OCR Text |
Show WESTERN AMERICANA BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN WITH DRUGS PAGE 12 'kirkicickicirk'kirk'kicic'kic'kiK'kiciK'kirkicirk'kiciKic'kiciciKiic'kic'kiciciKirk The IV Independent &edicated To The Constitution, and Liberty, Morality, Truth 'tt'k1rirtrtrte''k'k'lrkitir'kiciricir'kirkic'lrkit1ricteklck.'k'k'irkirkit Vol. 6, No. 26 June 26, 1975 25C Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 rvi ul The April Report libraries JUL polemic that threatens the basic right to life. by Robert W. Lee REPRINTED FROM THE REVIEW OF THE NEWS The RepogcffiiEjpflfrpHfcleased by the U.S. 'CommSsion on Civil Rights during April makes little pretense at objectivity. Entitled Constitutional Aspects Of The Right To Limit Childbearing , the axe it grinds is clearly one intended for hacking away all remaining obstacles to abortion as national policy. The Report will give much aid and comfort to the anti-lif- e lobby, including those doctors who, having abandoned their Hippocratic Oath, are now serving as hit men for the abortion Mafia. The Commission chairman is Arthur Flemming, a former President of the National Council of Churches who became notorious, while serving as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the Eisenhower Administration, for his vigorous promotion of federal interference in education and medicine. Yet, with typical "Liberal Mecham, Assistant General Counsel of the Utah State Legislature Joint Legal Services Committee, met with the .Joint Legislative Intergovernmental Relations Committee and gave their astute opinions, that the present recall proposal now being circulated on an initiative Petition by the Concerned Citizens for hypocrisy, his Commissions abortion n Report argues against because, among other legislation things, it would involve government in what the Commission says it considers to be a private matter. This despite the fact that one of government's few legitimate functions is to protect the lives of innocents. The Report concludes with these recommendations: (1) that Congress should "reject constitutional amendments which seek to abolish the historic freedom to iimit childbearing; (2) that Congress "reject legislation and amendments, and repeal those which have been enacted; and, (3) that Congress "amend the Legal Services Corporation Act to permit legal services attorneys to bring abortion-relate- d cases for their clients. These suggestions are preceded by a hundred pages of argument, much anti-aborti- 57 Oakland Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 8cond CitM Pottage PeM at Salt Ufa City. Utah i i on n Recall would need a constitutional amendment before such legislation could be enacted legally. As reported in the June 19TRIBUNEpnge D3, Mr. George Mecham told the committee that Under the state constitution, legislators, state officers, local, county or municipal officers and judicial officers would be exempt from a recall law. So that doesn't leave anyone to recall. Represenintroduced a tative Cannon (R-Srecall statute in the last General Session of the Legislature. In the same TRIBUNE article Rep. Cannon is reported as telling the committee you can just forget writing a law that means anything unless you amend the constitution. When I'm waving my arms for recall, just remember its as unconstitutional bill. as a three-doll- ar He also added that he allowed his bill to go before the legislature to show the ridiculousness of it. Rep. Cannon admitted he said what was reported when called by Mr. Greg Beesley. a sponsor of the Recall Petition. Both Rep. Cannon and Mr. Mecham are considered experts on the Utah Constitution by their colleagues at the State Capitol. Last summer Mr. Bob Salter, head of the Taxpayers Action Council, interested Rep.. Cannon in studying and proposing a possible recall statute before the next The question of legislature. constitutionality of such a statute was quickly raised and Rep. Cannon requested Mr. George M. Mecham of the Joint Legal Services Committee to research the ible. Yet, that is the dear implication of the Flemming Commissions argument. ' On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court rendered its decision condoning abortion on demand during the first three months of pregnancy. Most observers correctly viewed the pronouncement as a dedsion aimed at encouraging abortion. Yet the Commission contends that it was actually a neutral decision, because the Court "neither approved nor disapproved of abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, but left the decision to each individual woman and her physician, unfettered by governmental interferIt is as misleading to claim ence. "neutrality for such a decision as it would be to daim "neutrality should the High Court sometime decide that government must not interfere with a womans decision to murder her hus-Coniifiu- on page ed (S YES...SHES AT IT AGAIN by John E. Houser L) UTAH INDEPENDENT of which is among the most illogical and this writer has ever encountered in a government document. Throughout the Report there are references to the right to limit childbearing, with the accompanying implication that abortion is part of that right. The argument is that to curb abortion would be to infringe a fundamental right. The Commission goes so far as to claim that the foundation of all rights would be weakened if antiabortion legislation were to prevail. Which is utter nonsense. To defend abortion as necessary to preserve the right to limit childbearing is equivalent to defending theft as necessary to the right to accumulate money. The implication that a right to limit childbearing is so absolute that to eliminate killing of the unborn would fringe such a right is simply incred anti-abortio- CREDIBILITY GAP LL Last Wednesday. June 18. 1975, Representative T. Quentin-Cannoand Mr. George M. U.S. Civil Rights Commission is an outrageously radical 1 ANTI-RECA- of the By Dr. Chari es Secrest CHRISTIAN CRUSADE subject. Mr. Mecham returned his dated July 16. opinion. No. 0 1974. The first part of this three page opinion is quoted for the readers perusal. Madalyn Murray OHair is, no doubt, the most famous American atheist. In 1963 she won a suit in the Supreme Court to have compulsory prayer banned from public schools. In 1969 she filed suit to bar astronauts from prayers and Bible reading such as occurred during Christmas. 1968. when the Apollo 8 mission was taking place. The Supreme Court ruled against her in this case. She has since launched a camstatus of paign against the tax-frchurches, and her influence on this subject has led several congressional leaders to raise questions as To the legality of the church being 74-02- JOINT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE UTA H STA TE LEGISLA TV RE Opinion No. Date: 74-0- 20 July 16, 1974 Subject: Whether the legislature may enact legislation to authorize the recall of public officials absent any expressed enabling constitutional provision. The Honorable Requested by: T. Quentin Cannon. Utah State Representative, Legislative Dis- ee tax-exem- trict No. 19 by: George ' M. Opinion Mecham, Assistant General Counsel. Joint Legal Services , Committee Conclusion: The legislature in pursuance of its plenary power may enact legislation to permit the recall of elected officials since the Constitution neither, expressly nor hv reasonable implication, prohibits such legislative action. On August 5, 1974 the Friends of the Utah Constitution proposed a recall amendment to the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission for their consideration. The Constitutional Revision Commission studied the subject inThey cluding opinion No. E. Mr. Melvin that requested Leslie. General Counsel Joint l.egal Services Committee, have 74-02- 0. Continued on page 1 1 , -- pt. Now shes at it again! She has taken the lead in the drive that could eventually see the end to all broadcasting of religion on radio and television. Mrs. O'Hair was granted a federal hearing in Washington. D.C., on the subject of religion and the airwaves, by the Federal Communication Commission which has a petition No. RM2493 which could ultimately pave the wray to do away with the proclamation of the gospel via the airwaves of America. She took with her petitions bearing 27.000 signatures to back up her stand. Religious broadcasting, therefore, is currently receiving the strongest threats to its existence it has ever experienced. The forces of evil in the United States are challenging the right of Christian broadcasters to share the gospel through the broadcast media. The Lansman-Mila- m petition before the FCC highlights some of the charges (RM2493) being made against religious broadcasters. Freedom of Religion should not presume a sacred duty to program only the most bland and inoffensive; and to enrich the licensee excessively by promulgating a comfortable blond Aryan view of the Godhead. Religious broadcasters have shown a remarkable cancer-lik- e endless control, growth... they Free-wiconll monies from tributions. thrive on mindless banal programming aimed at some spiritless, oleaginous God, and show the same spirit as MacDonalds Hamburger. Co. in their efforts to dominate American radio and television. Most religious broadcasters seem to loathe the vitality and robust programming which should Their be their obligation. is in no way programming educational rather it is narrow, prejudiced, one sided, blind and stultifying. we are asking.. .that a freeze be imposed, Therefore, immediately, on all applications for reserved educational FM and TV channels.. .by any and - all Christian, Bible. Religious, and other sectarian colleges and institutes The attack on religious broadcasting has not ended with the filing of the Lansman-Mila- m petition. On another front, opposition is cropping up in the Continued on page 10 |