ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom

Month: November 2017

  • Pregnancy center case is Supreme Court’s third forced-speech case this term

     

    The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear whether pro-life pregnancy counseling centers in California must provide information about publicly-funded abortion services.  (Photo: DepositPhotos.com / trekandshoot)

     

    [dc]I[/dc]n its third case on the issue of state-required speech this term, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a California case involving whether the state can compel pro-life pregnancy counseling centers to post notices about the existence of publicly-funded abortion and contraceptive services, and requires disclosures if the centers or personnel are unlicensed.

    The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center, non-profit corporations, are appealing a 9th Circuit decision that held the required disclosures are “professional regulations” subject only to intermediate scrutiny. The 9th Circuit acknowledged that there is disagreement between the Circuit courts about the regulation of professional speech on controversial health issues.

    NIFLA’s petition asks the court to consider, “Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.”

    The required disclosure states, “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [phone number].”

    Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center provides free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, and education about abortion. They also have a program that provides new parents with items for babies and toddlers including diapers, formula, baby clothes, strollers from the baby stroller reviews, baby beds, and other necessities.

    National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, (Docket No. 16-1140, cert granted 11/13/2017) is the third “compelled-” or “forced-speech” case being heard this term. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (argument set for 12/05/2017) the Court will decide whether the state can require a baker to make a wedding cake, which he considers speech, in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.  In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (argument date to be announced) the Court will determine whether a government may force its employees to pay agency fees to an exclusive representative for speaking and contracting with the government over policies that affect their profession.

  • Canada’s high court to decide whether courts can hear church membership cases

    Canada’s high court to decide whether courts can hear church membership cases

     

    Canadian Supreme Court to decide whether civil courts can review membership decisions of churches

    [dc]L[/dc]ast week, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) heard oral argument on whether the civil court system had jurisdiction involving a Jehovah’s Witness member who felt he had been wrongfully removed from church membership.

    Mr. Wall had been the member of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been disfellowshipped by church elders because of allegations that he had been drunk twice and allegedly verbally abused his wife. Because he had been “shunned” by the church, Wall, a real estate agent, could no longer do business with any members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    He appealed the elders’ decision within the church’s administrative judiciary program, and the decision was upheld.

    He decided to sue in civil court, and ultimately the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) declared that the courts had jurisdiction to hear the case. In fact, the ABCA went as far as to say that a church could be sued for economic losses incurred by a dismissed member.

    Several religious organizations had concerns about the government’s potential encroachment on issues that previously were addressed strictly within the church and filed briefs and intervened. Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, attorney Barry W. Bussey stated three reasons why imposing secular requirements on religious decisions would be harmful:

    “First, they may not understand the legal nuance and properly carry out the secular norms.  Second, they will be hamstrung by disgruntled members who may have an “axe” to grind in a religious dispute; Third, they have limited resources to deal with court actions – their community, indeed our country, needs those resources and energy spent in ministry, not fighting over procedure.”

    Mr. Wall’s attorneys argued that churches should be treated the same as any other private association or club, and that they should be held civilly accountable if they fail to follow their agreed-upon membership processes.

    Given the United States’ strict separation of church and state, it is difficult to conceive that a church member would be able to sue a congregation over a religious decision. In fact, courts in the United States have avoided becoming entangled in internal church decisions.

    Canada’s governing document, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was passed in the 1980s, does not have a clear analogy to the United States’ establishment clause, and there is broad discretion provided in Charter’s “notwithstanding” clause in Section 33 for the Federal Government or the Provinces or even the courts to override portions of the Charter relating to fundamental rights including religious freedom. Where the American system’s designation of freedoms is in written format, Canada’s designation preserves the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy.

    ###

    Audio and Video of the full hearing November 2, 2017, in Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall is available here.

    Photo: Supreme Court of Canada – DepositPhotos.com