DC FACE trial: Pro-life defense not allowed to say ‘infanticide,’ ‘abortion,’ or ‘innocent lives’

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – In a criminal trial I thought it was the job of the defense to argue in any way they thought reasonable to defend their client in court. I also thought it was the job of the jury to adjudicate the truth of the arguments offered by each side; and that it was the job of the judge to assure as much as possible that impartial jurors be selected to adjudicate whether the guilt of the defendants has been proven or not, and to impartially oversee the procedural progress of the trial. 

Such, however, does not seem to have been the understanding of the judge in the present FACE Act trial in Washington D.C. in which charges of conspiracy and violations of a federal statute – a statute dependent upon the now-overturned Roe v. Wade and designed to assure at the federal level access to abortion facilities – are being leveled against nine pro-lifers, who sought to rescue the unborn from the untimely death of abortion. 

Yesterday, while I watched Day One of the trial unfold in the courtroom, the prosecution and defense made their opening statements and heard the first several witnesses that the prosecution brought to the case. If the selection of a predominantly pro-abortion jury – in a case in which the defendants have said they acted out of their conviction that abortion is the murder of the baby – were not already an indication that the verdict is essentially predetermined in this trial, then the continual objections of the prosecution during the opening statement of the defense, and the full cooperation of the judge in sustaining them, should indicate the guided direction in which this trial is going. 

To read the rest, please go to LIFESITE NEWS. 

Three Arrested after Entering Abortion Clinic in DC

WASHINGTON, DC, May 28, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — A priest and three women shut down a Washington, DC, area abortion center Saturday morning for over an hour during a Red Rose Rescue.

Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Lauren Handy, Adele Gilhooley and a woman who identifies herself as “Baby Jane Doe” entered Capital Women’s Services, an abortion center run by Steven Brigham at 6323 Georgia Ave, NW, Washington, DC, at about 9:00 a.m., on May 26.

For the complete report, please go to:  Life Site News

D.C. council eliminates religious schools’ protection from gay discrimination suits

A vote December 2 by the Washington, D.C., City Council could compel private religious schools and universities in the nation’s capital to allow groups that oppose the schools’ moral values access to their campuses, programs, and funds.

The council voted to eliminate faith-based schools’ 25-year-old legal protections from discrimination lawsuits as part of a “human rights amendment.” Barring an act of Congress, D.C.’s religious schools will likely have to go against their religious values when it comes to permitting use to their campuses or programs.

The city’s rules hold that it’s “unlawful discriminatory practice” to limit any use of facilities, services, or programs based on “sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.” With the religious exemption, Washington D.C. religious schools had been able to restrict finances, amenities and approval from individuals and groups “organized for, or engaged in, promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.”

For the complete story, go to:  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/d.c.-council-eliminates-religious-schools-protection-from-gay-discriminatio

Divest Ourselves of DC Government Contracts

Apx. two weeks ago, an email notice was sent out from Bishop Knestout regarding the possible reduction in funding for DC homeless.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this and is always a laudible thing to do.

This week's Catholic Standard does give a bit more insight into this matter. You see, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington seems to have a contract with the city to run some of the homeless shelters.

Is this illegal? Nope. Immoral? Nope. Good policy? Nope.

I say that this is not good policy because once you begin to take money from the government, you not only have to abide by their rules (which may run counter to Catholic teaching) but more importantly, it makes you dependant upon them.

When there is a theat to them, we suddenly become very defensive and will do whatever it takes not to loose them. This is not the way it should be.

I encourage the Archdiocese to divest itself of all of these types of contracts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Click here to sign the petition to REPEAL THE MARYLAND DREAM ACT. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++