Tuesday, March 27, 2012

McKenna Taking Stormans Back To Court

The Seattle Times editorial board and the current state administration are, as usual, regarding social issues on the same page.


Attorney General Rob McKenna is taking the Stormans family back to court and the Times editorial board and other media outlets are the cheerleader. With Governor Gregoire applauding from her box seat.

This time, the Stormans will be brought before the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Why?

Because they are pro-life and want to follow their conscience in their business practices and not sell the Plan B or abortion pill in their pharmacy.



The Times editorial says of the previous court ruling that favored religious freedom and right of conscience, "This ruling cries out for reversal." Indeed it does for those fully committed to the abortion industry. And who view life through a lens that does not value the sanctity of life.

For those who value the right of conscience, in this case the right not to sell Plan B or abortion pills in their pharmacy, it cries out a very different message.

US District Court Judge Ronald Leighton ruled against McKenna and the state---and the newspaper, back in February.

On February 23, we wrote a blog quoting comments from the judge including, "McKenna argued for 11 days that the state did have the right to force the Stormans to sell the abortion pills because they had to "provide timely access to medicines for people who need them."

That, of course, is Planned Parenthood's line.

Judge Leighton didn't buy McKenna's argument and ruled, "No," the state's true goal was to suppress religious objection by druggists. Not to promote timely access.

Now, McKenna and the state feel they will find a more favorable ear in the 9th US Court of Appeals.

Please remember the Stormans family in your prayers. This is a very difficult and costly ordeal for a family who are simply trying to live by their deeply held religious convictions, in a state that seems to place less and less value on that freedom.

This case also has significant constitutional implication on Washington State's new same-sex marriage law.

And speaking of constitutionality, the Supreme Court began its hearing on Obamacare yesterday. First item from the Obama Administration was suggesting that the Court could not rule, based on an 1800's law, until the government had actually forced people to buy health insurance, which would push the Court ruling off a couple of years.

I don't think that was particularly well received by the Court.

Today, the focus of the hearing will be, "Is it constitutional for the government to require Americans to buy health insurance?"

America stands at a crossroads. Unfortunately Yogi Berra's advice---"When you come to a fork in the road take it," isn't going to solve the major social and spiritual issues and their catastrophic consequences. However, I see too many people trying to act on Yoggi's advice under the guise that somehow Jesus didn't take stands on controversial and moral issues, but simply taught us to be accepting of all things.

This is a defining time for a people who have been given much and of whom much will be required.

The most basic of that requirement involves what do you believe? What do you stand for? And why? Who are you? What is required of you? And what do you want this country to become? What is your responsibility to the next generation under God?

"As for me and my house we will...... ." Do what?

Thank you for standing with us in your support of advancing Judeo-Christian values in the culture.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Strong. Be Blessed.

28 comments:

  1. Thank you for standing with us in your support of advancing Judeo-Christian values in the culture.

    Y'know, it's not just a Judeo-Christian thing. It's a matter of simple justice. The pharmacy board would be just as wrong if it prohibited Muslims or atheists from owning pharmacies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point Joel. It is both a freedom of religious expression denied and a free enterprise denied. I think separation of church and state is the first and most damaging semantically deceptive unconstitutional law of them all.

      Delete
  2. And McKenna absurdly markets himself as a Republican for governor? McKenna worked for the ultra-leftist Perkins Coie from 1988 to 1996, where Obama's White House Counsel, Robert Bauer, was a partner. Bauer's wife, Anita Dunn, was Obama's White House Director of Communications until she told a group of graduating high school students that Mao was her favorite philosopher. As Republicans should we simply deny the reality of Perkins Coie and the Stormans, or support Hadian?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_McKenna
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bauer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Dunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Ernest, Colleen here, thanks for this info am going to pursue it a little further and post it all over the place. Great info to get to the voters so they will know not to compromise their vote, if they are willing to face it that is.

      Delete
  3. And McKenna absurdly markets himself as a Republican for governor? McKenna worked for the ultra-leftist Perkins Coie from 1988 to 1996, where Obama's White House Counsel, Robert Bauer, was a partner. Bauer's wife, Anita Dunn, was Obama's White House Director of Communications until she told a group of graduating high school students that Mao was her favorite philosopher. As Republicans should we simply deny the reality of Perkins Coie and the Stormans, or support Hadian?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Faith and Freedom staff10:44 AM, March 27, 2012

    Please do not include links in your comments. We cannot publish posts that include links. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless they are links that support your posts. Those you have included many times.

      Delete
    2. I've posted links in support of Gary's points and had the comments denied.

      Delete
  5. I definitely will NOT be voting for McKenna for Governor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think I will be voting for Mckenna . Compared to Inslee he is a blessing . I do not see McKenna as anti Christian , or for big government control . This issue hits at the core of not just conscience , but governemt intervention into our private lives . Its the same as saying homosexuals would have to sell books at their book store that portray them as evil and dangerous .

    Can I google your link to find some information that proves the point that Mckenna is against religious freedom ?

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inslee is not the only other candidate. We have an opportunity to vote for a true American grateful to be in a free country or at least the hope of restoring it. Please check out Shahram Hadian, a good Christian with the courage to stand on principle, faithfully believes in the blessing of Jesus Christ and his gratitude for being in America is due to him knowing the difference having escaped Iran when he was 9 years old. He is a proponent of legal only immigration and a non compromising supporter of the constitution. Why would you vote for McKenna when we have an opportunity to vote for someone who truly meets the requirements we seek? It doesn't make sense. These are the primaries, surely you can vote your conscience in the primaries? There are other options. Inslee a man who I believe fully to be a communist and he has been my psuedo representative for years unfortunately, needs to be voted down. big time, but not by another who will compromise which McKenna obviously intends to do.

      Delete
  7. McKenna never set foot in the courtroom during Stormans v. Selecky, and you know it. What did God have to say about bearing false witness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether he set foot in the courtroom is irrelevant. It was still his office and at his instruction.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The state AG does NOT have discretion to refuse to represent the Pharmacy Board or any other state board, agency, or commissioner.

      In Goldmark vs. McKenna, Lands Commissioner Goldmark sued the Okanogan [County] PUD for using Eminent Domain to allow transmission lines to be built. The Okanogan PUD won. AG McKenna's Office initially refused to represent the Lands Commissioner in the appeal. Goldmark took McKenna to court.

      The WA Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Sept. 1, 2011, that the AG was obligated to represent a state commissioner [agency or board] in a legal proceeding. The AG was ruled to NOT have discretion in this respect. There is no exception given for whether he thinks the state commissioner [agency or board] is wrong as a matter of law or constitutionality.

      Delete
  8. Don't forget -- the Stormans brought the suit. The Stormans are the plaintiff. I know it makes a better story if the Christians are persecuted, but in this case, the Christians are persecuting the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. The Stormans brought a suit against a law that mandated discrimination against Christians. Being the plaintiff does not mean you're not the victim in the case.

      Delete
    2. "Mandated discrimination against Christians"? Hardly. Any Christian who is sufficiently well educated to understand how birth control actually works would not find the Pharmacy Board rule offensive (it's not a "law" -- perhaps you should read up on this case?).

      Delete
    3. It is not just how it works that is the concern but also what it does no matter how it works. If it is against someone's religion then it should not be mandated they participate no matter how it "works.'

      Delete
  9. McKenna is doing his job and I can't fault him for it. I hope he would do his job even if he agreed personally with the Stormans. There are governors I'd rather have, but he's still better than the alternative. (Not that he'll ever be allowed to take office even if he wins.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Stormans brought suit as a last resort against the state for forcing them to violate their conscience or face retribution from the state. You can't spin this one. The Stormans are the victims, not the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They ARE victims -- victims of their own ignorance! Now the FDA is saying this pill does NOT stop fertilized eggs from implanting. $500,000 spent over NOTHING. That's gotta hurt.

      Delete
  11. McKenna does not always respond to Gregoire's wishes. In the case of the Stormans he did. In the case of Obamacare he did not. He makes decisions within his job description. He chose to fight to release the referendum 71 names and has chosen to take on the Stormans. Does the fact that he was not in court at he Stormans case mean he is not in charge of the legal arm of the state? You can't possibly believe that he operates independently of the branch of government he was elected to run because he doesn't make every meeting. That is scary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McKenna is a smart man. Perhaps he, like almost every pharmacist in the state, understands that dispensing birth control should not violate anyone's religious beliefs.

      Delete
    2. AG McKenna joined the states' lawsuit against HHS on behalf of the people of the State of Washington. His office allows for this as the defendant (HHS) is a federal, not state entity. The ruling in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. by SCOTUS is expected later this month.

      In the case of Stormans v. Selecky, the state AG represents the state Pharmacy Board. It is the Pharmacy Board that is filing the appeal with the AG's Office representing them.

      WA Supreme court case, Goldmark v. McKenna [Sept. 1, 2011], ruled that the AG cannot refuse to represent a state commissioner [and by extension, agency or board] in a legal proceeding. The AG does not have discretion even if he believes the case or appeal is wrong as a matter of law or constitutionality. Part of the reason is that if the AG doesn't represent the Pharmacy Board, it wouldn't have legal representation in court as it is barred by state law from hiring outside legal council.

      Washington State Constitution
      Article III
      SECTION 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, DUTIES AND SALARY. The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.

      Revised Code of Washington
      RCW 43.10.030
      (1) Appear for and represent the state before the supreme court or the court of appeals in all cases in which the state is interested;
      (3) Defend all actions and proceedings against any state officer or employee acting in his or her official capacity, in any of the courts of this state or the United States;

      RCW 43.10.040
      The attorney general shall also represent the state and all officials, departments, boards, commissions and agencies of the state in the courts, and before all administrative tribunals or bodies of any nature, in all legal or quasi legal matters, hearings, or proceedings, and advise all officials, departments, boards, commissions, or agencies of the state in all matters involving legal or quasi legal questions, except those declared by law to be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of any county.

      RCW 43.10.067
      No officer, director, administrative agency, board, or commission of the state, other than the attorney general, shall employ, appoint or retain in employment any attorney for any administrative body, department, commission, agency, or tribunal or any other person to act as attorney in any legal or quasi legal capacity in the exercise of any of the powers or performance of any of the duties specified by law to be performed by the attorney general, except where it is provided by law to be the duty of the judge of any court or the prosecuting attorney of any county to employ or appoint such persons: PROVIDED, That RCW 43.10.040, and 43.10.065 through 43.10.080 shall not apply to the administration of the commission on judicial conduct, the state law library, the law school of the state university, the administration of the state bar act by the Washington State Bar Association, or the representation of an estate administered by the director of the department of revenue or the director's designee pursuant to chapter 11.28 RCW.

      Delete
  12. 6:46 If every other pharmacist in the state is dispencing them then is really no need for the Stormans to do it is there. The case McKenna is making about availablity is not valid. Who decides that birth control "should not" violate an individual's religious beliefs? The state?

    ReplyDelete
  13. No one is questioning whether McKenna is smart or not. They are questioning how pro-life people can stand up and vote for him when he is so pro-abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't see how you can argue that this has anything to do with McKenna and his personal beliefs. He was elected to represent the state and be the state's attorney. He is doing thst here just like he did with Obamacare. As for Perkins Coie...it is a huge firm with hundreds of lawyers. Do you think everyone here only does business with people they politically agree with? You're in the wrong state for that folks.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.