Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
~ Abraham Lincoln
Rob McKenna is NOT the friend of Constitutional conservatives…he is “PRO-CHOICE” in his own words and what you see and hear is NOT what you are going to get unless you like RINOS.
In other words, he just chips away at our freedoms while assuring us he is our friend…He puts power politics before principles. If we don’t stand up for ourselves and our state, then we deserve what we get.
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
From: Hadian for Governor <info@hadian2012.com>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 7:48 AM
Subject: Hadian Calls Out Gregoire & McKenna to NOT Appeal the Stormans’ Case
HADIAN CALLS OUT GREGOIRE & MCKENNA TO NOT APPEAL THE STORMANS’ CASE.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 24, 2011
|
This week, religious freedom and right of conscience survived yet another attack.
The Stormans family, who owns Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy in Olympia, has spent over $500,000 of their own money to defend their right to not sell the Plan B “morning after” pill, arguing that it disregards their deeply held religious beliefs.
After a 5 year protracted battle in which the state government spent over $300,000 per year fighting against this family-owned small business to force them to violate their Constitutionally-protected right of conscience, a federal judge definitively ruled that the state is wrong.
In this landmark case, Judge Leighton ruled that the law in question violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion:
“The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable. They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”
In his rebuke of the state’s breach of the Constitution, Judge Leighton continued,
“The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception. Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”
Attorney General Rob McKenna and his office erroneously argued on behalf of the State that if exceptions were made for religious beliefs, the state would be establishing religion, in violation of the First Amendment. McKenna’s legal team recently spent 11 days in federal court trying to convince a Judge to force the owners of Ralph’s Thriftway to provide medicine that they believe will take a human life.
Undeterred by this week’s ruling, the Governor is now conferring with the AG’s office on the best path to an appeal. The question for McKenna now becomes – “Do I continue to spend state taxpayer money to appeal this decision, or do I back off and give Mr. Stormans the dignity he deserves?”
Shahram Hadian, candidate for WA State governor, said the following:
The ramifications of this case are huge. If the state continues with its witch hunt and ultimately prevails, it opens a Pandora’s Box. Any government agency could force individuals to violate their right of conscience in any matter. Governor Gregoire & AG Rob McKenna, STOP your persecution of our constitutionally protected religious freedom and right of conscience.”
I remember some TV show in which the sheriff, wanting to put presure on some powerful rich man in the county, went through the laws till he found the ones that would interfer the most on that person. Since he couldn’t discriminate, he had to apply the law to everyone else. He couldn’t pick and choose.
We have so many laws that the police must pick and choose what they will enforce and that is the problem. Being politicized, they will not pick those that harm politicians friends and supporters. (Mardi Gras murder of Kris Kime)
“Attorney General Rob McKenna and his office erroneously argued on behalf of the State that if exceptions were made for religious beliefs, the state would be establishing religion, in violation of the First Amendment”. I can see him just doing his job. Someone with honor might have quit rather than say such but we are dependant on jobs (and there isn’t much honor among men).
There must be some sort of fallacy of logic that covers this. Which one religion would the state be establishing to the exclusion of all others? How is actions permitted by the 1st Amendment forbidden by the 1st Amendment?
You answer yourself. Your question is rhetorical.
There is a dictionary entitled ’1984′, written by a brilliant English professor by the name of Orwell. I think he was at Harvard, Yale, and Oxford by tenure, all during the same semester. His dictionary actually has that definition under several different heads! The aspiring govenor was in his class.
Alvin Tofler and close friend, another student by the name of Newton Gingrich, were also in the same class. Those two had dropped out in the early 1970′s due to speech difficulties and inability to focus on balmy days, but returned two decades later.
The professor had not aged at all.
The point, as expressed in the last sentence (I like to say “I can be quite verbose” over “I talk a lot”.) is that allowing one to practice one’s religion is not establishing that religion which is contrary to the 1st Amendment. I could have better expressed it with “How is an action permitted by the 1st Amendment also forbidden by the 1st Amendment?”
The point being that this action is allowed by all religions that believe such and not limiting to this one religion, and thereby establishing this one religion above all others. There are many other religious beliefs (I would suspect that there are some Atheist who do not believe abortion is right.) that hold to the same belief.
Therefore not establishing one religion.
i wonder if sometimes we have to argue the point (of law also) to find out what the waters are. it may be less expensive in the long run.