KSN&C Backstory.
The Kentucky Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the legislature's 2006 attempt to give $11 million in state funds to a private religious university for a pharmacy program, but it did so without restricting other kinds of state aid that flow to religious colleges.
The court's decision focused on the Baptist-affiliated University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, which wanted $10 million to build a pharmacy school and $1 million to start a pharmacy scholarship program.
Kentucky's Constitution prohibits state money from going to a "church, sectarian or denominational school," the court said. The funding, backed by Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, also violated the Constitution's rule against "special legislation" because it was intended exclusively for one small category of students, it said.
"If Kentucky needs to expand the opportunities for pharmacy school education within the commonwealth, the Kentucky General Assembly may most certainly address that pressing public need, but not by appropriating public funds to an educational institution that is religiously affiliated," Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson wrote for the majority, upholding a 2008 circuit court ruling that blocked the funding.Williams, who previously argued that the funding was legal, declined to comment Thursday.
Having lost twice in court, the University of the Cumberlands will drop its pharmacy school plans, said its president, James Taylor....
Friday, April 23, 2010
State Supreme Court strikes down aid to religious school
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Court Encourages Adulterous Dads to Walk Away
Defining Fatherhood
An adulterous relationship that leads to pregnancy and a child is a deplorable situation that will lead to troubling results. It also apparently is a pathway to twisted legal reasoning.
To wit, Kentucky's Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that a man who fathers a baby during an affair with a married woman has no legal claim to fatherhood. Instead, the court said, the woman's husband is the legal male parent.
Justice Bill Cunningham, who wrote one of the majority opinions, made clear that a key concern was to defend the status of marriage. But that is a social policy goal. What about the legal interests of the child?
The majority's view would have made more sense in an earlier time, when paternity was hard to determine. However, DNA testing now allows positive identification of the man who has contributed to half the baby's genetic makeup.
As Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson correctly noted in a vigorous dissent, denying "inconvenient truths" about who is really the father accomplishes nothing for families, communities or the justice system.
Indeed, the ruling has the capacity for inflicting great harm. It could be used to deny a child contact with one of his natural parents -- something likely to interest a child far more than the mechanics of her mother's marriage.
Moreover, as far as policy goes, the ruling is at odds with efforts to prod men to play a greater financial and emotional role in their offspring's lives.
The court should take a second look at this turkey.