I told you about a slew of experts calling for a halt to COVID vaccinations because of the unprecedented huge number of adverse reaction reports coming in from the U.S. and around the world. In the U.S. alone, more than 34,000 people have died shortly after getting vaccinated. I’m seeing lots of stories about people dying suddenly and more stories about ‘excess deaths’ among the vaccinated above normal rates. But today I want to focus on other medical problems the vaccines may be causing. The list is as long as your arm.
CDC records show more than 18 million people were so injured by their Pfizer or Moderna shot, they ended up in the hospital. We’re talking hospitalization rates of 8 percent compared to 2.1 percent for the total population from COVID itself. The CDC withheld this information until a court forced the agency to release it.
Heart problems have received the most publicity. I will only note here the FAA lowered its standards late last year for acceptable heart performance among pilots because, apparently, heart damage from the COVID vaccines is now so widespread.
You might also have heard about massive blood clots being linked to the vaccines. FDA researchers have linked the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots affecting the lungs in older people. The FDA said it was not taking action on the findings, preferring to study the problem further. I’m sure they’ll study it to death and never do anything about it.
A number of other conditions linked to the vaccines have not received nearly the same kind of publicity as blood clots and heart problems.
The CDC and FDA identified a higher risk of stroke in elderly people from the Pfizer bivalent booster.
There is now evidence the vaccines impair the immune system and trigger aggressive cancers. The vaccinated are getting aggressive cancers at a far higher rate than the unvaccinated.
A Pfizer executive admitted mRNA COVID vaccines are causing irregular menstrual cycles in women. Adverse reaction reports to the government show a 4,000 percent increase in miscarriages and stillbirths among vaccinated women.
Several new papers link the vaccines to new onset type 1 diabetes in adults.
An FDA study found elevated Bell’s palsy facial paralysis among the elderly from a Pfizer COVID booster no longer in use in the U.S.
The problems with the vaccines are so serious, some suffering adverse reactions are choosing suicide as the way out.
Public health authorities keep saying the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks arising from the vaccines or from getting COVID itself. That assessment may not look so good in hindsight, and I doubt this type of dithering entered into the decision of U.S. regulators to pull the swine flu vaccine from the market in 1976 after it was linked to just 25 deaths. My suspicion is there was no cost-benefit analysis then. Regulators saw an obvious problem and they dealt with it.
Not this time, and you have to wonder why. You have to wonder why all the phony narratives started flowing, why the government paid media outlets a billion dollars to push the COVID vaccines on us, and why government officials went to such great lengths to suppress troubling information about the vaccines from coming out. If I had to guess, I’d say the country has become much more authoritarian and we’re just supposed to jump when politicians and bureaucrats tell us to, instead of weighing the risks for ourselves and making our own decisions. People being in charge of their own lives and taking responsibility for their own welfare is much less highly prized than it once was, and we’re worse off for it.
Children have been poisoned by fentanyl for weeks, resulting in three deaths and even more hospitalizations in one area of Texas, according to The Dallas Morning News.
Three young students attending Carrollton-Farmers Branch schools near Dallas are dead and six others have been hospitalized as a result of fentanyl exposure linked to one home in the area, where minors picked up drugs to later sell to their peers at school, according to The Dallas Morning News, which obtained a criminal complaint. Fentanyl, which is made mainly by the Mexican drug cartels using chemicals from China, is largely responsible for the more than 100,000 overdose deaths that happened in 2021, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.
“To deal fentanyl is to knowingly imperil lives. To deal fentanyl to minors — naïve middle and high school students — is to shatter futures,” U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Leigha Simonton told The Dallas Morning News.
One of the victims was a 14-year-old girl, who overdosed and almost died twice on an “M30” tablet, which can mimic oxycodone, hydrocodone, alprazolam (Xanax) and Adderall, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. A 13-year-old is also one of the nine victims.
The young girl overdosed first on Christmas Eve, when she was taken to the hospital, and later on Jan. 16 when she was temporarily paralyzed from the incident, according to The Dallas Morning News.
Law enforcement pursued the case with surveillance at the supplier’s home, where a student was dealt drugs, according to The Dallas Morning News. A school resource officer later detained a student after hearing them “making a ‘snorting sound’” in the bathroom.
Fentanyl continues to threaten young Americans, including babies who are sometimes exposed in utero and in their early years, experts recently told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“The country has never experienced anything like this and we need a greater sense of urgency to cut off the supply from the Mexican Cartels,” former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Special Operations Division Derek Maltz told the DCNF.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-02-07 07:14:412023-02-07 07:15:49Mass Fentanyl Poisoning In One State Leaves Three Children Dead
Pro-life leaders have always said legalized abortion devalues life and paves the way to infanticide — a view verified by a recent tragedy and upheld in a court of law.
First, the tragedy: A young mother has been convicted of delivering twin babies in her home and letting them die of neglect. Maya Caston, then 25 of St. Louis, gave birth while sitting on her toilet on January 6, 2020. Caston then wrapped her newborns’ mouths and noses in a towel and did not wash or feed them for two days. (She testified that she tried to feed the children but, when they refused to take a bottle, she took no further action.) When they died two days later, she called the police to say she had given birth to two stillborn children, a boy and a girl. Officers soon realized the infants had not died from a miscarriage.
The St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office initially charged Caston with two counts of second-degree murder and child abuse. Last Friday, a jury found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment.
Now, the remarkable legal admission: The court directly tied her double infanticide to legal abortion. The district attorney’s office highlighted how, in the months before she gave birth, Caston searched the internet for such terms as “cheap abortion pills,” “free abortion clinic,” and “can you cause a miscarriage if you hit yourself in the stomach hard enough?” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, “Prosecutors argued that Caston’s extensive internet searches for miscarriages and abortion methods in the months before she gave birth, her initial lie to police and her lack of action to get care for the twins proved she caused the deaths.” Within hours of her children’s birth, she searched tips about burying them in her yard.
Jurors also dismissed claims that Caston, who is cognitively delayed, lacked the ability to understand her actions were wrong. (Defense attorneys had submitted an IQ test placing her in the bottom one percentile of intelligence.) “It’s a sad situation, but it’s still murder,” said Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Thomas Dittmeier in his closing argument.
Caston’s shocking actions cut to the heart of the matter in a way only possible for the truly simple. She intuitively understood and applied the messages sent by American culture and laws, only to be punished for exposing the tragedy that lies at the heart of those institutions.
Infanticide Mirrors Abortion
The only criteria separating abortion from infanticide is timing — and, for now, legality. If an unborn child is a “parasite” with no right to demand that her mother assures her survival, why should she have any claim on her mother’s “autonomy” after her birth?
Desperately clinging to DIY chemical abortion, the abortion industry and its political allies ask women to administer their own abortions at home. Caston took that to its logical conclusion and did not pay the abortionists for miscarriage-inducing pills.
Even the location of her infanticide mirrored the advice of abortionists such as Carmen Landau. She told an undercover Live Action employee seeking to abort a viable, 27-week-old unborn baby that, if she feels she’s going to give birth before the late-term abortion is completed, she should “sit on the toilet.”
“If it comes out, then it comes out. Flush it,” an employee of a New York City abortion facility, Dr. Emily’s Women’s Health Center in the Bronx, told Live Action during another late-term abortion sting. If the child were born alive inside the abortion facility, she explained, the abortionist would “put it in a container — like, a jar — with solution and send it to the lab.”
What would happen, the mother asked, if the newborn is breathing or moving after the abortion? “The solution will make it stop,” the abortion industry employer responded. “That’s the whole purpose of the solution.”
… And that’s the whole purpose of the towel. Legal abortion apparently allows newborns to die; Caston merely cut out the middleman. The Democratic Party platform demands taxpayer-funded abortion until birth; Caston simply extended those parameters by 48 hours.
Caston’s heartbreaking experience should cause Christians to reflect deeply on the Bible’s neglected teachings about the role our laws play in shaping our national character.
The Law Is Our Teacher, For Better or Worse
Political philosophers have long cited the didactic and catechetical aspects of the law in shaping and forming the consciences — and behavior — of citizens. Aristotle wrote, “It is difficult for one to be guided rightly towards virtue from an early age unless he is brought up under such laws. … [T]he nurture and pursuits of the young should be regulated by laws, for when they become habitual they are not painful.” Government does more than regulate the commercial interactions of atomized individuals. “The state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern” of commerce, said Edmund Burke. It is, instead, “a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection … linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world.”
Burke’s oration echoed biblical injunctions. Earthly laws should punish evil and reward those who do well (Romans 13:3). In the process, they teach us right from wrong. The Apostle Paul tells us even the Old Testament law acted as “our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24). When unjust laws reign, they teach citizens to call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20) … and they bring us to the Antichrist. In the process, consciences become degraded, morality becomes warped, and society fills with the blood of the innocent. Wicked laws inflict the deepest wounds on those who, like Caston, most rely on society’s cues to lighten their darkness. “If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:23.)
American society taught that life, made in the image of God, deserves no more dignified treatment than a bowel movement; that DIY abortions are the path to liberation; and that an infant’s life begins “when the mother thinks it begins.” Then it punished Maya Caston for taking that message to heart and holding up a mirror to the culture of death. The abortion-political complex shows no signs of mitigating its rhetoric, or its actions. Heartrending stories like Caston’s will continue until America learns to apply Dittmeier’s summation to every abortion: “It’s a sad situation, but it’s still murder.”
EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished. All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-02-07 06:48:022023-02-07 06:49:43Guilty! Prosecutors Link Abortion to Infanticide
NY Post: Dr. Mohamed Fayed, a senior anesthetist at Detroit’s Henry Ford Health, made the suggestion during the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ annual conference last Friday in Orlando, Florida. “Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial,” he said. Dr. Fayed added, “No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice — such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas — without affecting patient care.”
Research notes that inhaled anesthesia accounts for up to 0.1% of the world’s carbon emissions, which are regarded as the primary driver of global climate change. An hour of surgery using an inhaled anesthetic is equivalent to driving as many as 470 miles, according to a 2010 study.
The Harvard Crimson:A Harvard Medical School committee voted last month to embed climate change into the school’s curriculum. … The new climate change curriculum will examine the impact of climate change on health and health inequality, applications of these impacts to clinical care, and the role of physicians and health institutions in arriving at climate solutions. … HMS student Madeleine C. Kline said: “Every student who comes through the Medical School will leave with an understanding of what climate change is and what it means for their patients,” she said. “I think it is going to mean a lot for their patients.”
Excerpt: “To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care…The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care…Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality.”
Climate Depot’s Morano: “Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care?”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Marc Moranohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarc Morano2023-02-07 06:30:272023-02-07 06:30:27Restrict Anesthesia To Save The Climate
Cadet Brown was forced to take the clot shot or get expelled.
One death and the FDA is issuing worldwide warnings forcing a company (who is not paying them off) to pull the product from shelves but untold number DROPPING DEAD from the clot shot and still they are mandating it.
Again and again and again. And the lethal silence is deafening. Cadet Brown was forced to take the clot shot or get expelled.
The unvaccinated aren’t dying.
The full opinion from the autopsy report can be read below:
“Based on the history, scene investigation, autopsy, virology, and toxicology findings, it is my opinion that Hunter Brown, a 21-year-old white male, died as a result of pulmonary thromboembolism due to deep vein thrombosis resulting from Lisfranc injury of the left lower extremity. The overall findings are consistent with this being an accidental death originating from an injury sustained during football practice several weeks prior to death.”
The autopsy report was signed by Dr. Jarod Murdoch.
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (KKTV) – An autopsy report for an Air Force cadet states 21-year-old Hunter Brown likely passed away from pulmonary thromboembolism due to deep vein thrombosis, likely tied to an injury sustained during football practice.
The El Paso County Coroner’s Office shared the report with KKTV 11 News after we requested it. Brown passed away in early January while on his way to class.
“With heavy hearts we share the loss of a cadet. C3C Hunter Brown died Monday after suffering a medical emergency while on his way to class,” a social media post on the USAFA Twitter count reads. “Our thoughts are with his family, friends, teammates and fellow cadets. #NeverForgotten”
Brown was assigned to Cadet Squadron 16 and was pursuing a major in management, a minor in French, and had completed back-to-back winning seasons in 2021 and 2022 with Falcon football. Brown graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School in May 2021.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-02-06 08:26:442023-02-06 08:27:28ANOTHER SUDDEN ADULT DEATH: Autopsy Results Of Air Force Academy Cadet Reveal Cause Of Death Was Blood Clot In Lungs
The United Nations is set to release a report at its annual Human Rights Council meeting in June to discuss the “perceived contradictions” between religious freedom and sexual orientation and gender identity.
Respondents were asked whether or not any religious beliefs and LGBT+ rights were “mutually exclusive,” to point out policies that protect discriminatory religious practices and about the extent to which religious individuals have the right to a conscientious objection.
“My biggest concern is the premise of the report which seems to suggest that freedom of religion and rights based on sexual orientation are the same,” Grace Melton, senior associate in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The United Nations is releasing a report in June regarding the “perceived contradictions” between religious freedom and sexual orientation and gender identity, or SOGI, laws and is looking to push governments to “fully comply with their obligations under international human rights law to protect and empower LGBT+ persons,” according to a U.N. announcement.
The U.N. closed a call for LGBT+ and religious freedom organizations to submit input to the report earlier this month and is scheduled to introduce its findings at the 53rd Human Rights Council meeting in June, according to the announcement. The announcement explains that while there are “perceived contradictions” between the LGBT+ community and religious freedom, the report aims to find ways to “protect LGBT+ persons’ access to faith and spirituality” while also indicating that religious beliefs that would contradict this are not “justified” under the protection of human rights.
“Religious and spiritual narratives have also historically been used to promote, enable, and condone institutional and personal violence and discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity (real or presumed); repress sexual and gender diversity; and promote cis-gendered and heteronormative norms of sexual orientation and gender identity,” the announcement read. “These practices cannot be justified under the rubric of Freedom of Religious Beliefs, or indeed any other human right, to circumvent and defeat the rights of marginalized populations.”
The person in charge of the special report is Victor Madrigal-Borloz, an expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and a professor at Harvard Law School. Madrigal-Borloz has long been an LGBTQ advocate and recently welcomed Pope Francis’ declaration that homosexuality is “not a crime,” despite the pontiff’s further clarification that in religious circles it is still considered sinful.
Any organization that wished to comment for the inquiry was tasked with keeping their comments to a minimum of 2,5000 words and providing answers to 11 questions on religious freedom and the rights of the LGBT+ community, according to the announcement. Respondents were asked whether or not any religious beliefs and LGBT+ rights were “mutually exclusive,” to point out policies that protect discriminatory religious practices and about the extent to which religious individuals have the right to a conscientious objection.
The U.N. didn’t disclose who commented ahead of the report’s release, but two organizations publicly published their comments for the inquiry, focusing on their concerns about the impact on the religious community. The Religious Freedom Institute and the Heritage Foundation’s comments worried that the special inquiry would “undermine” and result in the “politicization” of religious freedom as a human right.
“My biggest concern is the premise of the report which seems to suggest that freedom of religion and rights based on sexual orientation are the same,” Grace Melton, senior associate in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at Heritage, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But certainly as a function of international law, they are not the same. Freedom of religion or belief, or freedom of conscience, is an internationally protected human right. It’s codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a legally binding treaty.”
Melton further explained that she was “not terribly optimistic” that Madrigal-Borloz shared her views on the subject and warned that both domestic and international laws have become more and more antagonistic toward those who openly express their religious beliefs.
“Increasingly the U.S. has seen international law or U.N. opinions inform our own judicial opinions or even our own laws, regardless of whether or not that’s what the Founders intended,” Melton said. “So from the outset, to conflate those two things is concerning from somebody who is supposed to be a human rights expert.”
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, a fellow for the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, told the DCNF that she had similar worries, calling the report a “bold attack” and an attempt to try and “walk back the special protection” afforded to those with sincerely held religious beliefs.
“Despite saying that we shouldn’t have these rights pitted against one another, but when you keep reading on you see that the author of the report really does see [rights and religion] as being in conflict,” Picciotti-Bayer said. “I think it’s important that the foundation of the question of human rights is that these are universally shared rights, that we share not by nature of any affinities but because of our humanity and the right to religious freedom … that’s a right that each and every human being possesses.”
Picciotti-Bayer said that efforts like the one from the U.N. are based on a “narrative” that “religion is an oppressor and that religious freedom can be weaponized to harm others.”
“This narrative is not only harmful because it could make people doubt the importance of religion in their own lives and their communities, but it’s also harmful because it will undermine really important social protection. Religion and religious freedom is a stabilizing presence, and for the cases where religion is being misused to oppress, the answer isn’t to shut down religion entirely.”
The U.N. and Madrigal-Borloz did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-02-06 07:47:052023-02-06 07:51:14United Nations Looking To Push Religious Communities To ‘Fully Comply’ With LGBTQ Agenda
After decades of forced sterilizations followed by feeble apologies, California is shifting to the endgame of its century-long sterilization program: taxing innocent citizens to pay off its victims.
It is a commonsense view that government spending is generally inefficient compared to spending by private people and businesses. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously argued, “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”
This point about economic efficiency may be true, but it often lets government officials off the hook far too easy. A chilling example of this is how California is currently dealing with its long history of forcing sterilization on unwilling victims and then legislatively immunizing themselves from responsibility.
If you were a taxpayer in the Golden State as recently as 2010, your earnings probably helped fund the forced sterilizations of hundreds of inmates such as the Native American woman Moonlight Pulido.
“While in prison in 2005, Pulido said a doctor told her he needed to remove two ‘growths’ that could be cancer,” the Associated Pressreported earlier this month. “She signed a form and had surgery. Later, something didn’t feel right. She was constantly sweating and not feeling like herself. She asked a nurse, who told her she had had a full hysterectomy, a procedure that removes the uterus and the cervix, and sometimes other parts of the reproductive system.”
“I felt like less than a woman,” Pulido told reporter Adam Beam. “We’re the only life-givers, we’re the only ones that can give life and he stole that blessing from me.”
Pulido was not alone. Other victims of this ghoulish policy shared stories with media, including Kimberly Jeffrey, who recalled resisting a tubal ligation procedure while she was sedated and strapped to an operating table.
“Being treated like I was less than human produced in me a despair,” Jeffrey told NPR.
Kelli Dillon, a former inmate at Central California women’s facility, explained how she found out that her ovaries had been removed in 2001 without her knowledge or consent after she was told surgeons were going to take a biopsy and remove a cyst.
“It was like my life wasn’t worth anything. Somebody felt I had nothing to contribute to the point where they had to find this sneaky and diabolical way to take my ability to have children,” Dillon told the Guardian in 2021.
It was not until years later, while still a member of the California State prison system, that Dillon began to realize other inmates were receiving hysterectomies and sterilization procedures without their knowledge, often after being told the procedures “were necessary to look for cancers or correcting gynecological issues.”
If the perpetrators of these violations were held accountable for their actions, such atrocities would be less likely to happen. But instead of being brought to justice for their malfeasance, the California State government is forcing innocent people to pay the price and getting off virtually scott free themselves. It is this sort of application for the expropriation of funds from private and productive citizens that has allowed governments to terrorize their citizens since time immemorial—a pattern that will have no reason to end until measures have been taken to eliminate the power of governments to enact such cruel legislation.
Timeline: California’s Forced Sterilization
1909: The state government of California created a sterilization program that became the largest eugenics movement in the United States, sterilizing more than 20,000 unwilling victims and also inspiring eugenics practices in Nazi Germany. The practices were carried out in public hospitals and other tax-funded institutions for the disabled and mentally ill, because people with disabilities or mental illnesses were deemed unfit for reproduction.
1927: By now the eugenics movement had become mainstream in the United States. It was widely thought among elite American policymakers that the human population could be improved by coercively preventing the reproduction of disliked demographics such as the disabled, the poor, the “feebleminded,” and even people deemed “sexual deviants” such as rapists, prostitutes, or even women who had sex out of wedlock. California’s constitutional right to continue its eugenics practices was enshrined by the United States Supreme Court in the Buck v. Bell case, in which the right of the state of Virginia to sterilize Carrie Buck (who the state falsely declared “feebleminded”) against her will was upheld—and with it the rights of other state governments to make similar decisions for their inhabitants.
Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (considered an idol of “progressivism” in his time and still by some today) stated, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
And thus, he concluded in a famous line that, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
1968-1974: Although the eugenics movement had peaked in the 1930s, California government officials oversaw continued tax-funded sterilizations into the later half of the 20th century. For example, according to an official document released by Los Angeles County five years ago apologizing for a series of sterilizations county officials had overseen between 1968 and 1974, “Over 200 women who delivered babies at the Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, the majority of whom were low income and born in Mexico, were possibly coerced into getting postpartum tubal ligations. At least some of the women were not aware they had been sterilized, and only learned that they had lost their reproductive rights during subsequent doctors’ visits. It is significant and necessary to acknowledge the irreparable harm inflicted onto the women who were subjected to these coerced sterilizations at Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, and to their families.“
1979: California’s eugenics laws were repealed, supposedly ending the practice of state-funded eugenics in CA.
1999 – 2010: California’s eugenics movement was mysteriously revived, but this time under the guise of prison healthcare. According to the Associated Press less than two years ago, “Sterilizations in California prisons appear to date to 1999, when the state changed its policy for unknown reasons to include a sterilization procedure known as “tubal ligation” as part of inmates’ medical care. Over the next decade, women reported they were coerced into this procedure, with some not fully understanding the ramifications.”
2003: While the California government was still funding involuntary sterilizations in their state prisons, California Governor Gray Davis apologized on behalf of “the people of California” for the government’s “past” eugenicist actions. “To the victims and their families of this past injustice, the people of California are deeply sorry for the suffering you endured over the years,” the apology read. “Our hearts are heavy for the pain caused by eugenics. It was a sad and regrettable chapter in the state’s history, and it is one that must never be repeated again.”
2013: The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR, now Reveal) discovered that between 1997 and 2010 California state officials spent at least $147,460 of taxpayer funds to sterilize 148 female inmates. The above-quoted Moonlight Pulido, Kimberly Jeffrey, and Kelli Dillon were just three among them. Many of the records of these sterilizations were “lost or destroyed,” the Associated Press reports. NPR notes that the true number of illicit sterilizations during that period may have been significantly higher than reported, and that the operations appeared to disproportionately target repeat offenders.
The CIR’s claims were denied by the few state officials who commented in this early phase of the scandal. Valley State Prison’s former OB-GYN Dr. James Heinrich claimed that all sterilized inmates had consented to the operations. He even justified this use of tax dollars in a way that seemed to echo Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s disregard for the value of human life back in 1927. “Over a 10-year period, [$147,460] isn’t a huge amount of money compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children — as they procreated more,” Heinrich said according to NPR.
2014: Prompted by the CIR’s findings, auditors conducted their own investigation to confirm or disconfirm the CIR’s claims. “A state audit found 144 women were sterilized between 2005 and 2013 with little or no evidence they were counseled or offered alternative treatments,” the audit found. The auditors’ report, published at www.auditor.ca.gov, found that the misconduct had occurred with the oversight of either the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or California Correctional Health Care Services.
“This report concludes that during our eight-year audit period, 144 female inmates were sterilized by a procedure known as bilateral tubal ligation, a surgery generally performed for the sole purpose of sterilization,” the auditors wrote.
Later that year, in response to the revelations, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill supposedly written to prohibit future involuntary sterilizations in California prisons. However, as reporting from the Guardian noted, “While the bill passed unanimously, its carefully negotiated language allowed the state to escape further responsibility.”
2021: The California government approved legislation intended to compensate its sterilization victims through tax-funded reparations payments. The program will pay out at least $15,000 to any applicant who can prove to have been one of the victims.
2022-2023: California is searching for the victims that are still alive today, of which there are believed to be more than 600, according to reporting from the Associated Press in 2021 (although many of the victims never knew what was done to them, so it is unclear how they would know to apply for reparations). The government’s search strategy consists of sending posters, flyers, and fact sheets to libraries, prisons, and other establishments across the state, the AP reported this month.
After a year of searching, the government has approved only 51 out of 310 reparations applicants, denied 103 people’s applications, and closed three incomplete applications. According to the AP, “They say it’s difficult to verify the applications as many records have been lost or destroyed.” Therefore, according to Executive Officer of the California Victim Compensation Board Lynda Gledhill, “We try to find all the information we can and sometimes we just have to hope that somebody maybe can find more detailed information on their own. We’re just sometimes not able to verify what happened.”
Of the 51 victims who have been approved for reparations payments, three were sterilized under California’s eugenics laws that were repealed in 1979. The rest were sterilized more recently.
2024: The $4.5 million reparations program, for which an additional $2 million is being spent on advertising, will end.
Any victims still unpaid will have lost their chance to be compensated for the damages to their bodies, sexual identities, human dignity, and potential to pass their genes onto future generations.
Allowing the Unthinkable to Happen
The “public servants” governing California appropriated funds from innocent citizens against their will, used those funds to capture and sterilize involuntary victims, “lost or destroyed” the associated records, passed legislation to protect themselves from responsibility (after being caught), finally decided to pay reparations but passed the cost onto unwilling innocent citizens instead of facing any financial or legal repercussions themselves, and have only paid 51 out of at least 600 living victims now that about half the term of the reparations program has passed.
The above history of self-serving legislation and empty apologies confirms the suspicion common sense should lead us to anyway—namely that California government institutions cannot be trusted to legislatively protect the citizenry from continued atrocities given that the atrocities in question are often perpetrated by the government institutions themselves.
When unjustified coercion is consistently used by a group of people, the way to stop them is to impose costs on the guilty individuals that they themselves must suffer until their transgressions are atoned for. It is good that (albeit grossly inadequate) reparations are being paid, but until the perpetrators of the crimes are the ones to pay the price, the crucial lessons will not be learned and the crucial incentives not imposed.
There are several destructive institutions that allowed these eugenics operations to take place, but among them is the practice of government taxation itself. It allowed the perpetrators to conduct their operations without incurring personal expense, and through taxation the innocent many are now being scapegoated to protect the guilty few from what punishments they might otherwise be forced by the outrage of the public to endure.
If the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity aren’t going to be jailed for life or otherwise severely punished as any private citizen likely would for committing the same offenses, then at the very least the citizens who involuntarily pay their salaries and fund the programs of their twisted imaginations could be struggling to end the forced involvement of the citizenry that finances such programs with their tax payments.
If your tax dollars were spent solely to improve the health, education, and protection from violence of your fellow countrymen, instead of often funding the exact opposite of all these things as has been the case in California, then opposing the predation of tax collectors would not be quite so urgent. But in the real world, those malevolent enough (or those sufficiently under the sway of malevolent ideas) to think they should get to spend your money against your will often turn out to be malevolent in many other ways as well.
There are plenty of reasons one might struggle against government taxation. Perhaps you’re a poor or middle-class laborer at pains to afford your childrens’ education. Perhaps you’re a visionary entrepreneur trying to fund some world-changing new technological or medical research.
But at least as good a reason as any to oppose your wealth being confiscated is to prevent institutions such as the California State government from spending another dime on their campaigns of terror and reproductive destruction.
Saul Zimet is a Website and Data Coordinator for HumanProgress.org at the Cato Institute and a graduate student in economics at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2023-02-04 14:20:342023-02-04 14:20:34A Brief History of California’s Eugenics Program (1909-2013)
In the buildup to the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump has begun laying out his campaign platform.
On Wednesday, the former president released a video condemning the radical Left’s gender ideology and plans to protect children from experimental transgender surgeries and procedures.
“The left-wing gender insanity being pushed on our children is an act of child abuse, very simple,” the former president began. “Here’s my plan to stop the chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation of our youth.”
Trump called for the rescinding President Joe Biden’s “gender-affirming care” policies, which involve putting children on “puberty blockers,” transforming their bodies through cross-sex hormones, and committing surgeries on minors.
Trump plans to replace this program with an executive order to cease all federal programs that promote gender transitioning at any age. He also plans to urge Congress to stop taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries and ban minor sex surgeries in all 50 states.
“I will declare that any hospital or health care provider that participates in the chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare and will be terminated from the program immediately,” Trump continued. “Furthermore, I will support the creation of a private right of action for victims to sue doctors who have unforgivably performed these surgeries on minor children.”
Trump also plans to use the Department of Justice to investigate pharmaceutical companies’ potential cover-up of minor sex-transition surgeries for profit and the marketing of unlicensed drugs to children.
“My Department of Education will inform states and school districts that if any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they can be trapped in the wrong body, they will be faced with severe consequences, including potential civil rights violations for sex discrimination and the elimination of federal funding,” Trump said. “As part of our new credential body for teachers, we will promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.”
Trump will also urge Congress to pass legislation that affirms there are only two genders, enforce Title IX to ensure men are not participating in women’s sports, and stop any individual changing a minor’s sex without informing the child’s parents.
“No serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender, a concept that was never heard of in all of human history,” Trump added. “It was all when the radical Left invented it, just a few years ago.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2023-02-04 10:52:132023-02-07 07:08:46‘Child Abuse’: Trump Presents Plan to Stop ‘Mutilation of Our Youth’ in the Name of Transgender Identity
Distributing abortion pills through the mail is unsafe and illegal under both federal and state law, wrote Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and the attorneys general of 19 other states, in letters to the headquarters of national pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens. Both companies are seeking certification from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to dispense abortion pills through the mail. “We will use every tool at our disposal to uphold the law if broken,” said Bailey.
The Missouri attorney general was joined on the letters by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.”
“Federal law expressly prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will ‘be used or applied for producing abortion.’ 18 U.S.C. § 1461,” state the letters (the bodies of which are identical). “The text could not be clearer: ‘every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion … shall not be conveyed in the mails.’ And anyone who ‘knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating’ is guilty of a federal crime.”
While the law is clear, the letters suggested the confusion originated from another source. “In December, the Biden administration’s Office of Legal Counsel encouraged the U.S. Postal Service to disregard this plain text.”
“But,” continue the letters, “the text, not the Biden administration’s view, is what governs. And the Biden administration’s opinion fails to stand up even to the slightest amount of scrutiny. The Biden administration’s opinion admits that the plain text of § 1461 prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will be used for abortion …. But then the Biden administration argues that the text should not be ‘“[t]aken literally”’ by “marshalling a series of increasingly strange antitextual arguments.”
Because of the weakness of the Biden administration’s opinion, pharmacy giants cannot protect themselves from legal liability by hiding behind its opinion, the letters warn. The AGs predicted that courts will “reject the Biden administration’s bizarre interpretation” because “courts do not lightly ignore the plain text of statutes.” In particular, “the Supreme Court has been openly aversive to other attempts by the Biden administration to press antitextual arguments.”
Additionally, “a future U.S. Attorney General will almost certainly reject the Biden administration’s results-oriented, strained reading.” A simple change of administration — guaranteed every four to eight years — would leave the abortion pill-by-mail infrastructure out in the cold.
But “consequences for accepting the Biden administration’s reading could come far sooner,” the letters warn. “Section 1461 can be enforced … through civil litigation by State Attorneys General and private parties under § 1964(c).” In other words, these state AGs have threatened to sue CVS and Walgreens if they follow through on their intention to become abortion dispensaries.
In addition to the violation of federal law, “the laws of many states also prohibit using the mail to send or receive abortion drugs,” continue the letters. Using the example of Missouri, not only is it “unlawful to distribute an abortion drug through the mail,” but also “Missouri law also prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices — and trade practices that violate federal law necessarily are unfair and deceptive.” This prohibition on unfair or deceptive trade practices is far more difficult to dodge or challenge in court, and it is likely paralleled in the laws of other states.
The letters justified Missouri’s state-level prohibition by explaining that abortion pills are unsafe. First, they “are far riskier than surgical abortions, … ‘5.96 times as likely to result in a complication as first-trimester aspiration
abortions.’” Second, “when these heightened complications invariably occur, women suffer those harms at home, away from medical help.” Third, “mail-order abortion pills also invite the horror of an increase in coerced abortions … because there is no oversight. Outside the regulated medical context, a person can obtain an abortion pill quite easily and then coerce a woman into taking it.”
CVS and Walgreens have come under increasing pressure after they announced plans to obtain FDA certification to dispense abortion pills. Earlier this month, 14 pro-life groups wrote letters to both pharmacy corporations, urging them to reconsider. Meanwhile, other pharmacies, like Walmart, are waiting in the wings to see whether the decision backfires.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-02-03 13:04:472023-02-03 13:05:5920 State AGs: Abortion-by-Mail Scheme Is Unsafe, Illegal
Autopsies were conducted on two teenage boys, one in Connecticut and one in Michigan, who died within a few days of their second dose of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine. One boy had ADD and the other was obese. The post death examinations showed that both had “global myocardial injury.”
We report the autopsy results, including microscopic myocardial findings, of 2 teenage boys who died within the first week after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose. The microscopic findings are not the alterations seen with typical myocarditis. This suggest a role for cytokine storm, which may occur with an excessive inflammatory response, as there also is a feedback loop between catecholamines and cytokines…The first week after the second vaccine dose was found to be the main risk window.”
The Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine published an analysis of results, Aug. 2022
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-02-03 10:41:102023-02-03 10:45:23Autopsy Analysis of 2 Teen Boys Who Died Days After 2d Pfizer Covid Vaccine
A new documentary on the Walt Disney Company is making crystal clear how the once family-friendly company is today one of the most serious peddlers of radical ideology in America.
Released last week by the Catholic League, “Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom” is a 50-minute film that highlights how Disney went from entertaining and inspiring kids to indoctrinating and grooming them as it embraces and advances the radical agenda of a very small yet vocal minority that even a growing number of liberals feel have gone too far.
The idea for the documentary came after Donohue and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins were unable to arrange a meeting with then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek to speak on behalf of conservative Catholics and evangelicals in America amid the tumult over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill last year.
Opponents of the legislation labeled it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill because it prohibits classroom “instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity … in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
More broadly, the legislation reinforces the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.
Though Disney initially chose not to take a public stance on the bill, its CEO later condemned the legislation following an outcry from pro-LGBTQ+ activists.
“You listened to one side. Will you listen to our side?” Donohue recalled asking Chapek, paraphrasing his joint letter with Perkins to the Disney CEO. “I’m a Catholic leader. Tony’s an evangelical leader. We represent a good swath of the country.”
“Well, they blew us off,” Donohue said.
So Donohue ran with the idea of a documentary, enlisting Jason Killian Meath, CEO of Meath Television Media LLC, who wrote and directed the film. They also brought in an all-star cast, including Perkins, renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, conservative columnist Miranda Devine, media watchdog Brent Bozell, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, Jewish activist David Horowitz, film critic Christian Toto, media personality Will Witt, and conservative political commentator Mercedes Schlapp, who hosted the documentary.
“I want to get the word out — to disseminate it to Christians and to observant Jews, Muslims, Mormons, people of no faith, people who are concerned this has gone too far,” Donohue said.
“I also would like to persuade at least some of the shareholders and other people at Disney to say, ‘Wait a minute! Maybe we have gone too far.’ ‘Can we get back to our roots?’ ‘Can we have a family-friendly institution?’ ‘Why are we trying to do this to kids?’”
“There are aspects of this movie — when the viewers take a look at it … your head’s going to spin at certain points. But it’s something that needs to be said,” Donohue said.
Among the concerning revelations about Disney highlighted by the documentary is how members of its entertainment producing teams are injecting “queerness” anywhere and everywhere they can.
“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” Disney child programming producer and writer Latoya Raveneau said in leaked virtual meeting footage that is highlighted in the documentary.
“I don’t have to be afraid to like, ‘Let’s have these two characters kiss … in the background,” she said. “I was just wherever I could — just basically adding queerness.”
“No one would stop me,” she recalled.
And with radical gender ideology being thrusted upon children through media and in classrooms at increasingly younger ages, critics of the harmful crusade say there should be no surprise when there is a rise in cases of gender dysphoria — the clinical term describing the conflict some experience when they feel as if their biological sex doesn’t seem to conform with their sense of identity.
“The reason you see gender dysphoria rates now skyrocketing is in part because kids are impressionable,” Ramaswamy points out in the documentary. “They are going to respond to their adults and their cultural leaders in their schools and so it’s no surprise that we are creating the very problem that supposedly the companies like Disney were aiming to solve.”
“And it’s much worse than that,” adds Donohue in the documentary, “because, as we know in these elementary schools, they’re taking kindergartners and first graders, teaching them that they’re ‘gender fluid,’ encouraging them to be chemically castrated, to have puberty blockers — pre-puberty kids — to alter their lives forever.”
“This is an atrocity against children and Disney has allowed itself to become part of it,” he adds.
During his interview with Perkins on Tuesday, Donohue noted that even Erica Anderson, a transgender psychologist who has worked with hundreds of transgender teens, has acknowledged, “This has gone too far. It’s going to get worse. I don’t want any part of it.”
“I’m hoping, at the very least, Disney will tap the brakes and rethink this whole idea of going down the lane of the woke agenda,” Donohue added.
To get the message out, the Catholic League has made the documentary free to view on public platforms such as YouTube and Rumble. It is also accessible on SalemNOW and Amazon Prime.
Notably, on Tuesday, Catholic League was informed that its video has been marked by YouTube as “age-restricted” and not appropriate for viewers under 18. Types of content that is considered “age-restricted” include content with harmful or dangerous activities, nudity and sexually suggestive content, violent or graphic content, content with vulgar language, and content “that endangers the emotional and physical well-being of minors.”
While Donohue noted that the documentary doesn’t contain any of YouTube’s categories of “age-restricted” content, Perkins suggested that it may be in violation of the Left’s terms and conditions.
“You told the truth and you put the information out. Now that violates the terms of the Left these days — when you tell the truth,” Perkins said.
In response, Donohue said, “I couldn’t agree more. And I want to punctuate that. That’s what this is all about. A man can’t become a woman. A woman can’t become a man. We need to tell the truth and stop with the fiction.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-02-03 08:11:222023-02-03 08:11:22New Documentary Sheds Light on Disney’s Sexual Engineering
Editor’s Note – This piece by Valerie Richardsonfeatures quotes from CSP Director for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Kyle Shideler.
Dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers have been terrorized for months by a radical pro-choice outfit calling itself Jane’s Revenge, but now it looks as if the previously unknown group is entwined with a more significant threat: Antifa.
Antifa trackers and conservative media outlets linked two Miami residents charged with conspiracy in attacks on crisis pregnancy centers in Florida to the shadowy anarchist movement after the Justice Department unsealed the federal indictment last week.
One of the suspects, 23-year-old Amber Smith-Stewart, has made no secret of her Antifa sympathies. She has identified herself as “Antifa, anti-capitalist” on her Facebook page, which includes images of pro-Antifa posters and flags from a screenshot posted on the AntifaWatch website.
The second suspect, 27-year-old Caleb Freestone, is listed on AntifaWatch and has been active with Whatever It Takes, a left-wing pro-choice group with no love for “fascists” that advocates for “sustained civil resistance” and “direct action.”
He was arrested in July at a heated Miami-Dade County school board meeting and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest without violence and trespassing after a warning. A woman at the meeting publicly accused him of being with Antifa, which he appeared to deny.
“People who are accused of being the boogeyman Antifa are met with a significant police response,” Mr. Freestone told WLRN public radio.
The two are accused in June attacks on a trio of pregnancy resource centers in Hialeah, Hollywood and Winter Haven. Vandals left behind spray-painted messages such as “Jane,” “Jane was here” and “Jane’s Revenge,” as well as the anarchist “A” symbol favored by Antifa.
That doesn’t mean Antifa and Jane’s Revenge are the same, but they likely share much of the same personnel, said Kyle Shideler, senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism for the Center for Security Policy.
He described both as examples of anarchist and autonomist Marxist groups organized by affinity groups, small cells of people who share the same politics and engage in direct action together. They often join other affinity groups to form clusters. Those that stay together are called collectives or blocs.
“There are probably people who identify as Jane’s Revenge who do not engage in activities that Antifa is best known for, but the overlap is really high,” Mr. Shideler said.
A week after the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked on May 2, a group calling itself Jane’s Revenge firebombed the Wisconsin Family Action headquarters in Madison and issued a communique warning that more attacks were coming.
That assault acted as a call to arms for affinity groups nationwide, Mr. Shideler said.
“You had the initial incident that was carried out by Jane’s Revenge, and then they issued a manifesto essentially saying if you believe in this, then you are a member of us. Go out and do what we have done,” Mr. Shideler said. “It’s a very common insurrectionary, anarchist way of thinking. So various affinity groups across the country took up that call and conducted actions in the name of Jane’s Revenge.”
Since the Supreme Court leak, at least 79 pro-life facilities and 126 Catholic churches have been attacked, according to the CatholicVote tracker.
The Jane’s Revenge statement issued in May through Bellingcat journalist Robert Evans ended with: “We are not one group, but many. We are in your city. We are in every city.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2023-02-03 06:19:282023-02-03 08:05:09Antifa link casts Jane’s Revenge attacks on pro-life centers in radical new light
When Vice President Kamala Harris gave a speech on the 50th anniversary of “Roe v. Wade” about a week ago, she infamously left out the Creator—when talking about our rights. One wag told me, “Hey, at least Kamala didn’t say, we ‘are created by … you know, the thing,’” as did her boss on the campaign trail.
She also left out the “right to life.” But does this oversight matter? I addressed her “right to life” omission in a previous piece, but what about leaving out the Creator? Who cares?
We all should. The essence of America is self-rule under God. Leave out either part, and we end up with tyranny. Without God as the secure source of our rights, from whence come those rights?
Thomas Jefferson said, and you can see this quote in the Jefferson Memorial: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?”
Why does God matter? The late Clay Christensen was a Harvard Business professor who hosted a 90-second video segment that brilliantly shows why He matters.
Christensen says that ultimately we must choose between internal versus external restraint. In explaining to a visiting student from China how religion benefits American society by bolstering morality, Christensen makes the point that we can’t hire enough police to make people good. But democracy has greatly benefited through the internal restraints that religion provides.
William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, would concur. He once noted, “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.”
Within a few years of America’s revolt against British rule, the French had their revolution. Some like to compare the American with the French Revolution. They were totally different because of the God factor. The American Revolution was pro-God. The French Revolution was anti-God. That is the difference in a nutshell.
For the documentaries in my Foundation of American Liberty series for Providence Forum, I had the privilege to interview Dennis Prager, the founder of PragerU. At one point in the interview, he contrasted these two turbulent events.
He told me, “The American Revolution and French Revolution is the battle in the United States. Which revolution will prevail? … They loathe the idea of God in the French Revolution; the secular republic was the ideal. In America, they believed in secular government, but in a God-based society, because rights come from God in America. And you can only have liberty if you have God.”
Prager pointed out that this was not a “faith statement” so much as a “logical” one: “People will either feel accountable for their behavior to God or the state. Those are your two choices. It is an absurdity to believe they’ll be good if they’re accountable only to themselves. If you’re only accountable to yourself, you will always justify what you do.”
And so he concludes, “God is the ultimate issue.”
Take the issue of the value of human life. When you remove God from the equation, life becomes cheap. Because we’re made in the image of God, human life has value.
Human beings are different than the animals, says the Bible. Recently I read portions of a great book, The Death of Humanity: And The Case For Life” by history professor Dr. Richard Weikart, who wrote the classic book, From Darwin to Hitler.
Dr. Weikart writes, “Western society is in deep trouble today. Once we identify some segments of humanity as ‘life unworthy of life’ or ‘sub-human,’ to use phrases commonly used before and during the Nazi period, we have jettisoned any basis for valuing humans as humans. We have effectively undermined all human rights, because now we can decide which humans have rights and which do not.”
In contrast, the founders of America said in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are the right to life.” The first right they listed is the right to life.
In the Declaration, the signers mention God four times, including their appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions,” referring to Jesus, whom God, the Bible says, has appointed to judge us all one day.
But if there’s no Creator, as some politicians seem to think, why should there be any human right? As retired Congressman Ron Paul once noted, “There is only one kind of freedom and that’s individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jerry Newcombehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe2023-02-02 07:28:482023-02-02 07:28:48No God, No Rights
If the point was grabbing headlines, Utah’s SB 16 has done the trick. More than a dozen outlets, from Fox News to Newsweek to CNN, described the bill Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed Saturday as a “ban” on “gender-affirming” procedures for minors. Unfortunately, the bill no more banned ideological experiments on children than cross-sex hormones are “gender-affirming.”
The bill imposed a “moratorium” on “hormonal transgender treatment to a patient who: (a) is a minor … and (b) is not diagnosed with gender dysphoria before the effective date of this bill.” But the moratorium will only last until the state Department of Health and Human Services conducts a “systematic medical evidence review,” the purpose of which “is to provide the Legislature with recommendations to consider when deciding whether to lift the moratorium.” The Health Department must submit its completed report to the legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee, which is chaired by the bill’s sponsor.
It’s unclear how long the moratorium will remain in effect. A sunset provision in an earlier bill draft would have repealed both the evidence review and the moratorium in four years (on June 1, 2027), but it was stripped out by a voice vote on the House floor. The final version of the bill contains no timeline or end date for the evidence review; it could last for four years, or it could be done in less than four months. Once the evidence review concludes, the legislature will be free to replace the moratorium with the Health Department’s recommendation — which will likely permit gender transition procedures on minors.
The study will likely reach a pro-transition procedure conclusion because the Utah Health Department will conduct it “in consultation with” three state licensing agencies, the University of Utah, and a Utah hospital system. Even in deeply conservative regions, universities and hospital systems are often deeply invested in lucrative gender-transition procedures. The University of Utah also prescribes gender transition hormones to adolescents. “You don’t want people who stand to make money off of transitioning kids in charge of determining that this is a safe procedure,” Joseph Backholm, FRC’s senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, who has testified on SAFE Act-style bills before multiple state legislatures, told The Washington Stand.
Utah’s state agencies also support gender transition. During the period of the review, one involved agency, the Utah Division of Professional Licensing, will also be issuing “transgender treatment certifications” — essentially approving gender transition treatments for minors.
The Utah Health Department will find no difficulty in tipping the review towards the politically desirable outcome because “so much of the research is politicized,” said Backholm. A peer reviewed study published this month found that two studies which represent “the best available evidence for the practice of youth medical gender transition” are “methodologically flawed and should have never been used in medical settings as justification.” With the research playing to their bias, the Utah Health Department will find steering a scientific review towards their desired outcome to be easier than stealing futures from a child — which is exactly what they’re doing.
Even while the moratorium remains in effect, it won’t protect Utah minors from gender transition procedures. “Written into the law is a loophole so big that anyone who wants to get through it can,” Backholm told TWS. The law prohibits gender transition “surgeries and hormone treatments only until a minor is diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” Backholm explained. “These days, that is a very low bar.” All it takes is an “activist psychiatrist” willing to say that a minor has gender dysphoria, he said, and “everyone knows, ‘Hey, that’s the doctor you’re looking for.’”
Backholm compared the diagnosis exception to an abortion law with an exceptions for the “health of the mother.” Such a term is usually defined broadly to include mental health, which could include any form of stress, which telescopes the exception out to cover just about anything, he explained.
Nearly a quarter of the bill’s length is devoted to building an infrastructure to regulate the ongoing administration of gender transition procedures for minors. The bill directs the Utah Division of Professional Licensing to “create a transgender treatment certification” by July 1. It requires mental health professionals wishing to obtain this certification to complete “40 hours of education related to transgender health care for minors from an approved organization.” That requires the state to approve an organization with staff and curriculum providing training on transgender treatment of minors. It provides a system for individuals to renew their transgender treatment certification at the same time they renew their license to practice. Creating these new procedures hardly sounds like Utah intends to pause all gender transition procedures.
Utah established further transgender infrastructure via detailed treatment guidelines. To provide “hormonal transgender treatment” to a minor, a provider must first treat the minor “for gender dysphoria for at least six months,” including at least three sessions. The provider must “determine if the minor has other physical or mental health conditions” and consider whether “an alternative medical treatment … would provide the minor the best long-term outcome” (with the right activist, that answer is an automatic “no”). The provider must discuss risks, expectations, medical information, and “possible adverse outcomes” with the minor and his or her parents, and then obtain their consent. The provider must “document” this information “in the medical record.” Finally, the provider must obtain a mental health evaluation from a second credentialed provider — that is, from a second individual, who could work out of the same hospital or clinic. Far from obstructing gender transition procedures for minors, Utah Republicans seem to have merely regulated them.
The Utah legislature’s inaction appears more scandalous in light of the medical disclosures they require. Puberty blockers “are not approved by the FDA for the treatment of gender dysphoria,” people must say, who are prescribing them to minors for that very purpose. Not only that, but “possible adverse outcomes of puberty blockers are known to include diminished bone density, pseudotumor cerebri, and long term adult sexual dysfunction.” Oh, and there’s no “research on the long-term risks to children,” nor do we know “the full effects of puberty blockers on brain development and cognition.” That’s written into the law.
The medical disclosure for cross-sex hormones unveiled even graver consequences. For males, the risks can “include blood clots, gallstones, coronary artery disease, heart attacks, tumors of the pituitary gland, strokes, elevated levels of triglycerides in the blood, breast cancer, and irreversible infertility.” For females, the risks can include “erythrocytosis [a blood disorder], severe liver dysfunction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and increased risk of breast and uterine cancers.” What is this, a commercial during a PGA tournament?
Somehow, Utah legislators acknowledged all these risks and concluded that it was fine for children to be exposed to them — so long as a couple of doctors filled out some forms and checked some boxes.
“This bill is politics,” said Backholm. “These legislators certainly heard from parents who are concerned about how this will affect children. [The legislators] want to tell the parents that they protected kids, but left a massive loophole written in the law. Politicians do this all the time.”
Utah’s feint against gender transition procedures stands in sharp contrast to bills introduced in other states, said Backholm, which say, physicians “may not do [gender transition procedures] under any circumstances.”
Backholm was concerned that other states would use Utah as an example simply because they got a good press cycle. “I am concerned that other states will see this as a way to quickly dismiss the issue, so they can tell the uninformed that they protected kids, without actually protecting kids.” Such a compromise is unacceptable.
Backholm said he is “inherently suspicious of Utah because they have mastered the art of compromise.” He said Utah moderates sold out conservatives by inventing the policy surrender known Fairness for All.
Governor Cox’s record is far from conservative on gender identity issues. In 2022, he vetoed a bill to protect women’s sports before the legislature overrode his veto. Yet Cox was willing to sign this bill on gender transition procedures. He described the weak measure as a “nuanced and thoughtful” strategic pause “as we work to better understand the science and consequences behind these procedures.”
“More and more experts, states, and countries around the world are pausing these permanent and life-altering treatments for new patients until more and better research can help determine the long-term consequences,” Cox said.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-02-01 11:40:532023-02-02 06:49:20Utah Enacts Law with ‘Massive Loopholes’ for Minors Seeking Gender Transition Procedures
“I’m George Bailey today,” were among the first words spoken by Mark Houck in the moments following his acquittal on Monday. The pro-life husband and father of seven had been subjected to months of torturous waiting under a looming prosecution by the Biden administration that could have resulted in a sentence of 11 years in federal prison. While the Department of Justice claimed that Houck had violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act outside of a Philadelphia Planned Parenthood, the Houck family and its faithful allies knew the Biden administration’s politically-motivated narrative was a far cry from the truth.
Houck was accused of pushing 72-year-old Bruce Love, an abortion facility escort, to the ground. Houck’s attorneys notified the DOJ that, though there was no legal foundation for a FACE Act charge, Houck would appear voluntarily if summoned. Rather than accept this responsible offer, Merrick Garland’s DOJ saw fit to arrest Houck in the most humiliating and traumatizing manner possible — by 25 federal agents, at gunpoint, in the early hours of the morning, in front of his terrified wife and crying small children, who will no doubt bear the psychological repercussions of this incident for years to come.
No objective observer could doubt the intentions behind the theatrical arrest of Mark Houck: Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Biden administration’s DOJ intended to make an example of the pro-life activist, no matter the cost to his life or family.
Unfortunately for the rabid abortion extremist in the Oval Office and his shameless henchman at the DOJ, the case against Houck rested on sinking sand. Houck’s attorneys with the Thomas More Society handily proved that the FACE Act did not apply in Houck’s case. Bruce Love had a proven history of such acts of aggression; the pro-life father was merely defending his son after Love aggressively harassed the 12-year-old boy with profanities while the father and son prayed together, far away from the entrance of the abortion facility.
After days of waiting, the jury pushed past deadlock to deliver a verdict: Mark Houck was not guilty of violating the FACE Act. Despite every effort from the federal government to paint Houck as a violent pro-life radical, the jury had seen the truth — Houck was not aggressing against an “enemy” for his beliefs about abortion. He was protecting his terrified child from an immanent threat, as any good father would do.
The Houck family’s prayerful defense against the oppression of an abortion-obsessed federal government is truly commendable. Houck’s 12-year-old son, whom Mark emotionally called the “star witness,” courageously took the stand during the trial to defend his father, truthfully setting straight the facts that adults had attempted to manipulate. May we all praise the Lord for empowering the Houck family to set an example for all pro-lifers who find themselves as the David facing down the Goliath of the abortion industry.
We must not forget, however, that, while God used for good that which men intended for evil, the suffering of the Houck family since Mark’s arrest in September 2022 was a needless perversion of the law to serve the Biden administration’s radical love of abortion. The DOJ has unquestionably been weaponized against the pro-life movement, even in the face of absurdly disproportionate violence against pro-life organizations, property, and people. Family Research Council has tracked at least 124 instances of such pro-abortion violence, harassment, destruction of property, and vandalism. So far, the DOJ has brought charges against only two pro-abortion activists under the FACE Act, compared to 26 pro-lifers.
Congressman Chip Roy (R-Texas) has previously stated in reference to the Houck case, “Attorney General Merrick Garland oversees an increasingly politicized FBI that seems hell-bent on making examples of average American citizens who don’t align politically with the administration. … Congress owes the American people transparent accountability for any and all wrongdoing by the FBI and Garland’s DOJ.” Garland has faced calls for impeachment on multipleoccasions.
The outcome of Mark Houck’s trial is a monumental victory for pro-lifers across the country, countless of whom regularly pray and sidewalk counsel outside of abortion facilities in hopes of sparing mothers and their children from the violence of abortion. However, Houck’s case should never have made it to trial in the first place. American citizens, regardless of their personal convictions and religious beliefs, should not be harassed or made examples of based on the radical whims of the federal government. The Biden administration’s abortion radicalism has gone too far — it is high time for accountability that brings justice for pro-life Americans.
As for Mark Houck, the pro-life movement’s George Bailey, no schemes of abortion radicals will keep him from sharing with moms and their unborn babies that it truly is a wonderful life.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-02-01 11:28:122023-02-02 07:36:38Meet the Pro-Life Family Merrick Garland Tried to Rip Apart