![]() BecerraĬalifornia’s so-called Reproductive FACT Act compelled pro-life pregnancy care centers to post a conspicuous sign in their waiting rooms saying that California provides free or low-cost abortion, as well as providing a number to call for abortion referrals. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. No one should be forced to pay for or participate in abortions-least of all pro-life groups like March for Life. The case is currently stayed while the Biden administration works to roll back protection for religious and moral objectors. The next day, the Supreme Court vacated the 9th Circuit’s decision against March for Life and ordered it to reconsider its ruling. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Trump v. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the HHS rules that protected the conscience rights of religious and pro-life organizations in two similar cases: Little Sisters of the Poor v. So organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor and our client, March for Life Education and Defense Fund, intervened in these lawsuits to defend the new HHS rules. But Pennsylvania, California, and other states filed lawsuits to block the new rules. In 2017, the Trump administration issued new HHS rules-consistent with these previous Supreme Court rulings-that were meant to ensure that religious and pro-life organizations can pursue their missions consistently with their beliefs. The Supreme Court first dealt major blows to the mandate in 20-in Hobby Lobby Stores v. If they refused, they faced heavy financial penalties under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). In 2012, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandated that employers provide their employees with abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception-regardless of their religious or moral convictions. ![]() March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. The law threatens Brian with fines of up to $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice, and even permanent revocation of his license.Īlliance Defending Freedom has asked the Supreme Court to take Brian’s case because the government has no business censoring conversations between clients and counselors or using counselors as a tool to impose the government’s own views of gender and sexuality on his clients. Brian could violate the law simply by having conversations with his clients on matters of gender, sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, or sexual attractions that the government doesn’t like. However, in 2018, the state of Washington passed a law that would censor conversations between clients and counselors like Brian by dictating which personal goals they can or can’t talk about. He works with children, adults, and couples dealing with marital and family conflicts, sexual orientation and gender identity struggles, depression, anger, and stress management. Brian Tingley is a licensed marriage and family counselor of over 20 years in Tacoma, Washington.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |