Court Rulings

Appealing the Planned Parenthood case

"The Thomas More Society, which defended Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden, has announced its plans to appeal the court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. The Center for Medical Progress. Recently, a jury found a team of undercover CMP journalists liable after a series of videos exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal baby body-parts trade." - Washington Examiner

219 reads

Texas Judge vacates Obamacare rule forcing doctors to perform sex change surgeries

"U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, vacated a 2016 Obamacare mandate that critics feared could have forced faith-based doctors out of work if they refused to perform gender-transition procedures or abortions on patients referred to them." - Christian Post

211 reads

Federal appeals court rules Philadelphia can refuse Catholic foster agency service for anti-LGBT policy

"The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Monday that the city of Philadelphia can exclude a Catholic foster care agency form its placement program for its refusal to work with same-sex couples." - Jurist

292 reads

Court affirms media was wrong: Those videos of Planned Parenthood dealing in baby parts were not deceptively edited

"The ruling shatters the claim that the tapes, which feature Planned Parenthood associates discussing the processes by which organs from the remains of aborted children can be harvested ... were selectively edited. It also affirms that Planned Parenthood associates did indeed circumvent legal and ethical guidelines in pursuit of harvesting human organs" - W. Examiner

300 reads

Missouri appeals court rules frozen pre-embryos are marital property

"The court ruled in favor of Gadberry, affirming the trial court's decision that '[Gadberry's] and [McQueen's] fundamental constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection under the 14th Amendment . . . will be violated if either is forced to procreate against his or her wishes.' . . . . no action can be taken without both parties consenting in writing." Jurist

1176 reads