>>/185134/, >>/185135/, >>/185136/, >>/185137/, >>/185138/, >>/185139/, >>/185140/, >>/185141/, >>/185142/, >>/185143/, >>/185144/, >>/185145/, >>/185146/, >>/185147/, >>/185148/, >>/185149/, >>/185150/, >>/185151/, >>/185152/, >>/185153/, >>/185154/, >>/185155/, >>/185156/, >>/185157/, >>/185158/, >>/185159/
LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ - VICTORY!
A judge has thrown out the case against a pro-life mom who was praying outside an abortion center.
Claire Brennan, a mother of four, became the first person convicted under Northern Ireland’s controversial abortion “censorship zone” law that bans pro-life free speech outside abortion businesses.
Claire had been charged for alleged breaches of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act 2023 after peacefully praying and offering support to women outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine. The hospital kills babies in abortions.
However, at her trial hearing, key charges were dropped, witnesses failed to attend, and the remaining evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Claire was accused of “influencing” individuals within a 150-metre “safe access zone” around the abortion center.
Brennan has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that her actions were peaceful, prayerful, and motivated by compassion, including offering conversation to women considering abortion.
Responding to the ruling, Claire Brennan said:
“This is a huge relief, not just for me, but for everyone who believes that compassion should never be criminalized."
"I have always acted peacefully, praying, offering hope, and trying to help women who may feel they have no alternative."
"These censorship zones are unjust. They silence prayer, restrict free speech, and prevent women from hearing that there is another option besides abortion.”
https://x.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/2061812852005249060
LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ - Defund Planned Parenthood!
https://x.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/2061976187279200360
LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ - An article in the Harvard Law Journal concludes unborn babies have a Constitutional right to life.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
A debate that has been raging in courtrooms for years is whether the “life” part includes unborn persons.
Harvard Law school graduate Joshua Craddock did some constitutional soul searching to answer that question in a report for the Harvard Law Journal.
He concludes that unborn babies do fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections.
"One might look to dictionaries of legal and common usage, the context of the English common law tradition, and cases that attempted to construe the meaning of the text in a manner consistent with original meaning. Using this methodology, it is reasonable to construe the Fourteenth Amendment to include prenatal life."
"The structure of the argument is simple: The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species. The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term “person,” in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, applied to all members of the human species."
In addition to using language to prove his point, Craddock puts his conclusions in context, noting that at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was written, several states called the unborn person a “child” in their anti-abortion laws. Moreover, The Stream notes, in 1859, the American Medical Association mandated that the government must protect the “independent and actual existence of the child before birth.”
27