Ohio Right to Life Update Thursday, May 15, 2008 President Tracie Johnson House Committee to Vote on Coerced Abortion Bill The Ohio House Health Committee has scheduled a possible vote on H.B. 280, the Protecting Pregnant Women from Coercion & Violence Bill, for Wednesday, May 21, 2008. If the bill passes the committee, it could be considered by the full House as early as Thursday, May 22. H.B. 280, which is sponsored by Rep. Michelle Schneider, would do 2 things. 1) The bill would require abortion facilities to post a "No One Can Force you to have an Abortion" poster. This notice would indicate that under Ohio law an abortion can only be performed if the woman signs a consent form indicating that she is consenting voluntarily and without coercion by any person. It would also inform the woman that, if she is being coerced into having an abortion, she should not sign a consent form and should inform clinic employees. 2) The bill would increase penalties for domestic violence if the offender knew the victim was pregnant. ACTION REQUESTED Please contact your State Representative and urge him or her to support H.B. 280. You can tell them that Americans on both sides of the abortion issue should join in opposing coerced abortion and violence against pregnant women. You can find out who your state representative is and his or her contact information by entering your ZIP code at http://wwwhouse.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp   .

California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Homosexual 'Marriage' Lisa Leff - Associated Press Writer - 5/15/2008 12:20:00 PM SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on same-sex "marriage," paving the way for California to become the second state where homosexual residents can marry. The justices released the 4-3 decision today, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. (see a OneNewsNow special on this decision) Outside the courthouse, homosexual marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages. "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. The challenge for homosexual rights advocates, however, is not over. A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution. The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states. If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision. California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote.