The Supreme Court has accepted a case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, that presents the question, among others, of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, issued in 1990, should be overruled. Smith held that, when a person challenges application of a law of general applicability on the ground that it restricts the person’s
NLF in its amicus brief in the Supreme Court points out a methodological flaw in the “undue burden” analysis in recent abortion cases.
A state may not refuse tax credits for contributions solely because some resulting scholarships go to religious schools.
The ministerial exception covers more than just churches and schools.
Justice Thomas in two concurrences to denial of cert excoriates the Court’s abortion case law.
Project Blitz is attacked with ad hominem, rather than reason.
Abortion is not properly upheld as providing equal rights for women.
Carrying a child to term is not “involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment
It is not uncommon for philosophers and social commentators to refer to any overarching belief system as a religion. For example, just out from Daniel Mahoney is The Idol of Our Age: How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity (2018), in which he argues that secular humanism is treated as ultimate truth by many and,
In part 1 of this blog, I suggested that a plain reading of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment included the unborn in the class of “any person” to whom are given the benefits of due process and equal protection from the reaches of the States and (through the Fifth Amendment) the Federal Government before