Dr. Michael Brown warns that there is a diabolical spell being cast on TV, in Movies, on the Internet and EVEN in public schools to control your children and your grandchildren. His new book was so explosive that no major publisher, secular or Christian, was willing to publish it! Find out how YOU can help protect your children from this demonic onslaught!
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Liberdade. Política. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Liberdade. Política. Mostrar todas as mensagens
segunda-feira, 19 de dezembro de 2011
quarta-feira, 15 de setembro de 2010
A Legal Review of Sherley v. Sebelius and Obama's Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy
I. Introduction
In his August 24, 2010 order in Sherley v. Sebelius [1], U.S. district court Judge Royce Lamberth declared that the Obama Administration’s new embryonic stem cell research policy is illegal because it violates the plain language and intent of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. For a short time, all federally-funded embryonic stem cell (ESCR) research was halted.
With the Sherley v. Sebelius case pending, a possible appeal on the horizon, and congressmen introducing legislation to override Dickey before the November elections, the existence of a ban on the use of federal funds for destructive ESCR appears to hang upon a thread. However, the solid legal reasoning behind Judge Lamberth’s preliminary injunction, the overall public opposition to taxpayer funded ESCR, and other factors may indicate the opposite.
This article will discuss the district court’s interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and other issues affecting the political landscape for ESCR research funding. Let us begin with a brief summary of important dates and events relevant to the current legal situation:
II. Legal Timeline for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- December 2, 1994: President Bill Clinton announces that federal funding should not be allocated to destructive ESCR.
- January 26, 1996: Congress enacts the Dickey-Wicker Amendment [2], which prohibits the use of federal funds for research involving the creation, destruction or endangerment of human embryos.
- August 9, 2001: President George W. Bush announces his policy prohibiting the use of federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001 [3]. The policy was subsequently formalized via executive order [4].
- March 9, 2009: President Obama overturns Bush’s restrictions by executive order by allowing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct federally-funded ESCR and by mandating NIH to implement new policy guidelines for stem cell research, including ESCR [5].
- Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010: Approximately $143 million and $137 million in federal funds were appropriated by NIH for embryonic stem cell research.
- August 23, 2010: U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia issues a preliminary injunction against Obama’s new stem cell policy because it violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, thereby putting a hold on all federal funding for ESCR and stopping all current research projects.
- September 9, 2010: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifts the preliminary injunction until Monday, September 20th , 2010. Until then, federally-funded ESCR may resume. On September 20th, the Court will decide if the injunction will be reinstated. Argument briefs for both parties are also due on that day.
III. The U.S. District Court’s Interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment
The Dickey-Wicker Amendment states that the use of federal funds is prohibited for “(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero” under applicable law [6].
The Obama Administration sought to skirt around the provisions of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment by arguing that the destruction of a human embryo takes place prior to the research, and therefore the research “does not involve nor result in an embryo’s destruction.” [7]
In court, the Obama Administration argued that the term “research” in Dickey is ambiguous. It insisted that the meaning of the term “research” is so vague that the congressional intent of Dickey is unclear. The argument was that in this situation deference should be given to NIH’s interpretation of the statute – that is, that the prohibited “research” does not refer to the all of the steps and developments of a particular investigation, but rather refers only to the “piece of research” where the embryo is destroyed.
Judge Lamberth held this distinction meaningless. He found that the definition of the term “research” is not vague, that the congressional intent of Dickey is evident, and therefore the NIH Stem Cell Guidelines’ definition of “research” as a “piece of research” is not to be applied.
Lamberth agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument that the plain meaning of the statute is to be followed. The “plain meaning” rule is a legal doctrine which provides that laws must be interpreted according to the ordinary, literal meaning of its terms, unless the statute explicitly provides otherwise. [8]
The Court noted that the Health and Human Services research laws on “Protection of Human Subjects” [9] defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (emphasis added). As this common definition of research is supported by the language of the statute, the Court concluded that this definition (and not NIH’s definition of research as “a piece of research”) is to be applied.
If Congress had wanted to prohibit funding only for the step of research where the embryo is destroyed, it would have written the statute that way. But since it did not, “the language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed” (emphasis added).
In particular, the Court clarified that “ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.” The destruction of an embryo “is an integral step in conducting ESC research…If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an ESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment” (emphasis added).
Judge Lamberth issued the preliminary injunction against Obama’s stem cell policy on the grounds that, since the policy violates the clear language of Dickey, the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of winning the case on the merits. [10]
IV. Legislative Challenges to Dickey-Wicker
In recognition of the credibility of Judge Lamberth’s interpretation of Dickey and the possibility that Obama’s policy will be ultimately struck as illegal, Democrats – in both the House and Senate – are scrambling to pass legislation that will repeal Dickey. If such legislation is enacted, any pending case involving Dickey will be rendered moot, and any decisions invalidating Obama’s policy will be overturned.
Sen. Arlen Specter has just introduced a bill, S. 3766, to authorize federal funding of ESCR in the Senate. Rep. Diane DeGette introduced a similar bill in the House. The DeGette bill, H.R. 4808, provides in part that the government “shall conduct and support research that utilizes human stem cells, including human embryonic stem cells.” After gaining the support of Republican Rep. Mike Castle, DeGette intends to re-introduce the bill jointly with Castle as a primary sponsor. In addition, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, will be holding a hearing this Thursday, September 16th, on his own bill supporting ESCR in the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee.
With the November elections fast-approaching, supporters of these bills are aware that their chances of repealing Dickey will plummet in the event of a landslide election of pro-life Republicans.
V. Other Considerations
Other influential factors working against the legalization of federally funded ESCR include the fact that the American public opposes the idea. A Rasmussen poll (taken the week Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction) indicated that 57% of Americans oppose taxpayer funded ESCR, with only 33% favoring it. In addition, the overwhelming success of adult stem cell research and the failure of ESCR in treating patients draw attention to the priority and promise of adult stem cell research over ESCR.
VI. Conclusion
In short, Judge Lamberth concluded that Obama’s stem cell policy clearly violates the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment because it authorizes funding for research wherein the destruction of a human embryo is the first and necessary step.
This leaves the Obama Administration with two ways to fight back: (1) it can proceed with the lawsuit, followed by an appeal (since it has already been established that the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success); and (2) it can focus on pushing legislation through Congress to repeal Dickey.
However, with strong evidence of a clean pro-life win in the trial court and the impending surge of newly-elected pro-life congressmen, the Obama Administration may only have a matter of weeks to claim victory on the issue of federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research.
- December 2, 1994: President Bill Clinton announces that federal funding should not be allocated to destructive ESCR.
- January 26, 1996: Congress enacts the Dickey-Wicker Amendment [2], which prohibits the use of federal funds for research involving the creation, destruction or endangerment of human embryos.
- August 9, 2001: President George W. Bush announces his policy prohibiting the use of federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001 [3]. The policy was subsequently formalized via executive order [4].
- March 9, 2009: President Obama overturns Bush’s restrictions by executive order by allowing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct federally-funded ESCR and by mandating NIH to implement new policy guidelines for stem cell research, including ESCR [5].
- Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010: Approximately $143 million and $137 million in federal funds were appropriated by NIH for embryonic stem cell research.
- August 23, 2010: U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia issues a preliminary injunction against Obama’s new stem cell policy because it violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, thereby putting a hold on all federal funding for ESCR and stopping all current research projects.
- September 9, 2010: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifts the preliminary injunction until Monday, September 20th , 2010. Until then, federally-funded ESCR may resume. On September 20th, the Court will decide if the injunction will be reinstated. Argument briefs for both parties are also due on that day.
III. The U.S. District Court’s Interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment
The Dickey-Wicker Amendment states that the use of federal funds is prohibited for “(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero” under applicable law [6].
The Obama Administration sought to skirt around the provisions of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment by arguing that the destruction of a human embryo takes place prior to the research, and therefore the research “does not involve nor result in an embryo’s destruction.” [7]
In court, the Obama Administration argued that the term “research” in Dickey is ambiguous. It insisted that the meaning of the term “research” is so vague that the congressional intent of Dickey is unclear. The argument was that in this situation deference should be given to NIH’s interpretation of the statute – that is, that the prohibited “research” does not refer to the all of the steps and developments of a particular investigation, but rather refers only to the “piece of research” where the embryo is destroyed.
Judge Lamberth held this distinction meaningless. He found that the definition of the term “research” is not vague, that the congressional intent of Dickey is evident, and therefore the NIH Stem Cell Guidelines’ definition of “research” as a “piece of research” is not to be applied.
Lamberth agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument that the plain meaning of the statute is to be followed. The “plain meaning” rule is a legal doctrine which provides that laws must be interpreted according to the ordinary, literal meaning of its terms, unless the statute explicitly provides otherwise. [8]
The Court noted that the Health and Human Services research laws on “Protection of Human Subjects” [9] defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (emphasis added). As this common definition of research is supported by the language of the statute, the Court concluded that this definition (and not NIH’s definition of research as “a piece of research”) is to be applied.
If Congress had wanted to prohibit funding only for the step of research where the embryo is destroyed, it would have written the statute that way. But since it did not, “the language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed” (emphasis added).
In particular, the Court clarified that “ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.” The destruction of an embryo “is an integral step in conducting ESC research…If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an ESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment” (emphasis added).
Judge Lamberth issued the preliminary injunction against Obama’s stem cell policy on the grounds that, since the policy violates the clear language of Dickey, the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of winning the case on the merits. [10]
IV. Legislative Challenges to Dickey-Wicker
In recognition of the credibility of Judge Lamberth’s interpretation of Dickey and the possibility that Obama’s policy will be ultimately struck as illegal, Democrats – in both the House and Senate – are scrambling to pass legislation that will repeal Dickey. If such legislation is enacted, any pending case involving Dickey will be rendered moot, and any decisions invalidating Obama’s policy will be overturned.
Sen. Arlen Specter has just introduced a bill, S. 3766, to authorize federal funding of ESCR in the Senate. Rep. Diane DeGette introduced a similar bill in the House. The DeGette bill, H.R. 4808, provides in part that the government “shall conduct and support research that utilizes human stem cells, including human embryonic stem cells.” After gaining the support of Republican Rep. Mike Castle, DeGette intends to re-introduce the bill jointly with Castle as a primary sponsor. In addition, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, will be holding a hearing this Thursday, September 16th, on his own bill supporting ESCR in the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee.
With the November elections fast-approaching, supporters of these bills are aware that their chances of repealing Dickey will plummet in the event of a landslide election of pro-life Republicans.
V. Other Considerations
Other influential factors working against the legalization of federally funded ESCR include the fact that the American public opposes the idea. A Rasmussen poll (taken the week Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction) indicated that 57% of Americans oppose taxpayer funded ESCR, with only 33% favoring it. In addition, the overwhelming success of adult stem cell research and the failure of ESCR in treating patients draw attention to the priority and promise of adult stem cell research over ESCR.
VI. Conclusion
In short, Judge Lamberth concluded that Obama’s stem cell policy clearly violates the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment because it authorizes funding for research wherein the destruction of a human embryo is the first and necessary step.
This leaves the Obama Administration with two ways to fight back: (1) it can proceed with the lawsuit, followed by an appeal (since it has already been established that the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success); and (2) it can focus on pushing legislation through Congress to repeal Dickey.
However, with strong evidence of a clean pro-life win in the trial court and the impending surge of newly-elected pro-life congressmen, the Obama Administration may only have a matter of weeks to claim victory on the issue of federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research.
_____________________________
Notes
1. Dr. James L. Sherley, et al., v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1575 (RCL) (2010).
2. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is an appropriations bill rider that first appeared in the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-99, § 128, 110 Stat. 26, 34 (1996). Congress has included the rider in every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 1996.
3. Address to Nation on Stem Cell Research from Crawford Texas, 37 Weekly Compl. Pres. Doc. 1149 (Aug. 9, 2001).
4. Exec. Order No. 13,435, 72 Fed. Reg. 34,591 (June 20, 2007).
5. Exec. Order No. 13,505, 74 Fed. Reg. 10,667 (Mar. 9, 2009) (NIH “may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law,” and the agency must “issue a new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order.”)
6. Id. at note 2.
7. The National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research (NIH Guidelines) created after President Obama’s executive order attempted to draw a distinction “between the derivation of stem cells from an embryo that results in the embryo’s destruction, for which Federal funding is prohibited, and research involving hESCs that does not involve an embryo nor result in an embryo’s destruction, for which Federal funding is prohibited.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 32, 173 (2009).
8. In addition, the plain meaning rule need not be applied if such a reading would result in a cruel or absurd result. When a term is vague, a judge may use legislative history and purpose to find meanings. Adherence to these legal principles is necessary to maintain the judicial branch’s role as an interpreter – and not a creator – of the law.
9. 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(d).
10. A preliminary injunction may be granted when the party seeking the injunction has shown (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case, (2) the party will suffer irreparable injury without the injunction, (3) an injunction would not substantially injure others, and (4) an injunction would further public interest. If the party has a very strong showing for one of these factors, they need not have a strong showing for the others.
sexta-feira, 6 de agosto de 2010
Dr. J Laments Overturn of Prop 8 - Press Release: August 5, 2010
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Foundress and President of the Ruth Institute, lamented the overturn of Proposition 8 by Judge Vaughn Walker, who is widely reported to be g*y.
“Judge Walker’s reasoning today in overturning Prop 8 illustrates that he does not understand the essential public purpose of marriage, which is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. He replaces this public purpose with private purposes of adults’ feelings and desires."
Dr. Morse continued: “by the time Judge Walker and his ilk are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships. The essential problem of attaching children to the mothers and fathers will be pushed aside, and will have to be solved some other way."
The Ruth Institute has been active in the efforts to educate the public about the essential public purpose of marriage, the social benefits of natural marriage, and the harms to society from redefining marriage. Dr. Morse, former economics professor at Yale and George Mason Universities, produced a four hour lecture series, called “Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone.” To quote just a few of the many arguments she made in that series:
* Redefining marriage as the union of any two persons will undermine the biological basis for parenthood, which amounts to a redefinition of parenthood.
* Same sex Marriage will marginalize men from the family.
* Redefining marriage will increase the power of the state over civil society, including religious bodies.
"Surely the voters have the right to be consulted before making such a major change in public policy,” Dr. Morse said today. “Judge Walker has no right to disparage the voters of California the way he does in this opinion. “His opinion amounts to this sloppy syllogism. ‘First, I don’t understand that there are any arguments in favor of natural marriage. Therefore, there are no arguments in favor of natural marriage. Conclusion: unlawful animus against gays and lesbians is the only possible reason 7 million voters supported natural marriage.’
Dr. Morse stated: “The fact that he doesn’t understand the arguments, doesn’t mean there aren’t any. And it is truly unprecedented for a judge to decide that some ideas cannot even be contested in public debate. The Ruth Institute will continue to educate the public about the significant role of natural marriage in society, and the harms from redefining marriage.”
Spread the word! Post this information on your blog, facebook, and twitter pages. Forward this email to your friends. Tell them to subscribe! Become a fan on facebook. The Ruth Institute keeps you in informed!
segunda-feira, 14 de junho de 2010
J. M. de Prada acaba de publicar “Nadando contra corriente”
Si algo no va con él, es regalar los oídos ajenos con palabras complacientes. Ahí no hace distingos de amigos ni enemigos. Tiene una responsabilidad como escritor, y la ejerce. El título de su último libro es expresivo: «Nadando contra corriente».
Y cuando abrimos las páginas de «Nadando contra corriente» (Buenas Letras), encontramos en el prólogo su confesión de que ese talante no tiene sólo una razón doctrinaria, también temperamental.
-¿Cuándo y por qué nace su vocación polemista?
-Hay una componente biológica, por cierta propensión al retraimiento. Soy una persona un tanto huraña en mis hábitos y eso te hace adoptar una postura de rechazo al mundo, a lo que está de moda, a lo que se lleva, a lo gregario. Tengo desde niño un componente cascarrabias. Ler mais
terça-feira, 4 de maio de 2010
Un terapeuta sexual cristiano es despedido del trabajo por negarse a atender a parejas gay
Un terapeuta sexual fue despedido por la empresa en la que trabajaba por haberse negado a atender a parejas homosexuales. La justicia británica considera que estaba obligado a atenderlas a pesar de sus creencias y rechaza la objeción de conciencia. Ler mais
terça-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2010
sábado, 20 de fevereiro de 2010
A beleza, a determinação, a cobardia e a anestesia
1. Perante aqueles milhares de pessoas rodeadas de alegria, aquela que se exprime e brota dos vínculos esponsais, paterno/maternais e filiais, isto é, dos laços de amor de uma família verdadeira, apetecia exclamar com a simplicidade que o faz o nosso povo: coisa linda! Que beleza! Não havia ódio nem crispação naqueles rostos bondosos e joviais que se preparavam, na praça do Marquês de Pombal, para o desfile pela avenida da Liberdade até à praça dos Restauradores. Estavam ali avós de cabeças nevadas, muitos filhos casados e ranchadas de netos. Sentia-se, apesar do frio e do vento cortante, um ambiente de família alargada à lareira em noite de consoada. Era uma intimidade cúmplice e confiante de quem, apesar de estar alerta por saber que há um assédio de alcateia que quer arrombar, dilacerar e devorar, se ampara mutuamente. Pouco mais de meia dúzia de pastores Presbíteros irradiavam o Mistério maior que os ultrapassa e que deles transborda, sem mérito algum de sua parte, fortalecendo os presentes.
2. Dada a ordem de marcha, encabeça a manifestação uma larga faixa por detrás da qual se divisa uma Imagem de Nossa Senhora de Fátima, alçada por sobre as cabeças. O tom está dado, a Sagrada Família, representada pela Virgem Maria, abençoa e participa na procissão. Se Ela veio, pensei de mim para mim, ainda bem que não faltei.
Começaram então as palavras de ordem, aquelas frases concisas e acutilantes, fáceis de memorizar, que são utilizadas para comunicar uma mensagem, para exprimir uma ideia, para congregar uma multidão, para congraçar as vontades. Mas o modo como se vozearam foi impressionante. Era como um urro tremendo de ursa que defende as suas crias, um bramir de leão que vê o seu ambiente ameaçado, um rugido uníssono, profundo, das entranhas, como um vulcão prestes a lançar espantosas labaredas de fogo purificador. Não se tratava de uma raiva, detestação ou desprezo por qualquer pessoa ou grupo, mas era uma convicção sólida, uma determinação telúrica, uma firmeza inabalável que afirmava uma verdade primordial, universal, sobre a qual assenta a humanidade do homem, a vida social, as relações justas, o amor genuíno.
Ouvi numa estação emissora que seriam cerca de 5 mil pessoas, para mais que não para menos. Mas eram comandos, tropas de elite, do mesmo Amor que iluminou e possuiu São Paulo. Não foram arrebatados, tanto quanto sei, ao terceiro Céu, como o Apóstolo, mas sabem, como ele, o que têm de sofrer pelo Evangelho e perseveram com Cristo nas suas provações.
3. No meio da multidão reconheci um oficial, Tenente-Coronel, homem de oração e de coragem. Cumprimentou-me com a cortesia marcial própria dos militares. De olhar firme e rosto grave perguntou-me onde estavam os Bispos. Adiantou que compreendia muito bem que os “Generais” tivessem que se resguardar com alguma diplomacia, salvaguardar algumas distâncias, mas que em ocasiões como esta os “Generais” têm que sair â frente das tropas, têm que estar na linha da frente, na primeira fila.
4. Será que é a ausência de “Generais” que explica os diminutos milhares de pessoas que se mobilizaram em prol do casamento e da família? Como é possível que em assunto de tanto melindre e de consequências tão devastadoras para a sociedade esteja a maioria dos portugueses tão anestesiada que é incapaz de dar uma tarde de Sábado para defender-se e aos seus. Que significa esta estupidificação geral? Esta indiferença letal?
Estará esta gente, e em particular os católicos, tão cega que não entenda que a desgraça que se abate sobre o país com estas “leis” iníquas e injustas provocará muitíssimas mais vítimas do que a catástrofe que hoje se abateu sobre a Madeira?!
Povo obstinado e de coração duro! Povo lisonjeado por quem te engana e por quem te devia defender! Povo verdadeiramente desgraçado que te deixas seduzir pelas manhas de Satanás! Povo imbecil que corres atrás da flauta daquele que te quer afogar e rejeitas e repudias quem te diz a verdade e te quer salvar! Povo infeliz, pagarás caro a tua cegueira e a tua obstinação! Povo miserável, choro porque tu não choras! Choro porque não te arrependes nem queres abrir os olhos e mudar e seguir os caminhos do Senhor! Julgas-te inteligente e és néscio! Toma consciência do estado em que estás tu que te rebolas e chafurdas no teu próprio vómito! Arrepende-te e converte-te que o Senhor te purificará, te aperfeiçoará e te elevará! E serás a sua alegria e o seu contentamento, partilhando da felicidade que só Ele te pode conceder.
Nuno Serras Pereira
20. 02. 2010
sábado, 30 de janeiro de 2010
Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
RUTLAND, VERMONT, January 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller has been given 30 days to transfer custody of her daughter to her former lesbian partner, or possibly face criminal penalties.
Although Vermont Judge Richard Cohen has so far refused to issue an arrest warrant for Miller, he has set a deadline of February 23rd for the transfer to take place.
If Miller does not appear during that time, Cohen said on January 22, "I will consider all possible sanctions under the law," according to the local Rutland Herald.
Such sanctions could include arrest and imprisonment for up to five years, a punishment that has been repeatedly requested by Miller's former partner, Janet Jenkins.
Miller disappeared following a December order by Cohen to turn her daughter Isabella over to Jenkins on January 1.
Miller gave birth to Isabella through artificial insemination while in a civil union with Jenkins in 2003. Her daughter has no biological relationship with Jenkins.
Cohen ordered the transfer of custody after several failed attempts to arrange visitations with Jenkins, which were opposed by Miller, who claimed that her daughter was psychologically traumatized by them. Miller has stated that her daughter spoke of wanting to die after returning from one visit, and said that she had been forced to bathe naked with Jenkins. Miller also claims that she was abused by Jenkins during their relationship.
Miller's Facebook page, as well as the Protect Isabella Coalition page, appear to have been removed from the internet.
Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller "Disappears" as Date Passes for Court-Ordered Transfer of Daughter to Former Lover
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010201.h tml
Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against "Civil Union" Partner
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102707.h tml
Lisa Miller Ordered to Hand Custody of Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112411. html
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)