We’ve detected that you’re using Internet Explorer. Please consider updating to a more modern browser to ensure the best user experience on our website.

Abortion Funding, Judicial Nominees & Protecting the Pledge

By 

Jay Sekulow

June 21, 2011

4 min read

Pro-Life

A

A

As Congress returns from its recess, our legislative team in Washington is focusing on a variety of issues from abortion funding to judicial nominees.  At the same time, the ACLJ is responding to a new legal challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

On the issue of abortion funding, we're focusing specifically on the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.  Efforts are intensifying to amend the Act with language that would codify the ban on using federal Indian Health Service funds for abortions.  The changes would include important language that is tailored after the pro-life Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal funds for abortions.  The legislative goal here is to incorporate this tough new language that would become permanent -- much like the successful legislative effort to make permanent the Hyde Amendment language within the 1996 Defense Authorization Bill.  Because the Indian Health Service is funded through a different appropriations bill, it has never contained a Hyde-like amendment.  It's important that the pro-life rider on this measure be made permanent - free from legislative and political attacks in the future.  As you may know, there have been attacks on other pro-life riders during the appropriations process last fall.  So, we'll keep you posted on this critical pro-life measure.

 

On the issue of judicial nominees, some troubling news out of Capitol Hill.  As you recall in the waning days of 2007, there was a push to jumpstart the long-delayed confirmation process for Peter Keisler, President Bush's nominee for a seat on the federal appeals court for the DC Circuit.  According to Drew Ryun in our government affairs office, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy agreed to give Keisler a second hearing and start the confirmation process once again.  We've learned that the offer was taken off the table just two days ago, setting the scene for a continued showdown over federal judicial nominees.  All this comes at a time when the Senate is lagging far behind traditional confirmation rates of a President's judicial nominees and Senator Patrick Leahy is getting ready to introduce a bill that will create 75 new federal judgeships.

 

The Senate's role is clear in the U.S. Constitution - to advise and consent in the confirmation process.  Every one of President Bush's judicial nominees deserves hearings and up-or-down votes - in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

 

On another front, were back in court defending the Pledge of Allegiance.  This time the challenge is coming out of New Hampshire.  A new lawsuit by Michael Newdow has been filed in federal district court and, once again, the phrase under God is under attack.  The suit claims that the recitation of the Pledge in school shows that the government is supporting a monotheistic teaching of the United States being one nation under God. 

 

The plaintiffs in the case make several charges including the allegation that while none are actually compelled to say the words "under God" during the recitation of the Pledge in school, they feel they are being coerced to participate simply because the Pledge contains the phrase which was added by Congress.

 

The truth is the phrase "under God" does not violate the Constitution.  In fact, the phrase one nation, under God has become a time-honored tradition -- an integral part of the Pledge for over 50 years.  The Pledge first appeared in print in 1892 as a patriotic exercise expressing loyalty to our nation. Congress added the phrase under God in 1954.  That phrase first appeared in President Lincolns Gettysburg Address, which concluded that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that the government of the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the constitutionality of the Pledge, there are numerous cases over the years where Justices concluded that the phrase one nation, under God is not an establishment of religion, but merely a way for the government to acknowledge our religious heritage.

 

We are certainly taking this latest legal challenge very seriously.  We're preparing a detailed amicus brief supporting the Pledge and will represent more than 50 members of Congress with this brief which will be filed in federal district court.

 

As 2008 gets underway, we're dedicated to continuing to protect your religious and constitutional freedoms in both the courts and in Congress.  We'll keep you posted on these and other developing issues in the days and weeks ahead.  And, as always, you can get the very latest on our daily radio broadcast, Jay Sekulow Live!

 

 

close player