Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday offered a reason why the Department of Justice prosecutes pro-life protesters at abortion centers more than pro-abortion vandals who targeted pro-life pregnancy resource centers after the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade last May.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked Garland about the case of pro-life activist Mark Houck, who faced charges for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act. A jury found Houck not guilty, and Houck claims he did not attack an abortion clinic, but merely pushed an abortion activist who had been antagonizing his son. He cited Catholic Vote statistics on attacks against pregnancy resource centers and Catholic churches after the leak of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
“In 2022 and for the first couple of months of 2023, DOJ’s announced charges against 34 individuals for blocking access to or vandalizing abortion clinics, and there have been over 81 recorded attacks on pregnancy centers, 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the Dobbs decision, and only two individuals have been charged,” Lee noted.
“So, how do you explain this disparity by reference to anything other than politicization of what’s happening there?” Lee asked.
Garland noted that the FACE Act applies to protect both abortion centers and pregnancy resource centers.
Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that has grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools, or even the courts. Government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8897
With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I've come to the conclusion that much of what I've heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?
In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic?
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8575
We’re all familiar with Gene Kranz’s famous line, “Failure is not an option!” What the Apollo 13 team did not fail, there are plenty of situations today where it appears that failure is the only option. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
There is a quote pretty much sums up a recent Supreme Court decision regarding your healthcare.
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive
Sir Walter Scott
In the case Kennedy v Braidwood Management, inc. we see the tangled web the United States has woven when it practiced to deceive by claiming the power to regulate what is covered by your health insurance.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/08/11/486-a-twisted-case-leads-to-a-twisted-decision/
The First Amendment prevents Congress from, among other things, keeping you from petitioning your government for a redress of your grievances. This process most often comes in the form of a law suit. Based on our current legal system, one has to ask, has our right to petition turned into a litigious nightmare? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
