Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

Judge Rules Doctors Can Starve Disabled Patients to Death Without a Court Order

Recommended Posts

A judge has ruled that Court permission will not be needed to remove food and fluids from severely brain damaged patients, a move which has caused concern among opponents of euthanasia. Legal safeguard Unlike other forms of medical care, the decision to withdraw food and fluids from patients in a “permanent vegetative state” (the term […]

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood

      By Kevin Daley - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds. The decision is also significant for its harsh criticism of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.  The case will now return to a federal trial court, where Planned Parenthood will have another chance to secure an injunction against Texas.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds Thursday, while stridently criticizing the abortion-provider for its rhetoric and medical practices. “Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling. The case arose after a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards codified in federal law and state regulations. Texas terminated its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood shortly thereafter, citing infractions documented in the videos. In turn, Planned Parenthood asked a federal court to restore its Medicaid funding. Thursday’s ruling — which related to a jurisdictional issue in that case — is especially striking for its numerous rebukes of Planned Parenthood. Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, delivered the opinion. Perhaps the most noteworthy of the decision’s reprimands is a graphic depiction of post-abortion fetal remains taken from a CMP video on the fourth page of the opinion. A small arm is visible in the picture. Texas cited the manner in which Planned Parenthood disposes of fetal remains as one reason for terminating their Medicaid eligibility. In another instance, the decision all but accuses Planned Parenthood of breaking federal law banning partial birth abortions. The ruling highlights a CMP video in which an administrator called Dr. Tram Nguyen said doctors at one facility could evacuate an intact fetus — thereby breaking federal law — provided they sign a form that they did not “intend” to do so. Such procedures allow researchers to recover organs like the thymus or the liver. Later in the opinion, the panel chides Planned Parenthood for failing to engage with Nguyen’s comments in court filings. “The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance of the discussions contained in the videos is curiously silent,” the decision reads. Planned Parenthood has denied that they intentionally alter abortion procedures for such purposes. The panel also dismissed Planned Parenthood’s claim that the CMP videos were “deceptively edited,” a soundbite that redounded across the press after the tapes first appeared. “The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” a footnote in the decision reads. “And [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” Finally the panel accused the judiciary of politicking on abortion cases. Ordinarily, providers like Planned Parenthood must challenge Medicaid termination decisions in an administrative forum and state court before seeking a federal court’s intervention. By allowing Planned Parenthood to skip directly to federal court — as the trial court did here — the 5th Circuit said that judges are engaging in ideological favoritism. “Had [Texas] terminated the Medicaid provider agreements of any other type of health care provider, the incongruity of allowing that provider to use patient litigation proxies to avoid administrative review and [reach] federal court would be obvious and unacceptable,” the ruling reads. The decision comes as pro-life activists gather in Washington in advance of Friday’s March for Life. The question before the 5th Circuit did not relate to abortion directly: after Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, the abortion-provider sued, claiming the federal Medicaid statute allowed them to do so. A federal district judge agreed, allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The 5th Circuit had to decide whether that decision was correct. The federal appeals courts are divided over the answer to that question. Though the Supreme Court generally intervenes when the circuits disagree over the same question of law, the justices denied review in a related controversy from Kansas in December 2018, drawing a vigorous dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch which accused the Court of playing politics. In that instance, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the Court’s liberal bloc, effectively preserving a pro-Planned Parenthood decision in the lower court. The 5th Circuit’s Thursday decision concluded that they are bound by precedent to find that Planned Parenthood can proceed with its lawsuit in federal court under the Medicaid statute, though Jones wrote a concurrence to her own majority opinion urging the full 5th Circuit to revisit that question. However, the 5th Circuit gave Texas a partial victory, finding that the trial court assessed Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction under the wrong standard. The panel lifted the injunction, and ordered the lower court judge to reconsider Planned Parenthood’s request under a different standard which is more accommodating of Texas. As such, the state has a much better chance of prevailing when the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings. Texas awards approximately $3.4 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates through Medicaid annually. The decision notes this is a “smidgen” of the revenue Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates generate each year, which runs over $57 million. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in New York barred the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. The decision appears to have significant implications for a related matter the Supreme Court is poised to decide in the spring. “The attempts by the Trump administration to mandate a question about citizenship were not rooted in a desire to strengthen the census process and would only undermine our immigrant communities,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Inciting fear in our residents is not only immoral, but also ill-conceived.” The Constitution mandates a census every ten years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A coalition of Democratic cities, states, and interest groups challenged the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire in April 2018, warning it would discourage minority participation. An incomplete survey of minority populations, the plaintiffs feared, would result in diminished federal funds and congressional representation for urban areas. The plaintiffs charged that the addition of the citizenship question violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law establishing protocols for the issuance of regulations. In his Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman accepted the plaintiffs’ APA claims while rejecting their constitutional arguments. “[Ross] failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices — a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA violations,” Furman wrote. Elsewhere in the decision, Furman said Ross was not truthful about his motives for adding a citizenship question. Though the secretary initially said publicly that the question was added at the request of the Department of Justice, subsequent evidence showed Ross discussed the matter with White House aides far earlier than initially understood. “Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual — that is, that the real reason for his decision was something other than the sole reason he put forward in his memorandum,” Furman wrote. Former President Barack Obama elevated Furman to the federal bench in 2012. The plaintiffs sought a deposition from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a previous phase of the litigation. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau, and Ross himself authorized the addition of the citizenship question. Though Furman authorized the Ross deposition, the Supreme Court intervened to stop it in October 2018. Shortly thereafter in November 2018, the high court agreed to decide what evidence Furman could rely upon when making his decision. When plaintiffs challenge agency action in court, the agency itself generally turns over the body of documents and evidence it relied upon to make its decision. Those writings are called the administrative record. In most cases of this nature, the court will make its decision based only on the administrative record. However, Furman allowed the plaintiffs to gather evidence beyond the administrative record to challenge the citizenship question. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that decision was correct. The Justice Department may appeal Furman’s decision. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Federal Judge Issues National Injunction, Stops Trump's New Religious Exemption Rules on Birth Control

      A Philadelphia federal judge has issued an injunction to stop the Trump administration’s rules which would broaden religious exemptions for the birth control mandate in health insurance plans, from going into effect on Monday. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA

      By Kevin Daley - The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on Friday. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Those moves were immediately challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the government to continue administering the program on Jan. 9, 2018. The Department of Justice broke with normal judicial procedure and asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, bypassing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high court rejected that petition in February 2018, but ordered the 9th Circuit to “proceed expeditiously” in its review of Alsup’s decision. After months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department returned to the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, 2018 and again asked the justices to take their case. Three days later on Nov. 8, the 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding Alsup’s order. “More than ten months later, the court of appeals’ judgment is here and the Court is presented the opportunity it anticipated in February,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco — the government’s Supreme Court lawyer — wrote in court papers. “The Court should now grant At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on Friday. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Those moves were immediately challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the government to continue administering the program on Jan. 9, 2018. The Department of Justice broke with normal judicial procedure and asked the Supreme Court to… Review Overview 0 User Rating: Be the first one ! and resolve this important dispute this term.” Other challenges to DACA’s repeal are pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. The Trump administration urged the justices to take its case because the 9th Circuit’s ruling conflicts with a prior decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. Like DACA, DAPA is an Obama-era policy which provides benefits to illegal aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. When multiple appeals courts disagree over the same question of federal law, the high court is much more likely to step in. The government also said that it will be forced to abide widespread disregard for immigration laws if the Supreme Court rejects its petition. “The district court’s nationwide injunction commands the government to preserve a policy that affirmatively sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by 700,00 aliens who have no lawful immigration status and no right to the policy’s continuation,” Francisco told the justices in court filings. “Absent this Court’s intervention, the government will be required to maintain the policy nationwide for years after DHS and the Attorney General determined that it should end.” Some Republican lawmakers have floated the prospect of enacting DACA protections as part of a grand bargain to implement comprehensive immigration reform and reopen the government. Vice President Mike Pence said that the White House will not consider a deal which includes DACA until the Supreme Court decides on its legality during a gaggle with reporters on Thursday afternoon. The justices could announce a decision to take the case as soon as Friday afternoon. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Jerry Brown says officer's death not related to Sanctuary City

      It is beyond me how someone can be so idiotic and depraved. And it is beyond me how voters can be represented by someone unless they themselves are truly being represented accurately. Jerry Brown suggests that before the laws surrounding whether local law enforcement could not coordinate, communicate, and work with ICE had gone into effect that ICE could have prevented the officer's murder by an illegal immigrant. Well Jerry, guess your laws will be an obstacle now towards any future prevention of unnecessary murders!   The left suggests that we should not be divided by political lines. Yet what previous Democrats believed on border security no longer fits the left's narrative today. The left is so politically bent and motivated that regardless of what is common sense, moral, or correct automatically is opposed. The left is an opposition that has no other platform other than to oppose the Right.   Jerry Brown: Death of police officer Ronil Singh 'had nothing to do' with California's 'sanctuary' status WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM Outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown said the death of police officer Ronil Singh has "nothing" to do with the state's "sanctuary" status.  

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.