Hobby Lobby to Defy Obamacare Mandate

 

Todd Starnes - Dec 29, 2012

 

The owners of Hobby Lobby face $1.3 million in daily fines after they decided to obey God rather than the federal government – refusing to comply with Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
The act of defiance came one day after Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied Hobby Lobby’s emergency request to block enforcement of the mandate, but said the company may continue its appeal in lower courts.
Hobby Lobby is a national arts and crafts chain. They own more than 500 stores in 41 states.
The company is owned by the Green family, devout, evangelical Christians. They believe “it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured” and they seek to honor God by operating their company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.”
The family believes the Obamacare mandate to provide the morning-after and week-after pills is a violation of their religious convictions.“To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs,” Becket Fund attorney Kyle Duncan wrote in a statement.
Duncan said the company would continue to provide health insurance for its employees while they fight the government in court.
But on Jan. 1, Hobby Lobby will face a $1.3 million daily fine if they don’t comply with Obamacare.
“The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them,” the Becket Fund said in a statement. “All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.”There are now 42 separate lawsuits changing the mandate, the Becket Fund said.
Conservatives praised Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.
“God bless this company,” columnist Michelle Malkin told Fox News. “It’s incumbent upon every conservative who believes in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to support those businesses that are standing up and taking the slings and arrows of this discriminatory administration.”
“This is the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen,” wrote columnist Denny Burk. “The first line of the Bill of Rights says this: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Obamacare prohibits the free exercise of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Who’s next?”Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham said President Obama “must step in to stop this madness.”
“It turns out as many feared, the president’s religious exemption to the contraception mandate is so narrow as to be meaningless,” she said on Fox News. “Unless you employ and serve only those of your same religious faith you don’t receive an exemption. So under that standard, Jesus himself would not qualify. This is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
Abortion supporters hailed Sotomayor’s ruling.
“I hope the government earmarks every cent of that fee money for Planned Parenthood, just to spite these ass****,” wrote one reader on the Jezebel website.
“Anyway, I’m all for Hobby Lobby (and all other organizations that think birth control is totes gross) ignoring the law,” wrote Erin Gloria Ryan in a column titled, “Whore Pill-Hating Hobby Lobby Will Have to Pay a Buttload of Fines for Ignoring Obamacare.”
The website Think Progress said Hobby Lobby is ignoring two points.
“First, that Plan B is not an abortion-inducing drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access,” the website reported. “It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.”
Ingraham pointed out that in a previous case Sotomayor ruled in favor of a Muslim inmate who was denied Ramadan meals. She held that the meal was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam.
Malkin called it a selective double standard.
“Religious liberty for some, none for others,” she said.

 

Comment:

 

This is a followup to a previous message on this most important violation of rights guaranteed us as American citizens in our Bill of Rights. The Obama administration, the U.S. Congress, or anybody else has no authority to unilaterally deny us those precious rights to practice our religion as we see fit without interference by the government. Any American citizen who holds our guarantees under the Bill of Rights precious should stand solidly behind the courageous stand taken by the Green Family and anyone else willing to oppose any and all attempts to infringe upon our right, as Americans, to freely express and practice our individual religious beliefs. 

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America
Knights of Columbus - 4th Degree

Supreme Court denies Hobby Lobby request for reprieve from health care mandate
Published December 26, 2012 - FoxNews.com

 

The Supreme Court has denied a request by Hobby Lobby to shield the company from the so-called contraceptive mandate while its legal battle plays out, after a federal court last week similarly ruled against the Christian-owned company.
The lower court had earlier refused to protect the company from an ObamaCare-tied requirement to provide contraceptive coverage, and the fines that come with it for not complying.
CEO David Green, who had taken his case to the appeals court after losing in a lower-court ruling, had argued that his family would have to either "violate their faith by covering abortion-causing drugs or be exposed to severe penalties."
The Supreme Court's latest ruling is not on the underlying merits of the mandate itself -- it simply denies the company's request for an injunction while legal battle on the merits plays out. There are currently more than 40 cases pending against that rule.
The mandate requires businesses and organizations, with some exceptions, to provide access to contraception coverage -- Hobby Lobby was most concerned about coverage for the morning-after pill, which some consider tantamount to an abortion-causing drug. Hobby Lobby has refused to comply, while saying the fines could add up to $1.3 million a day.In its earlier ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said the company did not prove the rule would "substantially burden" its religious freedom. Though the mandate has exemptions for religious entities like churches, the lower court ruled that Hobby Lobby is not a religious group.
The company, founded in 1972, has more than 13,000 full-time employees across more than 500 stores.

 

Comment:

 

This is a very strong indication that the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be in favor of the implementation of the very controversial clause in the Affordable Care Act which requires all employers to pay for free access to contraceptive devices. Although the clause is vehemently opposed by all anti-abortion groups, it remains an integral part of the Obama administration’s health care legislation. Such a ruling is a sad testimonial to the constant erosion of our right of freedom to practice our religion that is guaranteed us under the U.S. Constitution. If this can happen to our right to freely practice our religion as we see fit, one can’t help wondering which of the rights that we have come to take for granted in America will be the next to come under attack. We are headed down a very slippery slope when we stand by and do nothing while our precious  constitutional rights are infringed upon.

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America
Knights of Columbus - 4th Degree

Obama’s uncle wins new bid to stay in US
He gets new hearing, immigration lawyers surprised

 

Boston Globe Staff Writer - 4 December 2012

 

President Obama’s uncle has won a new deportation hearing in Boston immigration court, more than a year after a drunk-driving arrest in Framingham revealed that he had violated a longstanding order to return to Kenya.
Last week, the Board of ­Immigration Appeals granted Onyango Obama’s request to ­reopen his immigration case based in part on his contention that his prior lawyer was ­ineffective, according to a government official with direct knowledge of the case. Obama’s new lawyers have also argued that the 68-year-old Obama has lived in the United States for nearly half a century and ­deserves a chance to make his case.
Brian P. Hale — spokesman for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is prosecuting the deportation — confirmed that the board has reopened the case but declined to elaborate.
The board’s decision raised eyebrows among immi­gration lawyers who say it is difficult to persuade the immi­gration courts to reconsider a case that involves an arrest and a flagrant violation of a depor­tation order, last issued in 1992.
Framingham police arrested Obama for drunken driving in August 2011 and he later admit­ted in court that prosecutors had sufficient facts to bring the charge against him. But the drunk driving charge will be dismissed as long as he complies with terms of his sentence, including a year of probation that ends in March.
“With an outstanding order and a legally fuzzy plea, it’s pretty unusual for the board to reopen” an immigration case, said Crystal Williams, executive director of the Washington-based American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s not unheard of, but it’s pretty ­unusual.”
Scott Bratton, one of Obama’s lawyers at the Margaret Wong law firm in Cleveland, said Monday night, “We are obviously extremely pleased with the board’s decision. This will allow him to pursue his application for permanent resident status.”
Lauren Alder Reid, the courts’ chief counsel for legislative and public affairs, said she could not comment on the immi­gration case or say when a hearing would be scheduled because case information is generally protected by federal privacy provisions, unless the immigrant or his representative ­authorizes its release.
Because immigration court records are generally closed to the public, it is unclear what evi­dence the board reviewed to support Obama’s claim that his lawyer was ineffective. The government official who provided the reasons behind the board’s decision spoke on condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to speak to reporters.
However, prior immigration judges’ rulings in Obama’s case obtained by the Globe under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Board of Immigration Appeals criticized his lawyer, Joseph F. O’Neil, in 1992 for failing to file a legal brief to support Obama’s ­appeal.

 

Comment:

 

About a year ago, Obama’s  Auntie Zetuni received permission to remain in the U.S. and to stay in subsidized public housing while she applied for permanent residency status even though she was living here in an undocumented status. Now, we have Uncle Onyango being granted a new hearing on his case even though he has been living here for “nearly a half century in an undocumented status and has ignored a court issued deportation order since 1992”. The most recent charge against Uncle Onyango is drunken driving, a felonious charge not a simple immigration violation.
It is nothing short of an abomination that these types of “special favors” can be given to relatives of powerful politicians while other persons who are living here in the same unenviable immigration status are being subjected to apprehension, detention for long periods in prisons with hardened criminals, and eventually deported for the most insignificant of misdemeanors most of which are related to their immigration status and are not felonies in the eyes of the law.
The unfortunate people caught up in these situations are also barred from legal re-entry to the United States for ten years. What is wrong with this picture?

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America

Michigan Affirmative Action Ban Struck Down By Court

 

ED WHITE - 11/15/12

DETROIT — Michigan's ban on affirmative action in college admissions was declared unconstitutional Thursday by a deeply divided federal appeals court, six years after state voters said race could not be an issue in choosing students.
In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.
That burden "undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change," said Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., writing for the majority at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The court said having supporters and opponents debate affirmative action through the governing boards of each public university would be much fairer than cementing a ban in the constitution, which it referred to as home of "the highest level" of public policy.
The court did not comment on a portion of the amendment that deals with government hiring.
The decision is limited to states in the 6th Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. But it also raises the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court may get involved. A very similar law in California was upheld by a San Francisco-based appeals court, and the Supreme Court could choose to resolve the conflicting decisions of the 9th Circuit and the 6th Circuit on voter-approved bans.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a supporter of the ban, said he will ask the nation's highest court to take the case.
"Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit," he said.
George Washington, a Detroit attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said the ruling is a "tremendous victory." He predicted the case will move to the Supreme Court.
"What this really means is thousands of blacks and Latinos who would not have had a chance to go to our most selective universities will have the chance to become lawyers, doctors and leaders of all fields," Washington said.
As the college admissions process for 2013 heats up, it wasn't immediately clear what campuses would do in light of the ruling. Officials at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University said they were reading the decision.
At the University of Michigan, 8 percent of undergraduates this fall are black or Hispanic, compared to almost 11 percent in 2008. The number of black female undergraduates is down 27 percent compared to 2008, according to university data.
This is the second time that the appeals court has examined Michigan's affirmative action issue. A three-judge panel last year also found the ban unconstitutional for similar reasons. But after a plea from Schuette, the entire court decided to take a fresh look at the matter, with new filings and arguments leading to the new ruling Thursday.
In a 32-page opinion, the court's majority explained the difficulties that it sees for students under the constitutional amendment. For example, there's nothing barring someone from citing family alumni connections when applying to a college. But the court said a student seeking to use race to influence the admissions process now is shut out unless the constitution is changed again.
"Michigan cannot force those advocating for consideration of racial factors to traverse a more arduous road without violating the Fourteenth Amendment," the court said. "We thus conclude that Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests."
In dissent, Judge Danny Boggs said the majority relied on an "extreme extension" of two Supreme Court cases to justify its decision, one in 1969 involving the repeal of a fair housing law in Akron, Ohio, and the other in 1982 involving an effort to stop racial integration in Seattle schools.
"We have the citizens of the entire state establishing a principle that would in general have seemed laudable," Boggs said of Michigan.
Another dissenter, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, said the will of 58 percent of voters in 2006 has been shredded.
"Michigan has chosen to structure its university system such that politics plays no part in university admissions at all levels. ... The Michigan voters have therefore not restructured the political process in their state by amending their state constitution; they have merely employed it," Gibbons said.
Besides Michigan, six states have banned racial preferences in admissions: Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, California and Florida. In Texas and Georgia, leading public universities use a race-neutral system, though the University of Texas has maintained some use of affirmative action.
Since a 2003 Supreme Court decision, universities have been allowed to use racial preferences if they choose, though they are not compelled to do so. The court last month heard arguments in a case that could change that precedent. Abigail Fisher, a rejected white applicant, is suing the University of Texas.

 

Comment:

 

There may, possibly, have been some justification to implementing the policy of “Affirmative Action” some thirty years ago when it became law. However, in the intervening years, a program that was originally intended to provide “a level playing field” to all applicants has proven to be colossal failure and has long since exceeded its “shelf life”. Instead, it has afforded college entrance as well as job opportunities and advancement in these areas to incompetent applicants based solely on skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. to the detriment of far more qualified applicants. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will not cave in to political correctness and will rule to “pull the plug” on a program that has, arguably, hurt more people than it has helped.

This is my personal opinion on this issue and it does not necessarily agree with that of the various organizations with which I am associated.

 

Jack Meehan
Quincy MA.

Knights of Columbus Responds to Hurricane Sandy

11/1/2012

In response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, in conjunction with local and state councils across the Northeast, is joining relief efforts.

The Supreme Council announced this morning that it is making an immediate $100,000 donation, giving $50,000 each to the state councils of New York and New Jersey to assist in local relief efforts in those hardest-hit jurisdictions.

In addition, the Supreme Council has launched an online donation drive, soliciting contributions from its members and the general public. One hundred percent of the proceeds will go directly to relief efforts in local communities.

“Knights have a long tradition of providing disaster relief,” said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, “and this is no exception. Our communities need our time, our help, and our financial assistance, and we are going to do all that we can - working closely with our local and state councils - to help those most in need as a result of this storm.”

Thank You!!
Comment:

To all Brother Hibernians who are also Brother Knights you are a shining example to all other Catholic charitable organizations. Our Lord said: “Whatever you do for the least of My brethren, you also do for Me”. A very sincere “Thank you” from a proud Brother Knight.


Jack Meehan, Past National President

Ancient Order of Hibernians in America

Knights of Columbus – 4th Degree

Is there a new face of atheism in Ireland?

JOE HUMPHREYS – Irish Times – 24 October 2012

The winds of change are blowing through the world of atheism, as it seeks a softening of its ‘Dawkinsian’ attitude to religion and a more inclusive approach
ATHEISTS ARE on the march. Census results published last week showed there was a four-fold increase in the number of people who said they had no religion, or were either atheist or agnostic, between 1991 and 2011, with 277,237 people falling into this category last year. The figures, however, only tell part of the story.
Ireland is seeing the emergence of a newer kind of atheist, who is anxious to dispel the myth that they are all one-dimensional, rabidly anti-religious Dawkinsians.

The winds of change could be seen at last weekend’s AGM of Atheist Ireland, where delegates agreed a new focus on promoting “an ethical society”, engaging in charity work and social justice campaigns, and even collaborating with religious groups on issues of common concern.

Leonie Hilliard, a Dublin-based science graduate who joined the group a year ago, admits, “Some of my friends are quite surprised by the charity aspect.” Atheist Ireland has already raised some money for microfinance projects in Africa under its “Good Without Gods” initiative.

Plans are afoot for a registered charity (one delegate joked that it should be called “a non-prophet organisation”) while members are also being encouraged to take on informal outreach work, such as visiting people in institutions “without preaching”.

Atheism might not have a clearly defined “ethical backbone”, says Hilliard, noting, “atheism is a belief system in the same way that not playing football is a sport.” However, she stresses, it does lend itself to a number of strong moral positions, including a “worldview of not judging people”. She adds: “Most people involved in the atheist movement are compassionate and want to do something good for the community and challenge the idea that it’s all about secularising Ireland.”

Astrid Malachewitz, who is originally from Germany but now lives in Arklow, Co Wicklow, is similarly irked by some Irish misperceptions about atheism. “I don’t think atheism is a negative movement to start with. Belief in God is replaced with belief in science, justice and equality, and that’s a positive thing.”

She admits some Irish atheists are extremely hostile towards the Catholic Church but such bitterness is not universal.
“I am not one of those people who say if you are a religious person you must automatically be evil,” she says. Nor must every interaction with a person of faith be an opportunity for point-scoring. If attending a mass, for example, a funeral, “I don’t kneel, but I went to my nephew’s communion and it was a wonderful day, and it was very important for me to be there.”

While she has never been asked to be a godparent, “as a cultural thing I’d have no problem with it”, and she finds it amusing rather than annoying that Irish people often finish conversations with “God bless”. She puts it down to cultural Catholicism, something she can fully understand: “I feel culturally Lutheran.”
In tone at least, Malachewitz and Hilliard seem to represent a departure from the New Atheists, the sharp-tongued, all-male troupe of writer-activists led by Richard Dawkins. What might be called the newer atheists are not only more diverse but perhaps slower to judge and quicker to turn the spotlight inwards.

Such introspection has triggered no small amount of debate in the atheist movement internationally, a lot of it focused on the issue of gender. Last August, a new online forum, Atheism Plus, or A+, was launched by Jen McCreight, a Seattle-based blogger and secularist. Backed by a number of prominent women atheists, it seeks “a new wave of atheism” aimed at “promoting social justice” and “working against bigotry, hatred and discrimination”.

Her biggest concern is what she sees as deep-rooted misogyny in the atheist community. Whenever she speaks in a light-hearted way about sexual issues, she says she receives obscene propositions, while posts about feminism are usually met with abuse.

Likening atheism to a “boys’ club”, she wrote to fellow secularists: “I don’t feel safe as a woman in this community – and I feel less safe than I do as a woman in science, or a woman in gaming, or hell, as a woman walking down the f***ing sidewalk.”

McCreight was not the first woman to make this complaint. In a notorious incident, dubbed “Elevatorgate”, blogger Rebecca Watson alleged she received an inappropriate late-night proposition in a lift during the World Atheist Convention in Dublin last year. She wrote about the episode online, drawing a critical response from none other than Dawkins, who sarcastically contrasted her situation with the plight of women in Islam.

McCreight spoke on the issue on a visit to Dublin last June, describing Dawkins’s response as “totally inappropriate”. Because atheists “are so hyperrational and hypersceptical”, if a woman among them says she felt harassed, “if you don’t have photographic evidence that it happened, it never happened,” she told an event hosted by Atheist Ireland.

Malachewitz agrees “there is a misogynistic streak” in the broader movement, but stresses, “on the whole I do feel welcome as a woman”. She adds that organisations such as Atheist Ireland have done a lot to combat prejudice, adopting a new policy on diversity and inclusion last year, and speaking out strongly on the issue. Its chairman Michael Nugent says he believes the misogyny identified “is not a specific atheist thing. It’s a societal issue and it’s an online issue. People are willing to say things about each other online that they would not say face-to-face.”

He is also keen to defend Dawkins, saying, “Richard is the opposite of the uncaring dogmatist his critics unfairly caricature him as.” He is, rather, “a sensitive, caring man.”

But what of the new emphasis being placed on ethics as an atheist concern? “I would not see it as a departure,” says Nugent. While there is a “mini-dogma” that says “atheism only means non-belief in gods, in practice we have already moved beyond that.”

Nugent has published a manifesto on “ethical atheism” (it “predates Atheism Plus”, he notes) which “tries to combine the best of our existing ideas into a set of principles”. The manifesto seeks to promote not only “reason, critical thinking and science”, but also “natural compassion and ethics . . . inclusive, caring atheist groups” and “fair and just societies”.

Practising what it preaches, Atheist Ireland has built alliances with human rights, LGBT and women’s groups to campaign on issues such as constitutional reform. It is now hoping to work in partnership with religious campaigners on shared concerns such as blasphemy laws.

“Ideally I would like to see ourselves and various religious groups taking a common stance on people being jailed or persecuted on the basis of belief. Our problems with the blasphemy law in Ireland pale into insignificance compared to problems faced by religious people in Islamic countries.”
In time, such initiatives may help to change the public perception of what it means to be an atheist.

“People feel the word atheist has a stronger assertion that it actually has,” says Nugent. “I think people believe, firstly, atheism means you are claiming with certainty that there are no gods and, secondly, that you are implying your position is unbreakable, whereas every atheist I know will say this is a position based on currently available evidence and we may be mistaken.”

Does this represent a softening of the New Atheist stance? Or are Irish atheists simply becoming better understood? One thing’s for sure, they are no longer the novelty they once were. Malachewitz moved here 12 years ago from a country “where atheism was never a big deal”.

“I realised Ireland had changed when my mother-in-law started quoting Christopher Hitchens.”

ATHEISTS IN IRELAND by the numbers

320 – number of atheists in 1991 census

277,237 – number of people categorised as non-religious in 2011 census (3,905 atheists, 3,521 agnostic and the remainder no religion)

10.5% – percentage of non-religious people in Galway

2.4% – percentage of non-religious people in Monaghan

14:10 – proportion of men to women in non-religious population

56% – proportion of non-religious people with a third-level qualification (compared to national average for such a qualification of 36 per cent)

14,769 – number of non-religious primary-school children

47% – proportion of Irish people who consider themselves religious, as surveyed last year by pollsters affiliated to Win-Gallup International (a drop from 69 per cent in 2005).
Source: Census 2011.

Note: “non-religious” category covers respondents who declared themselves as either atheist or agnostic, or having no religion

Comment:
Here is more irrefutable evidence that our beloved ancestral homeland is, in fact, making a steady transformation from what was once the most Catholic country in Europe to a predominantly secular one. There are many factors involved in this drastic change, not the least of which is the ever growing rate of emigration from Ireland by native born Irish, the vast majority of whom were born and raised in the Catholic faith. Another factor which cannot be ignored is the wide spread problem of sexual abuse of children by members of the clergy which has caused many Irish Catholics to question their support of the Church and in some cases to abandon it altogether. The steady growth of atheism together with the huge influx of Muslim immigrants to Ireland in recent years, unfortunately, does not bode well for a return to the “faith of our fathers” by lapsed Catholics in the foreseeable future, if ever.

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America
Knights Of Columbus - 4^th Degree

NI abortion clinic 'will be regulated'

Stormont’s Health Minister Edwin Poots is taking legal advice on how to regulate Ireland’s first private abortion clinic.
Mr Poots vowed that the Marie Stopes Clinic would be monitored in some way when it opens in Belfast on October 18th.
But he revealed he is seeking clarification on whether the role can be taken on by the Regulation Quality and Improvement Authority (RQIA), which already regulates a number of health bodies across the region.
“I think it has to be regulated, but it will be regulated one way or the other, either through the police or ourselves, it will be regulated,” Mr Poots told BBC Northern Ireland’s Sunday Politics.
“But the Department of Health would rather be the organisation, through the RQIA, that’s doing the regulation.
“We will confirm very soon whether that is going to be the case immediately or whether it’s going to take a little longer to put procedures in place.”
The new medical facility at Great Victoria Street in Belfast city centre will be headed by former Progressive Unionist Party MLA Dawn Purvis. It will offer abortions, each costing £450, when it opens next Thursday.
Unlike other parts of the UK the 1967 Abortion Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.
NHS terminations can only be carried out to preserve the life of the mother or if continuing with the pregnancy would seriously adversely impact on her physical or mental health.
There is strict assessment regarding any impact on mental well-being and the woman must consult with two clinicians.
Anti-abortionists including Stormont politicians and church leaders have reacted with fury and claim there is no demand for a private clinic.
However pro-choice campaigners have called for the Irish Government to change the law on abortion after the Marie Stopes charity announced it was opening a private clinic in Belfast.
Rally For Choice, Choice Ireland and UCD Pro Choice Society say the new centre will make it easier for women across Ireland to access safe, legal abortions and hope it will reopen debate on the controversial issue.

Comment:
There is only one acceptable way to regulate a “clinic” that is in existence for the sole purpose of murdering the yet to be born and most vulnerable members of the human race. That one way is not to allow such a “death chamber” to exist at all.

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America
Knights of Columbus – 4^th Degree