Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Elections Commission, which challenges the abysmal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

A large coalition of groups, including the ACLU and AFL-CIO, filed briefs supporting WIRTL.

The legislature passed McCain-Feingold in 2002 to kill free speech before elections. It bars corporations and labor unions from broadcasting ads mentioning the name of a federal candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Strangely, President Bush signed the bill into law while saying he thought it was unconstitutional. Almost all were surprised when in 2003 the Supremes upheld the law on its face.

In 2004, WIRTL attempted to run ads prodding Senate members to approve Bush judicial nominees. The ads were blocked by McCain-Feingold, and the court battle began....

WIRTL is challenging the application of McCain-Feingold. I spoke with Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of WIRTL, this morning. She attended the Supreme Court hearing yesterday and said prospects look good for some sort of victory, although it may be narrow. The decision was promised by June 30.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell also attended the hearing yesterday, having filed his own brief in support, and reported to bloggers he was "encouraged by the active and insightful questions posed by the Justices." Noted McConnell:

Justice Alito recognized the massive breath of this provision during a presidential election year - namely a rolling ban from coast to coast during the year. Grassroots groups could never run a nationwide ad on CNN or ESPN as it would violate the law in at least one state.

Justice Scalia stated the time when ads are most persuasive to Members is during the blackout period before elections. This is when the First Amendment right to petition the government is the most powerful. These ads are about changing the minds of Members, not changing the minds of voters.

It was a very interesting session and there was substantial skepticism as to the constitutionality of the law as applied to these issue ads. As Justice Kennedy asked, "isn’t that democracy?"

By Mary Kay Hastings

Gene Forros has been an active pro-life supporter in Flint, Michigan, for 20 years. Recently, without his knowledge, the director of an abortion clinic obtained a personal protection order against him, which prevented him from conducting his peaceful protests and counseling outside the facility. The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor intervened on his behalf, and the illegal order has been lifted -- which means the activist can resume his pro-life ministry.

Attorney Edward White says this is just one of the scare tactics that pro-abortion forces often use....

"What we've found is that one of the tactics that people in the abortion industry use is constantly calling the police to show up at the clinic and claiming that pro-lifers are doing things that are wrong," White explains. "Most of the time it's not true."

The complaints, he says, might include such things as blocking the driveway into the clinic or trying to prevent people from walking into the clinic. But the end result, says White, is that the summoning of police to the protest sites discourages some pro-lifers from returning again for fear of being arrested.

Threats or freedom of speech?

911 tapes, testimony detail events outside clinic

By Ames Boykin
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Saturday, April 14, 2007

A woman protesting outside a health clinic in Des Plaines calls 911, saying she is “in fear for my health and life” because of an off-duty police officer wearing a black T-shirt, blue sweatpants and gym shoes.
Dispatcher Cate Loughrige questions her: "You're in fear of your life?"
The protester says: "Ma'am, if you do not do this, I will sue Des Plaines. Please send someone out here. He is hollering at us.”
The 911 calls from protesters were played Friday during the opening of the city’s case in its attempt to fire police officer Dick V. Lalowski because he is accused of verbally and physically abusing women on May 20, 2006, outside a clinic in Des Plaines.
Lalowski, 43, who has been suspended without pay since the city lodged the charges last fall, denies he did anything wrong.
Richard J. Reimer, Lalowski's attorney, said the officer was in plain clothes exercising his First Amendment free speech rights.
Lalowski is accused of spending more than an hour threatening to arrest the female protesters, calling them "fat (expletive) cows," poking his index finger into the torso of one of them and hugging another.
At one point, city officials contend, Lalowski compared the women's tactics outside the clinic at 110 S. River Road to the Taliban. He also is accused of threatening to arrest the women if they blocked the clinic's entrance or gave people going inside baskets with teddy bears with the message, "I love you, mommy," the city says.
Lalowski should lose his job for disorderly conduct both while in uniform, when he stopped at the protest, and later when he returned in plain clothes after his shift ended, said Patrick Lucansky, an attorney for the city.
Lalowski testified Friday that he never used profanity but that he did call a protester a "fat cow" and showed her low-impact exercises she could do.
"I believe I acted courteous and professional the whole time." Lalowski said.

I was unaware that calling a woman a fat cow was courteous and professional...I'll have to remember that...

He admitted to being upset by a 6-foot-tall photo of an aborted fetus the protesters held that Lalowski said looked like "Jell-O".
Lalowski also admitted to accusing a protester of gluttony because she was overweight. He said he did so to show her that the "truth sometimes hurts" just as the aborted fetus photo could hurt a woman who had just had a miscarriage.
Lalowski said he did tell the women they would be arrested if they stopped people from entering the clinic.
A second police officer, Matthew Jones, also was at the demonstration last May 20 to keep the peace during the time Lalowski is accused of abusing the women.
During the 911 calls, Jones is heard downplaying the charges the women made. The protesters in their emergency calls accuse Jones of working for the clinic, rather than working to protect them.
"They're down here peacefully demonstrating and yes, a gentleman (Lalowski) came up and was talking to them. He was expressing his views and they were expressing theirs. Nobody got in anybody's face. Nobody was threatened, nobody was assaulted," Jones tells the dispatcher.

Jones also told the dispatcher that the women were "not used to getting somebody else talking back to them."

Oh yeah, cuz that NEVER happens to protesters...everyone just comes up to us and says "great job, guys. keep up the good work" I know I've NEVER had any negative feedback for the pro-choice side...not!

Testimony will continue Monday, when the anti-abortion protesters are expected to testify before the city's board of fire and police commissioners. The hearings involving Lalowski are expected to continue into May.

By Bethany Kerr:

I realize most of the commenters who replied last night are very young, and therefore are going to be childish at times. (Sometimes I am childish myself, I agree).

However, what happened last night does kind of prove what we've been saying all along...that pro-abortion supporters despise free speech.

I realize I am using a generalization, so here is my disclaimer: I do realize there are those of you that are fair in debate, so please know that I am not speaking about you when I write this. (example:PIP can be very fair and courteous in debate). For those who are kind enough to participate in fair debate, thank you.

Hisman's article, which was posted last night, was an "opinion" article, expressing HIS opinion about abortion, and why abortion is wrong from a faith standpoint. He expressed clearly in the beginning of the post that it was going to be from his faith's perspective, and he did not at any time express otherwise.

The attacks started early last night, and continued until this morning, when I disabled further comments from coming. I was in disbelief that there were actually over 600 comments attacking him for his beliefs!

Where is the tolerance and love the pro-choice side supposedly promotes towards faiths and religions of all kinds? I didn't see ANY tolerance last night or this morning when I read the comments again. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about, although if you want a better idea, you can go back and read the comments in the article Hisman posted:

1. Most people reading this blog have to wonder if you are the most qualified person to judge what is rational and what is not, HisMan

2. If abortion is murder, you are a cranberry.

3. This one directed at momof3: MOM: please spare us the dumb crap g** argument you use then...

4. Hey Daughter of His Man!!!
   Sup Sugar??

5. ohhh what happened to Jesus' bo (His Man)??

6. For a second there, I thought Jesus' bo was transgender... then His Daughter... whew!!
   His Dauther (sic),
   Have you asked your father if your a an in-vitro left over... adopted for the purposes of being a pro-life poster baby? Seriously... your pa's got some zeal, and you should consider...

7. well everyone going into pp is a murdering whore...i mean they are using pp which sometimes provides abortion, so they are condoning it by going there...
   OH NO! I am a murdering whore...

8. Listen, HisMan, we get it that you have issues with people who believe differently from you. I think you need to grow up now, though. It's childish and petty.

9. HisMan
   I doubt your daughter is a warrior. I think she is brainwashed to believe what you think.
   Your sons will probably never find a strong woman who would love them. If they are anything like you a strong woman would see that they are simply trying to control her, they would leave him,
   Hope your sons have fun with their meek and mild wives and I hope your daughter has fun with the guy who will control her life. Thats what she is used to with you right?

10. As the daughter of a religious leader, I have learned at his feet what the proper way to teach a child is and what the wrong and abusive way to teach a child is. Brainwashing is wrong, immoral, abusive, disgusting, harmful, destructive, and on and on. I hope you're proud of yourself.

11. LOL... OH ya? My daddy's bigger than yours... I guess even your righteousness has limits...
    ... assault and battery has likely been on your mind long before I knew you had a daughter.

12. Why do you believe in Jesus? Because Daddy told you to and that if you didn't, you would go to Hell, or because you have gone on a life-long spiritual journey examining the gospel and the history, learning as much as you could about it, before settling on your beliefs?
    I highly doubt it's the latter. Your anger at the suggestion supports my doubt.
    And I find it laughable that you think you can tell me, "I haven't been brainwashed." How are you supposed to know if you've been brainwashed or not? That's the most abusive part of it. You don't even know you're being abused. I feel very sorry for you.

13. Congratulations, HisMan. You are an abusive father.

14. If I were HisMan, I wouldn't let my daughter even use the computer. Too many Satanic influences for her to get caught up in on the big scary internet.

15. HisMan, I also think you are probably an abusive father, not physically but emotionally and mentally.

16. I have to wonder why HisMan hates women so much.

17. 
    Just the fact that he needs to write a list of her accomplishments shows that even he doesn't think he's as strong as he's claiming she is. I could list my accomplishments, but I don't need to prove anything to anyone. He feels like he has something to prove. It's so amusing.

18. Lindsey:
    He would make her have it, no matter what kind of emotional stress he put his daughter under. Under all his caring pretenses he honestly doesnt care about anyone but himself and his personal beliefs.

19. HisMan is a delusional, cult-brainwashed dupe. And so are his kids.

20. HisMan, if you can choose to be gay, please try it.

21. She [hisman's daughter]will most likely end up with a man that beats and forces himself on her. She is being raised to believe that the man is always right and you must obey him at all times. I feel so bad for her.

22. I have never in my life been so disgusted by another human being. The sheer ignorance and uneducated mind it takes to make such a statement as you did hisman is obviously just as ignorant and uneducated in life.

23. See, HisMan, we know how to love those who have opposing views from our own (sic). You should try it one day.

24. He has to be playing his ignorance up cuz this is on the net or something...

25. You, HisMan, are guilty of being one of the most blasphemous men I have ever encountered. You are only a man. You do not speak for God.

26. I think you fancy yourself Jesus Christ. That's very sad.

The list goes on and on but I think this is enough to give you the idea.

If these people really think Hisman is crazy, then why are they so threatened by him that they have to resort to all these types of replies instead of just ignoring him?

I don't even believe they were trying to reason with him. They were attempting to silence him. As they were STILL arguing at 5:40 in the morning when I awoke. As soon as I saw this, I disabled comments for that topic. It was getting beyond ridiculous.

If you don't agree with Hisman's words this much, and you obviously can see you're not getting anywhere by arguing with him, why not let it go? He is not forcing you to believe what he says. If you weren't threatened by what he said, then why stay up all night, why not just leave it with a few comments, then leave..... There were at least 12-15 of you insulting and ganging up on one person who is alone? Is that really fair debate?

Two events this week spotlighted the truth: People calling themselves "pro-choice" aren't that at all. They are pro-abortion. They are anti-choice. They do all they can to suppress the free speech of pro-lifers.

At a March 27 rally sponsored by liberal feminists in Washington, D.C., to promote the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment, one pro-abort ripped up a sign held by a pro-lifer with the simple message, "Abortion hurts women." See video here:

And members of a pro-life student group at Indiana's Purdue University had to spend the night of March 28 defending their display against pro-abort vandals. According to the student newspaper, The Exponent....

Every year, Students for Life commemorates the loss of unborn babies by setting up a cemetery of crosses. Each cross represents two children lost to abortion each day, said [Curtis] Verner. There were 1,800 crosses standing. they post annually on Purdue's Memorial Mall....

"Last night some girl came by and started pulling up the crosses," said... Verner, a junior in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and president of the organization. "It made for a long night."

Those vandals better watch out. Pro-abort vandals at Northern Kentucky University that included a professor were prosecuted a year ago for similar illegal actions. See photo here.