African American couple is challenging taxpayer funding of abortions in Minnesota.

Since 1995, Minnesota taxpayers have been paying for tens of thousands of abortions each year under the Doe v. Gomez Minnesota Supreme Court decision.

Below is the press release announcing the lawsuit.  The lawsuit claims the state is paying for too many abortions under even the Minnesota Supreme Court decision requiring theraupeutic abortions be paid for.  In addition, the lawsuit argues the Gomez ruling distinguishing between therapeutic and non-therapeutic abortions is unworkable.

The lawsuit also points out the disproportionate impact of the ruling on blacks.  40% of the abortions paid for by the state are on black women even though blacks constitute only 5% of Minnesota's population.  I'm told 60% of pregnancies in the black community end with an abortion.  Talk about the decimation of a racial community.  Look no further than abortion. 

The Minnesota Family Council has been working on this initiative for several years and is excited to see it moving forward.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and allied attorneys filed suit Tuesday on behalf of two African-American taxpayers in Minnesota who are challenging the unauthorized use of state funding for elective abortions.

Minnesota can only use public funds for abortions that are defined as medically necessary, but government reporting statistics clearly demonstrate that tax dollars have paid for thousands of elective abortions for indigent women, including a disproportionate number performed on African-Americans. More than 40 percent of publicly funded abortions were carried out on African-Americans even though they account for just over 5 percent of the state’s population.

 “The critical taxpayer dollars of Minnesotans should not be used for medically unnecessary abortions, nor should such funding be used to take the lives of more African-American babies than other babies,” said lead counsel Chuck Shreffler, one of nearly 2,200 allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.

“The reporting statistics are unambiguous,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden, who is co-counsel in the case. “The state is indisputably funding medically unnecessary abortions in violation of state law, and 40 percent of the abortions are being executed on African-Americans even though they make up only 5 percent of the state’s population. This lawsuit intends to stop this from continuing.”

The complaint in the case, Walker v. Jesson, was filed in the Minnesota District Court for Ramsey County, Second Judicial District.

From 1999 through 2011, Minnesota taxpayers paid for 47,095 abortions performed on indigent women, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. The data indicates that, at most, only 10,044 of these abortions were done for a “medically necessary” reason, meaning that the state paid for more than 37,000 unauthorized abortions. The statistics regarding the number of abortions performed on African-Americans also came from the Department of Health.

In the late 1970s, the Minnesota Legislature passed a statute limiting the abortions for which it would pay and prohibited taxpayer funding for elective abortions. In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down the statute and ruled in Doe v. Gomez that the state cannot withhold state funding for medically necessary abortions. The ruling made clear, however, that “this court’s decision will not permit any woman eligible for medical assistance to obtain an abortion ‘on demand.’”

“The Department of Health statistics show that the state is going far beyond what the Minnesota Supreme Court required in that decision,” Shreffler explained.

The Minnesota Family Council, which advises state lawmakers on family-related matters and supports the lawsuit, says it believes the new facts provide the courts with a good reason to reconsider the public abortion funding mandate in Doe v. Gomez.

Alliance Defense Fund and MFC submit request to intervene to defend marriage

Image via Wikipedi

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence will join members of the Minnesota Family Council in a press conference Thursday at the Minnesota State Capitol to announce their intention to submit a request to intervene to defend marriage against a legal attack filed in state court.biblenewstoday.disciplerob.com, Bible News Today, Jun 2010

Gag of pastors speaking on candidates challenged

There's an organized effort to legally challenge an IRS rule which prohibits pastors from explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a social conservative, pro-family public interest law group, is working with pastors to deliver sermons in which they explicitly oppose particular candidates for political office because of their stand on the great moral issues of the day.

The religious and secular left is going apoplectic, arguing that ADF's efforts are unethical and even illegal.

I suspect what's motivating the Left's response is fear motivated by politics. They are fearful that the powerful, moral authority of pastors will be energized to speak out on the great moral issues of the day -- life and marriage -- and impact elections.

This sort of legal activity is nothing new or unprecedented. The ACLU and other liberal public interest legal groups have for decades systematically found plaintiffs and organized lawsuits to establish new legal principles advancing their agenda. Now when the conservative side does it they cry foul.

Nor, of course, is endorsement of candidates by pastors a violation of the separation of church and state myth that religiously based moral concerns have no right to be voiced in the public square. The appropriate separation of church and state is an institutional separation between the governmental and religious institutions, e.g. no state sponsored and financed churches.

The IRS regulation in question resulted from an amendment slipped into a bill in 1954 by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson who was upset by Texas pastors who opposed him politically. Whether through the courts or Congress, the regulation should be eliminated.

Personally, I wouldn't encourage pastors to get into the "endorsement of candidates" business. Rather I'd encourage them to articulate the moral principles involved, highlight candidates stand, and encourage people vote based on moral, biblical principles. I believe public support or criticism of a candidate's or elected official's positions is appropriate. However, I think pastors should have the freedom to endorse or oppose candidates as they see fit.

Pastors can already say and do a lot short of explicit endorsements. Another problem with the current situation is the laws are so unclear, it's difficult to know where exactly the line is. The result is a chilling effect on pastors in regards to voicing their views on even the issues and candidates' positions on the issues. Striking down the ban on endorsement of candidates would clarify the situation.