Final Two Gosnell Employees Sentenced

The final two employees of the “abortion house of horrors” run by convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell have been sentenced for their parts in killing babies born alive and the death of a young woman from a botched abortion.

Lynda Wiliams, 45, the acting phlebotomist at the clinic, was sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison on two counts of third-degree murder.  However, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Benjamin Lerner then reduced the overall term to just 2 ½ years in prison.

Williams had been charged with multiple charges but they were ultimately reduced to just the two counts of third-degree murder.

Tina Baldwin, 48, who was the receptionist for the clinic but also illegally gave anesthesia to women when she had no training to do it or licensing to do it, was sentenced to 30 months of probation for her guilty please to sustaining a corrupt organization.

Baldwin had been facing multiple charges as well, including corruption of a minor for having her 15-year-old daughter participating in the illegal activities of the clinic.

The case did have some positives result.  Jack McMahon, the attorney for Gosnell, told Fox News that abortion should be banned after 17 weeks.  He also called for inspection of abortion clinics, which has been roundly denounced by pro-abortion groups.

Accused Pastor Has Murder Charges Dropped

A pastor who was charged with murder after defending himself when a man attacked him in Las Vegas, Nevada called it an “answer to prayer” when the state dropped all charges.

However, the news was tempered with a need to continue to praying because a grand jury is being convened to hear the evidence and decide if the charges should be reinstated against Robert Cox.

Pastor Cox, his wife and 20 interns stopped at the Four Kegs Sports Pub in June 2013 during a Las Vegas trip to get dinner.  As the group chatted in the parking lot before leaving, 55-year-old Link Ellingson approached the group and assaulted several of the members.  Cox stepped in to stop him.  At some point, Ellingson lost balance and fell hitting his head.

Cox’s attorney says he’s not concerned with the grand jury.

Frank Cofer told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he believes that even if the grand jury indicts the pastor he will eventually be acquitted.

Pastor Cox says the whole episode made him rely more on the Lord.

“The whole time I’ve had to trust God,” he told the Journal.

Court Tells Atheists To Explain Why 9/11 Cross Is Offensive

A federal court is telling a group of anti-Christianists to explain why the ground Zero cross is “offensive”, “repugnant” and a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

American Atheists has been filing suit to have the Ground Zero Cross removed from the National 9/11 Museum in New York.  The court has taken a surprisingly skeptical view of the plaintiffs and their claims of being harmed by the mere existence and display of the cross formed when two beams fell on each other during the collapse of the Twin Towers.

“Plaintiffs’ brief should, at a minimum, clarify both the injuries alleged and legal theories relied on to support standing,” the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked.  “Further, to the extent plaintiffs allege that they have been ‘injured in consequence of having a religious tradition that is not their own imposed upon them through the power of the state,’ First Am. Compl. because individual plaintiffs view use of the challenged ‘cross, a Christian symbol, to represent all victims of the 9/11 Attacks’ as ‘offensive,’ ‘repugnant,’ and ‘insult[ing]’ to them as atheists, plaintiffs should explain how such offense states a cognizable constitutional injury.”

The anti-Christian group had claimed in their filing that the cross’s existence alienates anyone who wishes to learn about events at the museum.  They also state because the cross is bigger than any other religious artifact at the memorial, it means the government is endorsing Christianity over all other religions.

Sudanese Appeals Court Begins Ibrahim Trial

An appeals court in Sudan has begun the appeals trial of Meriam Ibrahim, the Christian mother sentenced to death for her refusal to renounce her faith in Christ.

Daniel Wani, the husband of Ibrahim, told CNN that formal notification has been given to himself and his wife’s attorney that the court has begun the deliberations of the case.  The formal notice was issued Thursday meaning the court’s ruling could come at any time.

The appeal that was filed by Ibrahim’s attorney reportedly focused on what he termed “procedural errors” in the initial court’s ruling and the actions of the prosecutors.

Wani, an American citizen, has been asking the U.S. State Department to expedite an asylum process for his wife based on religious persecution.  He also says that if she is released from prison, it’s very likely Islamic extremists will attack her.

Wani told reporters that after a lack of action from the State Department he has appealed to his state’s U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte to take steps to help his wife and children.

Court Rules Pledge of Allegiance “Not Religious”

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that those who have been challenging the Pledge of Allegiance on the basis that the phrase “under God” means the government is endorsing Christianity have no basis.

The Supreme Judicial Court said that the words “under God” reflect a patriotic practice and not a religious one.

“We hold that the recitation of the pledge, which is entirely voluntary, violates neither the Constitution nor the statute,” Chief Justice Roderick Ireland wrote, later adding “it is not a litmus test for defining who is or is not patriotic.  Although the words “under God” undeniably have a religious tinge, courts that have considered the history of the pledge and the presence of those words have consistently concluded that the pledge, notwithstanding its reference to God, is a fundamentally patriotic exercise, not a religious one.”

The lawsuit was brought by lawyers representing a pair of atheist adults who said their children were being illegally subjected to religion because of the phrase “under God.”

“We likewise reject the plaintiffs’ contention that, when some children choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right not to say the words “under God,” there is necessarily conveyed a message that the children are “unpatriotic.”” Justice Barbara Lenk wrote in Friday’s ruling.