Posts

Federal Appeals Court Rules Transsexual’s Firing was Not Discrimination

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Twitter.com

Photo Credit: Twitter.com

A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision dismissing a lawsuit filed by a male-to-female transsexual who claimed his firing was discriminatory.

Jim Stacy, who had a sex change operation in 2005 and now goes by “Janis,” was laid off by Agere Systems in 2008, along with nearly 4,000 colleagues, following a merger with LSI Corporation.

Stacy, who had worked for Agere for ten years as an engineer, sued the company, claiming that he was targeted for elimination on the basis of his sex, disability and gender identity.

But the court rejected his lawsuit, ruling that the company’s explanation for his firing was satisfactory and had nothing to do with his sex change.

According to court documents, when Stacy was hired in 1998, he “had a traditional masculine appearance, wore male clothing, and went by the name ‘Jim.’” But in 2002, he was diagnosed with gender identity disorder, believing he was really a woman trapped in a man’s body. In 2005, he underwent a sex change operation and took hormones to make himself appear more female. All the while, he continued working for Agere.

Read more from this story HERE.

Appeals Court Delivers ‘Significant Victory’ for Religious Liberty in ObamaCare HHS Mandate Case

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Matt YorkIn a 2-1 ruling on Friday, a federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the rights of both individuals and companies to challenge Obamacare’s contraception-abortifacient-sterilization mandate.

It is the first decision of its kind in the ongoing litigation against the requirement that all employers — despite their deeply held religious beliefs — must arrange and pay for employee health insurance that covers no-cost contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization, under penalty of fine.

“This is a significant victory for protecting the religious beliefs of individuals and corporations,” said Edward White, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, who represents one of the plaintiffs, an Illinois company.

“It is also important to note that the appeals court determined that the HHS mandate should not move forward against our clients while this issue is being litigated. It has been our position from the beginning that the HHS mandate violates America’s longstanding history of protecting conscience rights. The mandate is unlawfully compelling employers such as our clients to do the following: abandon their faith to comply with the law, or follow their faith and pay significant annual penalties to the federal government. The decision by the appeals court is encouraging as this issue heads to the Supreme Court.”

The ACLJ represents Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family owned, full-service construction contractor located in Highland, Illinois. The company provides a group health insurance plan for its non-union employees, which number about 20. Cyril B. Korte and Jane E. Korte own a controlling interest in the company and contend the HHS mandate violates their Catholic faith. The ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of both the individuals and the company in October 2012.

Read more from this story HERE.

Court: White House Visitor Logs for Obama and Most of His Staff are Confidential

/4 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that White House visitor logs for the president and most of his staff are not public information subject to disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

The 3-0 decision would keep the visitor records confidential for up to 12 years after President Barack Obama leaves office.

The appeals court ruling dealt a defeat to a private group that asked the Secret Service for all White House visitor logs from Obama’s first seven months in office.

“Congress made clear that it did not want documents like the appointment calendars of the president and his close advisers to be subject to disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act, wrote Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Judicial Watch, a conservative-oriented watchdog group that sued in an effort to get the records, said it is considering an appeal.

Read more from this story HERE.

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Christian University’s Request to Overturn ObamaCare

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: APA federal appeals court in Virginia on Thursday rejected a Christian university’s bid to overturn the Obama administration’s health care law.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing Liberty University’s lawsuit.

Liberty argued the employer health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act violates the school’s religious rights by requiring it to provide coverage for abortion inducing drugs. The appeals court found no merit in the claim.

“Plaintiffs present no plausible claim that the act substantially burdens their free exercise of religion, by forcing them to facilitate or support abortion or otherwise,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote in the opinion. He wrote the law “allows an individual to obtain, and an employer to offer, a plan that covers no abortion services at all.”

The opinion was joined by Judges Andre M. Davis and Diana Gribbon Motz. Davis and Wynn are Obama appointees, and Motz was appointed by Bill Clinton. The same panel in 2011 ruled Liberty’s lawsuit was premature. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in another case in June 2012, and in November the justices ordered the appeals court to reconsider Liberty’s case in light of that ruling.

Read more from this story HERE.

Huge Win for Life: Appeals Court Upholds South Dakota’s Strict Informed Consent Law

/1 Comment/in , /by

A federal appeals court has upheld a provision of a South Dakota law requiring the states lone abortion business, operated by Planned Parenthood, that it has to inform women of the validity of the link between abortion and suicide. With women facing a host of mental health issues following an abortion, Planned Parenthood can no longer keep women in the dark about them.

An en banc panel of the court declared that South Dakota’s statute that requires abortion doctors to disclose to pregnant mothers that an abortion places the mother at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide constitutional because the disclosure is truthful, non-misleading, and relevant to the pregnant mother’s decision of whether or not to consent to an abortion.

Harold J. Cassidy, a pro-life attorney who represented Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center of Sioux Falls, and Stacy Wollman, president of Care Net of Rapid City — two pregnancy centers that provide abortion alternatives — sent LifeNews details about the decision.

He called the decision “a fabulous victory for the women of the State of South Dakota.”

“The Court ruled that the women will now be given additional important information before they consent to an abortion: that the abortion places a woman at increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide,” he said. “This victory represents the fourth separate decision of the Eighth Circuit reversing the District Court in this one case, two decisions issued by en banc Courts four years apart – a rare occurrence that underscores the importance of the issues presented by the case.”

Read more from this story HERE, detailing the requirements of the upheld South Dakota law including informing mothers:

(1) that “an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;”
(2) that the mother’s “relationship with that second human being enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States and the Laws of South Dakota;”
(3) that relationship and all rights attached to it will be terminated; and
(4) the abortion places the mother “at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide.”

Photo credit: BrianSwant