apply it. Their role is like that of an engineer who designs a bridge according to the discovered laws of the natural world, not according to “laws” that he has made up.

If an engineer should design a bridge contrary to natural law, there is no question that the government officials who employed that engineer would reject his design. So it should be with a court opinion. If it is contrary to the Constitution, then the president, the Congress and the fifty states’ governors and legislators should reject that opinion.

This is what their oath of office demands. The president takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” not Supreme Court opinions. Further, Article II, Section 3 states that the president is duty-bound to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Any court opinion that is contrary to the Constitution is, by definition, not law. Therefore, the president must not enforce it.

That was what President Lincoln did with the Dred Scott decision. He refused to enforce it as the law of the land.

That is what presidents today should do about Roe v. Wade. Pursuant to his Constitutional oath, the president should issue a proclamation declaring Roe v. Wade to be illegal, and declaring that the human fetus is a person entitled to the full protection of the right to life by the states.

At the state and local level, the people should insist that the laws that are still on the books be enforced against abortionists. In Virginia, for example, abortion is still a Class 4 felony. While other Virginia statutes have incorporated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, those statutes are unconstitutional. They violate Article 1, Section 1 of the Virginia Bill of Rights which denies to the state legislature or any other civil authority any power to deprive the state’s “posterity” (the yet-to-be-born) of their “inherent” rights to “life, liberty, and property.”

In Virginia, then, pro-lifers do not have to change the state law to protect innocent life. They don’t have to look to the president or Congress for action. They don’t have to elect a pro-life governor or state attorney general. They can act now, petitioning their local Commonwealth’s Attorney to prosecute abortionists under the state law and defend the right to life of the preborn under the state Constitution. And if the Commonwealth’s Attorney chooses not to prosecute, then the people can vote him out of office and elect another who will do his prosecutorial duty consistent with his Constitutional oath.

A petition drive has already begun in Virginia. The governor and the attorney general have been petitioned to speak out, urging the Commonwealths’ Attorneys to prosecute the abortionists. While neither office has the authority to command such prosecutions, such a statement would have a profound moral impact. Some local prosecutors have also been petitioned to take action now.

As concerned citizens, it is our duty to petition the Commonwealth’s Attorneys to make decisions according to what the Constitution demands, and not according to what the Supreme Court decides. And it is our further duty to continue to seek justice until we receive it.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Thomas More Law Center – Thomas More Law Center Asks Federal Appeals Court To Reverse $120 Million Dollar Jury Verdict Intended to Silence Pro-Life Speech


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                July 13, 2005

Pro-Life Free Speech Case

Law Center Asks Federal Appeals Court To
Reverse $120 Million Dollar Jury Verdict
Intended to Silence Pro-Life Speech


PORTLAND, OR., July 13 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments yesterday in an ongoing appeal by pro-life activists from a $120 million dollar aggregate verdict by a Portland jury in 1999. The verdict, which had been reversed by a three-judge panel in 2001 only to be reinstated by the 6-to-5 vote of an en banc panel in 2003, was based entirely on the publication of two posters and a non-party’s website (the so-called “Nuremberg Files”) alleged to be “threats” against the named abortionists in violation of FACE and RICO.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan conducted the oral argument on behalf of the pro-life activists. Acting co-counsel was Christopher A. Ferrara of the American Catholic Lawyers Association.

The panel focused on the question of whether the jury’s award of punitive damages, which constitutes most of the verdict could be sustained in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in State Farm v. Campbell. The court appeared concerned that the punitive damages award of $108.5 million was grossly excessive.

Also at issue are changes in the law announced by the Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black and the Supreme Court’s decision in Scheidler v. NOW, which hold that political protesters cannot be liable for “extortion” by threats under RICO unless money or other property is obtained from the alleged extortion victim.

“Under Virginia v. Black,” said Mr. White, “a threat must be specifically intended by the speaker, but the jury instructions in this case expressly rejected specific intent as the standard and told the jury that they could find a threat even if they believed no threat was intended, so long as a ‘reasonable person’ would foresee that the posters and website would be viewed as threats. We believe that the loose standard given to the jury for threats is not consistent with the First Amendment. A specific intent standard is required for adequate constitutional protection.”

“We believe that these Supreme Court decisions require a new trial on the FACE claims and dismissal of the RICO claim,” Mr. White added. “We have asked the Ninth Circuit to apply these new decisions to this case, which is still pending, even though they came down after the jury’s verdict. We believe the Court is obliged to follow these decisions and grant a new trial, since intervening Supreme Court cases apply while the appellate process is continuing.”

A decision in this nationally and internationally reported First Amendment case is expected in three to five months.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Dan Costanzo
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Nuremberg – Nuremberg Files – Thomas More Law Center To argue For Reversal of $120 Million Jury Verdict Against Pro-Lifers in the “Nuremberg Files” Case


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                July 12, 2005

‘Nuremberg Files’ Free Speech Case

Law Center To argue For Reversal of $120
Million Jury Verdict Against Pro-Lifers in the
“Nuremberg Files” Case


ANN ARBOR, MI., July 12 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — On Tuesday, July 12th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Portland, Oregon, will hear oral arguments in the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case, which many consider to be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the country. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, represents several pro-life advocates who were hit with a $120 million jury verdict in 1999. The case against the defendants was primarily based on their use of “wanted” posters specifically naming abortion providers.

The Law Center represents six of the fourteen pro-life defendants. The American Catholic Lawyers Association represents the remaining defendants. Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, will present the argument on behalf of all defendants.

According to White, “We are hopeful the Ninth Circuit will apply the new Supreme Court cases to defendants’ situation. These new cases require the reversal of the jury’s verdict in this case.”

After the 1999 jury verdict, an appeal was taken to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 2001 a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit set aside the verdict and injunction because the defendants’ speech was protected by the First Amendment. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned in 2002 by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, who voted six to five in the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review their decision.

However, since their initial refusal to grant a review of the case, United States Supreme Court has issued at least two opinions, which the Law Center believes, require a reversal or at least a new trial. The Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a defendant to be found guilty of making a threat, a jury must determine that the defendant made the threat with specific intent to commit violence. In the defendants’ case, however, the jury was told that it did not have to find specific intent, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

Also, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a pro-lifer to be found guilty of “extortion” under RICO, the pro-lifer must obtain property from an abortion provider. With regard to the defendants, there was no evidence that they had obtained any property from the abortion providers, yet the abortion providers were still awarded more than $11 million based on their RICO claims, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Dan Costanzo
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Supreme Court – Supreme Court Ratchets Up Hostility To Religion in Ten Commandments Cases; Political Solution Sought


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                June 27, 2005

Court’s Hostility To Religion

Supreme Court Ratchets Up Hostility
To Religion in Ten Commandments Cases;
Political Solution Sought


ANN ARBOR, MI. June 27 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national pubic interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today’s United States Supreme Court rulings in the two Ten Commandment cases, one from Kentucky and the other from Texas, will have the practical effect of discouraging some public entities from displaying religious symbols.

Said Thompson, “Justice Scalia got it right. These decisions do not rest on consistently applied principles of law. Thus, the Court announced no rule of law, which government entities can depend upon that will give them any reasonable certainty they are complying with the requirements of the Establishment Clause. Consequently, some local governments will decide not to take a chance and be forced to pay monstrous attorney fee awards to organizations like the ACLU if they lose. One political solution is to remove the statutory attorney fee awards to the prevailing party in these kinds of cases.” “However, I am certain of one thing,” said Thompson, ” this battle is far from over.”

The Thomas More Law Center filed friend of the court briefs in favor of the Ten Commandment displays in both McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry.

In its 5 to 4 decision issued today in the McCreary case, the Supreme Court ruled that the displays of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Both displays originally included only framed copies of the Ten Commandments. After the ACLU sued to remove the displays, the two counties supplemented the framed copies of the Commandments with eleven historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, calling the new displays the “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The additional documents were chosen because, like the Ten Commandments, they played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.

Despite the additions, a federal trial judge struck down the “Foundations” display because it included the Ten Commandments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the trial judge, holding that the original display, which had only included the Ten Commandments, “unconstitutionally tainted” the subsequent “Foundations” display, making them unconstitutional as well. A sharply divided Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Kentucky counties had not sufficiently distanced themselves from any religious purpose in the first displays.

The four dissenting justices (Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Thomas) criticized the majority’s decision and the majority’s application of the so-called Lemon test, which the dissenters explained can be manipulated to fit whatever result the Court wants to achieve. They noted that even if a government could show that its actual purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments was not to advance religion, the display could still be struck down if the Court’s imaginary “objective observer” would conclude that the government officials intended to advance religion. The dissenters explained that the majority’s new use of the Lemon test has ratcheted up the Court’s hostility to religion.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel commented: “As the four dissenting justices explained, the five majority justices have ratcheted up the Supreme Court’s hostility to religion in this case. The use of the faulty Lemon test by courts is a way to silence religion in this country. Courts, as the dissenters noted, can use the Lemon test to find a religious purpose when none was intended by the government.”

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, explained that “Although the Court ruled against the displays in the two Kentucky counties based on the unique facts of the case, the Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling across the board that the Ten Commandments or other sacred texts cannot be displayed as part of a government display on the subject of law or American history. As such, government can continue to include the Ten Commandments in displays on public property.”

The Supreme Court upheld the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds in the Van Orden case. The monument had stood on government grounds for more than forty years. A few years ago, Thomas Van Orden, a former criminal defense attorney who became homeless, filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Texas challenging the granite monument on which the Ten Commandments were etched. In his lawsuit, Van Orden argued that the appearance of the Ten Commandments monument on government property violated the First Amendment.

Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Van Orden, upholding the display of the Ten Commandments as constitutional. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Texas State Capitol Building contains a wide array of monuments, plaques, and seals depicting both the secular and religious history of Texas. They include a tribute to African American legislators, a plaque commemorating the war with Mexico, a statue of a pioneer woman holding a child in tribute to the role of women in Texas history, and a tribute to the Texans lost at Pearl Harbor. The six foot tall Ten Commandments monument was a gift of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, accepted by a joint resolution of the House and Senate in early 1961.

In the decision issued today, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, with a concurrence by Justice Breyer, ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds was constitutional. In reaching its ruling, however, the Court was fractured with regard to what analysis it should apply to decide such cases. Thus, the Supreme Court has provided little guidance for government entities to follow in erecting displays of the Ten Commandments that will pass constitutional muster.

The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases involving the defense of the Ten Commandments, including two victories last year in defeating separate efforts to remove displays of the Commandments from the cities of Pleasant Grove and Duchesne, Utah.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Dan Costanzo
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Ten Commandments – Law Center Files Brief in Supreme Court Showdown Over Ten Commandments


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                January 27, 2005

Supreme Court Showdown

Law Center Files Brief in Supreme Court
Showdown Over Ten Commandments


ANN ARBOR, MI. Jan., 27 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — With little over a month before the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on whether public displays of the Ten Commandments are constitutional, the Thomas More Law Center announced today that it has filed a “friend of the court brief” in the case of Van Orden v. Perry supporting the right of Texas to display the historically significant monument.

This is the second of two briefs that the Law Center has filed in the past two months with the Supreme Court defending Ten Commandment displays on public property. The first brief was filed in December in the case of ACLU v. McCreary County. Both cases will be decided by the Supreme Court later in the year.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “The roots of American law are grounded in the timeless truths contained in the Ten Commandments, and we must not abandon this heritage.”

The Law Center’s brief was filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday in the case of Van Orden v. Perry. Thomas Van Orden, a former criminal defense attorney who became homeless, filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Texas challenging a granite monument on which the Ten Commandments were etched. In his lawsuit, Van Orden argued that the appearance of the Ten Commandments monument on government property violated the First Amendment.

Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Van Orden, upholding the display of the Ten Commandments as constitutional. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Texas State Capitol Building contains a wide array of monuments, plaques, and seals depicting both the secular and religious history of Texas. They include a tribute to African American legislators, a plaque commemorating the war with Mexico, a statue of a pioneer woman holding a child in tribute to the role of women in Texas history, and a tribute to the Texans lost at Pearl Harbor. The six foot tall Ten Commandments monument was a gift of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, accepted by a joint resolution of the House and Senate in early 1961

The Thomas More Law Center’s brief argued that the attack on Ten Commandments displays is based on the 1980 Supreme Court decision in Stone v. Graham, in which the Supreme Court held that the Ten Commandments could not be posted in public school classrooms. Although Stone is limited to the public school setting, courts have relied on Stone in ruling against the Ten Commandments even when displayed in non-public school settings.

According to Edward L. White III, Trial Counsel of the Law Center, “Stone is a weak precedent that the Supreme Court decided without the benefit of briefing and oral argument. We trust the Supreme Court will re-evaluate Stone and will clarify the proper scope and applicability, if any, of Stone in cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments in non-public school settings.”

On the same day that the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Van Orden, the Court will be hearing argument in the case of ACLU v. McCreary County, another Ten Commandments case. That case involves two displays of the Ten Commandments in the lobbies of Kentucky courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties. Both displays originally only included framed copies of the Ten Commandments. After the ACLU sued to remove the displays, the two counties supplemented the framed copies of the Commandments with eleven historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, calling the new displays the “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The additional documents were chosen because, like the Ten Commandments, they played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.

Despite the additions, a federal trial judge struck down the “Foundations” display because it included the Ten Commandments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the trial judge’s ruling, holding that the original display, which had only included the Ten Commandments, was “blatantly religious” and therefore “unconstitutionally tainted” the subsequent “Foundations” display. The Thomas More Law Center filed its brief in support of the Ten Commandments displays in the McCreary County case last December.

“Both the Van Orden and McCreary County cases will provide the Supreme Court the opportunity once and for all to state that the display of the Ten Commandments, whether alone or as part of a broader display, are constitutional,” continued Thompson. “The high court’s decision in these cases could determine how courts will analyze future disputes over the display of other religious symbols on public property, including nativity scenes and Christian crosses.”

The Law Center has been involved in several cases involving the defense of the Ten Commandments, including two victories earlier this year in defeating separate efforts to remove displays of the Commandments from the cities of Pleasant Grove and Duchesne, Utah.

Oral arguments before the nine justices of the Supreme Court are scheduled for March 2, 2005, with a decision in the case expected in June.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Brian Burch
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Evolution – A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                January 18, 2005

A Revolution in
Evolution Is Underway


ANN ARBOR, MI. Jan., 18 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution.

In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.”

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells – the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”

“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.

The Dover high school assistant superintendent read the four-paragraph one- minute statement to two biology classes this morning totaling 35 students. Teachers reported that there were no problems in class after the statements were read and the entire process was uneventful. Biology classes this afternoon and tomorrow will also hear the statement.

Very few students took advantage of the school provided opportunity to opt out from hearing the statement – an estimated 15 students out of a total of 170. National polls consistently show that most parents want schools to teach alternative theories to evolution. In fact, a November 2004 CBS Poll showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans said they favored teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.

The ACLU and Americans United sued the Dover Area School District over the policy last December. The School Board selected to the Thomas More Law Center to represent them in the federal lawsuit. In early January, after several depositions of board members and reviewing documents, the ACLU announced they would not seek a court order to immediately block the statement from being read.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Brian Burch
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

American Legion – American Legion fights to preserve Ten Commandments in U.S. Supreme Court


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                   December 13, 2004

Thomas More Law Center Files
Supreme Court Brief in Support of
Ten Commandments Display


ANN ARBOR, MI. Dec., 13 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — The Thomas More Law Center, a national pubic interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that is has filed a friend of the court brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of Ten Commandments displays on public property. The case will be heard by the high court in February 2005 with a decision expected in June 2005.

The case involves two displays of the Ten Commandments in the lobbies of Kentucky courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties. Both displays originally only included framed copies of the Ten Commandments. After the ACLU sued to remove the displays, the two counties supplemented the framed copies of the Commandments with eleven historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, calling the new displays the “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The additional documents were chosen because, like the Ten Commandments, they played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.

Despite the additions, a federal trial judge struck down the “Foundations” display because it included the Ten Commandments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the trial judge’s ruling, holding that the original display, which had only included the Ten Commandments, was “blatantly religious” and therefore “unconstitutionally tainted” the subsequent “Foundations” display. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

According to Edward L. White III, attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, “We trust the Supreme Court will reverse the decisions of the lower courts and permit the public display of the Ten Commandments, which has largely influenced the foundation of American law, and should be displayed in public.” “Our brief addresses the Sixth Circuit’s novel ‘unconstitutional taint’ argument and explains how it runs contrary to the governing law,” said White.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of a case dealing with the public display of the Ten Commandments is long overdue. Since the Court struck down the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980, the justices have refused to review numerous cases involving the display of the Commandments on public property. Varying lower court decisions on the issue have led to widespread confusion and controversy, highlighted last year by the highly publicized case involving former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

The high court’s decision in this case could determine how courts will analyze future disputes over the display of other religious symbols on public property, such as nativity scenes and Christian crosses.

The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases involving the defense of the Ten Commandments, including two victories earlier this year in defeating separate efforts to remove displays of the Commandments from the cities of Pleasant Grove and Duchesne, Utah.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

CONTACT:
Thomas More Law Center
Brian Burch
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI. 48106
734-827-2001
Fax: 734-930-7160
Email: info@thomasmore.org
Website: http://www.ThomasMore.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Thanksgiving – The First Thanksgiving Proclamation

THE FIRST THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION – JUNE 20, 1676

– George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

On June 20, 1676, the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks to God, for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unanimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving, our first. That proclamation is reproduced here in the same language and spelling as the original.

“The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgments he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard…”

The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many

Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God’s Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ.”

Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation

Psalm 96

O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.
Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.
Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people.
For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.
Give unto the LORD, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength.
Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts.
O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice
Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.


The First Thanksgiving in Virginia
Settlers held first Thanksgiving at Berkeley Plantation on December 4, 1619,
a year before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth.

Charles Miller / Richmond Times-Dispatch
Each first Sunday in November a Thanksgiving Festival is held at the Berkeley Plantation in accordance with documentation from 1619. The event fulfills instructions given to the 38 settlers who arrived on the banks of the James River at Berkeley as documented in the proclamation:

Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.


The First Thanksgiving Celebration at Berkeley Plantation
Virginia.org
The first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief led the newly-arrived English colonists to a grassy slope along the James River and instructed them to drop to their knees and pray in thanks for a safe arrival to the New World. It was December 4, 1619, and 38 men from Berkeley Parish in England vowed: “Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.” You’ll find their vow carved on a brick gazebo marking the location believed to be where Woodlief knelt beside the James River.

The Berkeley Plantation
BerkeleyPlantation.com
Celebrate the 1619 landing of the original colonists at Berkeley Plantation. Join us at the site of the First Official Thanksgiving in America, for a day dedicated to history, food, and fun with tours of the 1726 mansion, walks in the colorful autumn gardens and a formal living history program.

Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation
By the United States in Congress Assembled, 1782
It being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf.

George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
President, General George Washington
The Library of Congress — By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation. Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

A copy of George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation as it appeared in The Massachusetts Centinel newspaper, Wednesday, October 14, 1789.


Thoughts on Thanksgiving
Adapted from The Light and the Glory, by Peter Marshall, and David Manuel
That summer of 1621 was beautiful. Much work went into the building of new dwellings, and ten men were sent north up the coast in the sailing shallop to conduct trade with the Indians. Squanto once again acted as their guide and interpreter. It was a successful trip, and that fall’s harvest provided more than enough corn to see them through their second winter.

Seven Things to Do With Your Family This Thanksgiving
Douglas Phillips Blog
Many of my happiest memories as a young man, and now as the head of my own household, come from Thanksgiving. Traditionally, Thanksgiving has been a day where our dearest loved ones gather around the table and feast, followed by a time of poetry reading, Scripture recitations, song, more feasting, and family story telling. But more than anything, Thanksgiving has come to be a time when we focus as a family on gratitude. It is a time to humble ourselves in the face of God’s great mercy, and to chronicle the providences and blessings of God in our life. One of the blessings for which we are most grateful is you — the many friends of Vision Forum. So this year, the Phillips family wants to begin our Thanksgiving celebration by sharing seven simple recommendations for your own day of thanksgiving.
History Of American Thanksgiving Day
By Robert H. Kreger
Thanksgiving Day as we know it today in America actually had its beginning in England before the 1600’s. Beginning in 1517 (the year Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany) the Protestant Reformation began. The word Protestant, refers to those individuals who protested the manner in which the Roman Catholic Church operated, and protested the doctrines it taught. This Protestant Reformation continued for many years, and in a sense it still continues today, but in many different forms and against many different enemies.

Archives and Analysis of Plymouth Colony, 1620-1691
University of Virginia
This Plymouth Colony Archive presents a collection of searchable texts, including court records, Colony laws, 17th century texts, research and seminar analysis of various topics, biographical profiles of selected colonists, probate inventories, wills, maps, town and fort plans, architectural and material culture studies.

Turkey: The Means to a Socially Illicit End
By Gary North / LewRockwell.com
In a recent essay, Jeffrey Tucker observed: “turkey isn’t delicious.” He then went on at considerable length to show how to make a meal of turkey more delicious ­ and how not to cook the bird. He misses the point. He confuses ends with means. Mr. Tucker knows a lot about preparing turkey. I don’t. I do know a lot about eating turkey. And let me say from the start: Thanksgiving dinner is not about eating turkey. It’s about stuffing yourself with a high-fat, low-nutrition food that is socially questionable except at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Thanksgiving dinner is a revered middle-class celebration in America precisely because the middle class won’t allow itself the culinary debauchery of a food that lower-class families in the South have delighted in for three centuries, several times a week. That food is gravy. I don’t mean wimpy, light-colored turkey juice gravy. I mean thick, brown, clogs-your-arteries gravy.

Pilgrim Hall Museum
The mission of Pilgrim Hall Museum is to protect and foster this heritage as a dynamic national resource.

Annie’s Thanksgiving Day links page

Terri Schiavo’s Death – Judge Greer Breaks Law to Ensure Terri Schiavo’s Death


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                March 10, 2005

Judge Greer Breaks Law
to Ensure Terri Schiavo’s Death

Judge George W. Greer ignores Florida laws
and orders the premeditated killing of disabled
Florida woman by her husband


To: National Desk

Clearwater, FL., March 10 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 8 and 9, 2005, Sixth Circuit Judge George W. Greer issued three orders that all but assure the death of Terri Schiavo, beginning on Friday, March 18, 2005.

  • Order Denying Food and Fluids Naturally After Gastric Tube Removal
    Greer ordered that the family of Terri Schiavo may not introduce oral nutrition and hydration following the removal of Terri’s gastric feeding tube. Florida Statute 744.3215 (Rights of Persons Determined Incapacitated) require that incapacitated persons cannot be deprived of necessary services including food and water. Ordering that Terri Schiavo may not receive nutrition or hydration naturally is against the law, in the opinion of the Foundation.
  • Order Denying Updated Medical Tests
    Greer ordered that no further neurological tests may be offered to Terri Schiavo, utilizing functional MRI to determine if she is in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ (As Greer found in 2002) or is her condition is ‘minimally conscious’. Florida Statute 765.404 which defines persistent vegetative state require that the condition be determined and diagnosed as permanent prior to the withdrawal of life-prolonging means. Further, Florida Statute 765.309 prevents mercy killing and assisted suicide. Without determining the true neurological condition of Terri Schiavo prior to the withdrawal of foods and fluids, the Foundation finds Judge Greer’s Order to remove Nutrition and Hydration a directive for her guardian to commit either a mercy killing or assisted suicide.
  • Order Denying Relief from Judgment
    Greer denied an order from judgment based on his error in dismissing pertinent testimony in 2000 that would assist the court in determining Terri Schiavo’s true end of life wishes. Under Florida Statute 765.404, clear and convincing evidence of the ward’s intent for medical treatment must be established. The only evidence in support of removing Terri’s feeding tube was the self-serving hearsay testimony of her guardian (which is not admissible under FS 90.602) and hearsay from two members of his immediate family. Greer systematically ruled that testimony from Terri’s friends and family was unreliable or not credible. His failure to consider all evidence of Terri Schiavo’s attitudes towards life-prolonging measures, in the Foundation’s opinion, is a clear violation of Florida Statutes.

Statement of Pamela Hennessy, Media Director for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation: If there is a single person following this who doesn’t believe Judge Greer has legislated from the bench, trampled Florida’s laws and deprived Terri Schiavo of her retained rights, they are simply not paying attention. Disability and Eldercare advocates need to be calling for his immediate impeachment.

CONTACT:
The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
Pamela F. Hennessy
4615 Gulf Blvd – #104/103
St Petersburg Beach, FL 33706
727-445-1766
Website: www.terrisfight.org/
E-mail: phenn@zimp.org


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Doctors – 17 Doctors call for new tests for Terri Schiavo


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                March 05, 2005

17 Doctors call for
new tests for Terri Schiavo

New testing and therapeutic methods
asked for by family, doctors agree


To: National Desk

Clearwater, FL., March 05 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler have filed 17 affidavits in support of their motion asking Judge Greer to allow medical evaluations be performed on Terri in light of recent advances in medical technologies.

The affidavits are from neurologists, physicians and other experts in the medical field. They are urging that Terri be retested based on the fact that new evaluation and therapeutic technologies can significantly impact brain damaged and disabled persons. Many of them have stated that there is a strong likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state.

More affidavits are expected to be filed next week in support of the Schindler’s motion. As of this writing, the following have submitted affidavits:

    Dr. Ralph Ankenman, MD
    Dr. Pamela Hyikn, SLP
    Dr. Beatrice Engstrand, MD
    Dr. Jill Joyce, PhD
    Dr. Alyse Eytan, MD
    Dr. Philip Kennedy, MD, PhD
    Dr. Harry Sawyer Goldsmith, MD
    Dr. Kyle Lakas, MS, CCC, SLP
    Dr. Jacob Green, MD
    Dr. Richard Neubauer, MD, PA
    Dr. Carolyn Heron, MD
    Dr. Ricardo Senno, MD, MS, FAAPMR
    Dr. David Hopper, PhD
    Dr. Stanley Terman, MD, PhD
    Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, MD
    Dr. J. Michael Uszler, MD
    Dr. Richard Weidman, MD

    Please visit www.terrisfight.org to view these documents in their entirety in PDF format.

    CONTACT:
    The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
    Pamela F. Hennessy
    4615 Gulf Blvd – #104/103
    St Petersburg Beach, FL 33706
    727-445-1766
    Website: www.terrisfight.org/
    E-mail: phenn@zimp.org


    PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Terri Schiavo – Judge Greer Obstructing Justice


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                March 03, 2005

Judge Greer Obstructing Justice

Terri Schiavo and her family flagrantly
denied due process by probate judge


To: National Desk

Clearwater, FL., March 03 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — On February 28, 2005, the parents of Terri Schiavo were informed, through their Attorney David Gibbs, III that Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco’s Sixth Judicial Circuit has denied, without access to hearing, motions filed by Terri Schiavo’s immediate family for

  • Updated neurological evaluations based on new MRI testing protocols;
  • A motion to compel the deposition of Michael Schiavo;
  • A petition for extraordinary authority to provide Terri Schiavo with updated rehabilitative protocols;
  • A petition for divorce, citing open adultery on the part of Terri Schiavo’s husband and guardian;
  • An objection to the guardian’s annual guardianship plan ;

  • A motion to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian, citing his failure to comply with Florida Law mandated guardianship requirements. This motion dates back to November of 2002, but the court has never ruled on it.

Judge Greer has stated that he will only consider motions from Terri’s family as they relate to the death process, which include but are not limited to a motion to allow Terri Schiavo to die at home instead of a Hospice facility, a motion for a Florida burial, and a motion allowing her immediate family uninterrupted access to her throughout the death process.

The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation finds the actions of Judge Greer reprehensible and a clear denial of the due process rights afforded to Terri Schiavo under Federal and Florida law.

With new medical diagnosis protocols and new levels of rehabilitation protocols, Terri Schiavo’s adjudicated condition of ‘persistent vegetative state’ is no longer equitable and any responsible jurist would eagerly recognize and accommodate more thorough means of determining the disabled woman’s true condition – a condition that remains in great dispute.

Additionally, the Foundation finds the behavior of Judge Greer an absolute obstruction of due process for Terri Schiavo by his refusal to hold the guardian accountable for violation of Florida’s guardian laws. The guardian has spent Terri Schiavo’s medical fund on representing his own legal interests, has denied her necessary medical services, lives in open adultery with his girlfriend and their two children, has petitioned the courts to cremate Terri immediately upon her death and has repeatedly and flagrantly failed to comply with Florida Statutes that mandate the terms of guardianship. Judge Greer couldn’t be bothered with those details so long as Terri Schiavo’s death is a guaranteed outcome.

Statement of Pamela Hennessy, Media Representative of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation: Never in my life have I seen a judge so afraid of the truth. Why is it that admitted criminals are protected to every reasonable measure of law, but our disabled and vulnerable citizens are discarded by the courts as unworthy lives?

CONTACT:
TerrisFight.org
The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
4615 Gulf Blvd – #104/103
St Petersburg Beach, FL 33706
Website: http://www.terrisfight.org/


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations