Planned Parenthood has exterminated 10 times more people than the Nazis. Justice demands that they be tried in the same manner.
- As more states pass restrictive abortion legislation, other cities and states push back with pro-abortion legislation.
- New York, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, and Nevada have each taken steps to protect abortion access.
- New York City and Illinois have made it clear that women can travel to those areas from other states to obtain abortions.
Several cities and states have passed legislation or taken steps to help women obtain abortions despite a variety of restrictive abortion legislation passed in 2019.
Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, and Louisiana have all passed bills banning abortions after a heartbeat can be detected. Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law in May criminalizing abortion procedures for doctors. Meanwhile, Missouri’s last abortion clinic may close due to failure to comply with the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services requirements.
In response to this restrictive abortion legislation, both New York City and Illinois have taken steps to make abortion more accessible for women traveling from other states. Maine, Vermont and Nevada have also passed laws that enable abortion access on a smaller scale, NBC News reported.
New York City
The New York City Council allocated $250,000 to the New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) in June to help women travel to New York City and obtain abortions.
Pro-abortion activists claim this allocation was the first time that a city allocated money specifically designated for abortions, The New York Times reported.
Officials said that the allocated money would enable about 500 women to obtain abortions, the Times reported.
NYAAF board member Janna Oberdorf told NBC that the funds can be used by any women in or traveling to New York City and is intended to cover the abortion procedure rather than travel or lodging costs.
Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also signed the Reproductive Health Act in January, allowing non-doctors to perform abortions according to the Times. The bill also allows women to obtain late-term abortions — after 24 weeks — if their health is in danger or if the fetus is not viable.
Cuomo did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
The law is designed to alert women in surrounding states that they can travel to Illinois to receive abortions if they cannot receive them at home, according to NBC.
The Reproductive Health Act allows non-doctors to perform abortions, abolishes Illinois’ parental notification law, forces religious and private health care organizations to provide abortions, and eliminates required investigations into deaths of mothers.
The law also eliminates requirements to publicly report abortion data, including “the number of abortions performed on out-of-state women or underage girls” according to a press release from the Susan B. Anthony List. (RELATED: Lawmakers Repeal Abortion Safeguards To Build ‘A Firewall Around Illinois To Protect Access’ To Abortion)
“Should you live in a state that has restricted your right to a safe and legal abortion, we want to make sure you know that Illinois is a place where it is safe and legal,” Democratic state Sen. Melinda Bush said to NBC News. The publication reports that Bush sponsored the bill.
“We want it to be clear that Illinois is a beacon for women’s reproductive rights,” Bush added.
Guttmacher Institute state policy analyst Elizabeth Nash told NBC that protecting abortion access in Illinois “means you’re protecting access not just in Illinois” but also in the surrounding conservative states.
Pritzker did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed “An Act To Authorize Certain Health Care Professionals To Perform Abortions” into law in June, a law that permits non-doctors to perform abortions in Maine.
The law will allow physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions, according to a press release from Mills’ office, and is set to go into effect in September. (RELATED: Maine Will Allow Non-Doctors To Perform Abortions)
“Allowing qualified and licensed medical professionals to perform abortions will ensure that Maine women, especially those in rural areas, are able to access critical reproductive health care services when and where they need them from qualified providers they know and trust,” Mills said in a statement.
“Expanding who is allowed to perform an abortion does not expand the safety of the procedure,” Republican state Sen. Stacey Guerin of Maine said in June, according to the New York Post.
Mills did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow bill H.57 to become law, his communications director told CNN.
The bill would “recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice” and “prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy,” according to CNN.
The bill also would protect women’s “rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion.”
“The Governor is and has been pro-choice and believes in a woman’s right to choose, so he has ruled out vetoing the bill — it will become law,” Scott’s communication director, Rebecca Kelley, wrote in an email to CNN.
Kelley also told CNN the governor has not received the bill and has not received notice of when he will be given it.
Scott did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF, and his office did not respond to questions as to the bill’s status.
The Nevada Assembly passed a bill in May that would no longer require doctors to inform women about the “emotional implications” involved in abortions according to CNN. Democratic Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill into law on May 31.
The bill, SB179, “removes the requirement that a physician certify a pregnant woman’s marital status and age before performing an abortion” and “also removes the requirement that a physician certify in writing that a woman gave her informed written consent.”
Democratic Nevada Rep. Dina Titus praised the bill in May, calling restrictive abortion legislation “dangerous anti-choice agenda.”
— Dina Titus (@dinatitus) May 21, 2019
Sisolak did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
1. ET sent in a link to a video about a Nobel prize laureate smashing the global warming hoax for what it is. The video, unsurprisingly, is unavailable already on YouTube. While searching for it, I did find this one of Freeman Dyson on the subject. Look in to who Dr. Dyson is. I think as credentials go, he meets the toughest standard.
M. May have found the video featuring Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever in question here:
Imagine sending your daughter off to school only to find out that she was headed for an abortion appointment instead. Then imagine this: her teachers knew and never told you. In California, parents don’t have to imagine it. Thanks to a new undercover video, they know — it’s already happening.
It’s unreal footage, even by the ACLU’s standards. When the meeting between state teachers and the far-Left group was leaked, most people had a hard time believing it. And that, the team at Our Watch said, was the point. “[We] know what it’s like to say, ‘Okay, well, I heard somebody said this is happening, but I want to see it for myself.'” So the organization sent someone into a training session and pushed “record.” What they caught was a coordinated effort to keep parents in the dark about one of the most dangerous decisions a teenager could ever make.
“Regardless of how old the student is,” ACLU attorney Ruth Dawson starts off (at 21:08 of this video), “they can walk into a doctor’s office and consent to services without their parental consent. Those services are pregnancy and prenatal care, contraception and emergency contraception, abortion — and for these there is no parental notification.” As school officials, Dawson goes on, “I think a good way to think about this is that these are services that California has decided are so important that… students really need to be able to access them.” So no matter what, she said, “Young people have the right to leave school and seek confidential medical services without the consent or notification of their parents and guardians.”
But Dawson didn’t stop there. Every school, she argued, has a responsibility to keep these secrets — at all costs. “The key thing to remember here is about Confidential Medical Release. The right belongs to the young person. It doesn’t belong to the parent. It doesn’t belong to the school. The right lies with the young person. The most important piece of this is that schools cannot share this information with parents or guardians. Also no parent calls. So a teacher or attendance office can’t call home and say, ‘So-and-so was out at the doctor’s office receiving [whatever procedure]. Did you know about this?’ You cannot do that.” In fact, Dawson goes on, California schools should be in the habit of covering up these appointments on the district record.
Teacher: “So are they considered absent?”
ACLU: “I think it qualifies as, like, an excused absence.”
Teacher: “But once they’re absent, the school calls automatically.”
ACLU: “Right, so I think what has to happen is that the school must develop a policy so that doesn’t happen. When it comes to online attendance tracking, it gets a little trickier, because schools — as everyone in this room knows — have to report attendance.”
Administrator: “Because attendance is financial…”
ACLU: “Right. But if you say [it’s] medical, that’s actually a violation of the student’s privacy rights. If you say ‘unexcused absence’ and penalize them, that’s a violation of state law. So what the heck are you supposed to do? Some districts do things, like, they’ll say the student was with an administrator… and they won’t answer further questions. It’s a little tricky though, which is why it’s more of an art than a science… But saying it was an ‘excused absence’ does not, like, directly violate the law.”
Since when has falsifying state records not violated the law? What if there’s a medical emergency while a girl is off getting her excused-absence abortion? Can you imagine the liability issues if a parent found out the school not only knew about the appointment but covered it up? “No, it turns out, she wasn’t ‘with an administrator.’ She was taking the life of your future grandchild.” This is a world where giving a teenager a Tylenol without asking could launch a thousand lawsuits. Yet somehow, it’s okay to send them on a deadly field trip that destroys one life and forever alters the other without ever calling home?
Amazingly, the video doesn’t stop there. Dawson’s encore for the free lesson in abortion deception is a dose of radical sex ed. She goes through the state’s controversial new guidelines, taking great pains to remind teachers that even when it comes to the most extreme material (which one parent insists is so graphic, he could be brought up on charges for showing it to a child), it’s illegal for parents to opt students out. “In grades K-12, no matter where you teach sex ed… no matter whether you’re teaching fifth graders or twelfth graders, all of that has to be inclusive of LGBTQ…” Schools, she insists, “may not facilitate a selective opt-out just of the queer stuff. We’ve heard, unfortunately, from a lot of parents who say, ‘I want my kid to learn sex ed — it’s important. However, none of the gay stuff. They can’t do that. Practically, it should be impossible.”
By now, you shouldn’t need convincing that your involvement in the local school district matters. If you do, this video is more than enough proof that the Left is targeting your children. But if there’s one thing the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and every other liberal is afraid of, it’s engaged parents. There’s a reason they’re hosting these hush-hush trainings and passing laws to keep moms and dads in the dark. They understand that the more you know, the harder you’ll fight. And in a world where the other side will do anything to get to our children, that’s exactly what we need — fighters.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Admin: No Greater Friend than Israel
- Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) introduced a proposal that he claims would “go a long way to fight the practice of doctor shopping for more prescription pain pills amid a deadly opioid crisis.” Doctor shopping “involves visiting multiple doctors.” Hardly new, this proposal, now passed by the House of Representatives as an amendment to a $99.4 billion Health and Human Services appropriations bill, lifts the ban on funding a Unique Patient Identifier (UPI).
- If Rep. Foster’s amendment is not removed, you might have to have a UPI to get legitimate medical care—“no card, no care”—but the drug cartel won’t mind. You can shop drug dealers as much as you like. There is a flood of fentanyl, mostly from Mexico or China, coming across our borders.
- The UPI is ideally suited for government tracking and control of all citizens. People like J. Edgar Hoover or Lois Lerner might find it very useful. But it would be the end of privacy, and the foundation for a national health data system.
People are dying all over the country from opioid overdoses. There’s a movement to have the antidote naloxone available in all ambulances and even over the counter. This temporarily reverses the fatal effect of opioids, which stop the patient’s breathing. First responders themselves may need a dose because of contact with a tiny amount of fentanyl, an extremely potent narcotic, while attending a patient.
No, the fentanyl does not come from the patient’s bottle of legal prescription drugs.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) introduced a proposal that he claims would “go a long way to fight the practice of doctor shopping for more prescription pain pills amid a deadly opioid crisis.” Doctor shopping “involves visiting multiple doctors.” Hardly new, this proposal, now passed by the House of Representatives as an amendment to a $99.4 billion Health and Human Services appropriations bill, lifts the ban on funding a Unique Patient Identifier (UPI).
The UPI is part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. You don’t have one yet because former congressman Ron Paul, M.D., (R-Tex,) sponsored a prohibition on funding it as part of a 1999 appropriations bill. Rep. Foster’s amendment repeals Dr. Paul’s prohibition.
So how is this 1996 idea supposed to work? And why would it be better than the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) now in effect in nearly every state? Every prescription for a controlled substance must be reported to the PDMP, and the doctor must check it before writing a prescription, to be sure the patient is not lying about having prescriptions from other doctors. This costly program that creates time-consuming hassles for doctors has not prevented opioid deaths.
PDMPs are ineffective because doctor shopping is not the cause of the problem. Only 2.5 percent of misused prescription pain medicine was obtained by doctor shopping. And this small percentage apparently increased after PDMPs. More than 97% of misused medications are obtained from a single physician—or from an illicit source. The spike in opioid deaths after 2013 was caused by illicit fentanyl, as Dr. John Lilly concludes from painstaking analysis of official data.
If Rep. Foster’s amendment is not removed, you might have to have a UPI to get legitimate medical care—“no card, no care”—but the drug cartel won’t mind. You can shop drug dealers as much as you like. There is a flood of fentanyl, mostly from Mexico or China, coming across our borders. Rep. Foster is apparently unaware of the armed lookouts protecting the smuggling routes in the Tucson sector. And once here, the drugs go to distributors—such as illegal aliens protected in sanctuary cities.
So, what about the other touted benefits of the UPI? “Specifically, assigning a unique number to a patient would give doctors a way to immediately identify a patient’s medical history,” said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). He says it “would lower the cost of medical mix-ups due to misidentification.” His elderly father was nearly given the wrong medication.
To prevent medical errors, you need to alert nurses and doctors—and the UPI is not going to fix the hazards of the electronic health record. The EHR, touted as the solution that will bring efficient, quality care, has created its own type of errors.
There is no guarantee that a UPI will improve access to the record, and critical information will still be buried in voluminous, repetitious data of dubious reliability, some of which may have been cut-and-pasted from another patient’s record. There may be critical gaps as patients withhold information they don’t want in a federal database. The new problem that brings the patient to the hospital won’t be in the old record—but may be the result of an old misdiagnosis that should be corrected instead of copied.
Patients need to be able to shop for doctors, especially if the one they have has not solved their problems. Some of them desperately need opioids, which are increasingly difficult to obtain. They do not need a UPI, and neither does their doctor.
The UPI is ideally suited for government tracking and control of all citizens. People like J. Edgar Hoover or Lois Lerner might find it very useful. But it would be the end of privacy, and the foundation for a national health data system.
EDITORS NOTE: In an April 1977 report, co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, professor at the Columbia Law School and Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s women’s rights project, titled “SEX BIAS IN THE U.S. CODE A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights” recommended 18 U.S.C. §2032 be changed as follows:
Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.
Matthew Hanley: If brazen attempts succeed in normalizing pedophilia, many people may finally come to reject the sexual revolution outright.
I don’t want to write about pedophilia. You don’t want to read about it. But the threat of pedophilia becoming acceptable isn’t going away. The sudden embrace of transgenderism didn’t come from nowhere. And it isn’t going to stop there, as I argued in this space not long ago.
Targeting children comes in two general phases. The first involves bombarding them with LGBT messaging in schools. Or now, on public television (PBS) cartoons in which an 8-year-old Aardvark named Arthur and his peers are portrayed as pleased that his male teacher is “marrying” another male.
Other offenses in this category include Drag Queen Story Time at public libraries, which now seem to be cropping up all over the country. Scary to say, but chances are your local librarian may also be a monster-enabler – or at least too feeble a frog to jump out of water that is now well past the boiling point.
Drag Queen Story Time typically gives a platform to gay males (some are even convicted sex offenders) to abuse children by encouraging them to flout reality and to explore gender “fluidity.” Who thinks that is a good idea? Relatively few, in all likelihood. But that doesn’t tell us how many otherwise decent people are unwilling to draw a line in the sand.
Appeals to “tolerance” show their true colors when they are enlisted to support the blatant grooming of children – grooming being a term we used to be happily unacquainted in this abusive context. Such grooming also presents some commonality with certain elements in Islam; I refer to authorities in the UK willfully ignoring the systematic rape of local girls by Muslim “grooming” gangs for decades.
In short, a great many people in positions of authority are so keen on protecting both Islam and homosexuality that even the grotesque abuse of youngsters must be swept under the rug.
Sure, one could say that not all LGBT folks are on board with pedophilia. But a larger point is in play: when the goal is rationalizing LGBT behavior, the very innocence of children must be targeted. Concepts of normality, morality, and virtue must be radically inverted because they stand as a rebuke to the depravity we must now esteem with “pride” – or else!
The second phase involves attempts to accommodate or actually espouse pedophilia. This can take the form of classifying it as a clinical condition, which amounts to a plea for exculpation; after all, no blame is attached to the person who comes down with Parkinson’s or pneumonia. But it can also be couched in terms of advancing “rights,” breaking down barriers, and allowing “love” to win out.
Indeed, influential medical bodies seem to be biding their time to classify pedophilia not as a disease but as just another sexual orientation. One that is unchangeable, you understand – because according to current dogma, anything that goes against human nature and common decency is unchangeable.
This would essentially amount to adding a P to LGBT. Another P, I should specify; not Pansexual, which is already included in the ever expanding LGBTQIAP+ acronym. (Look it up – and ask: what does the “+” exclude?) We all know what that would mean: “hate” would be the only thing standing in the way of legitimizing pedophilia.
So which is it: a disease one haplessly contracts, or a legitimate orientation that is unjustly oppressed? Who cares; doesn’t matter; whatever “argument” will do. Innocence will be targeted.
Pedophilia-friendly messaging can be found on TV and on stage; a recent play appearing in Chicago and London portrays pedophilia in a sympathetic light. It can be found on social media and even in academic journals; one such journal published in 2018 a convicted pedophile’s contention that “child-adult sexual relations” should be seen as virtuous.
Benedict XVI recently asserted that, “Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ‘68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.” He sheds a bright light on the disturbing developments during this past half-century. But this matter goes all the way back to the confrontation between Christianity and the paganism of antiquity, which was fine with treating children as sexual objects.
Christianity reversed the prevailing approval of such practices, which makes our current crisis even more troubling because it entails the paganization of the Church and not just the de-Christianization of Western society.
So we now contend with bishops (in the UK) actively endorsing curricula developed by gay activists, while dodge ball is derided by some educational authorities on the grounds that it inappropriately treats kids as “human targets.” As if kids throwing balls at each other on the playground is of more concern than insidiously targeting them via perverted indoctrination.
It’s curious that, even on the heels of revelations that some of the Catholic hierarchy are in the business of perpetuating homosexual predation, there are nonetheless actors out there saying that maybe such targeting, grooming, and abusing of youngsters is not really such a bad thing after all.
Apparently the task for those in the driver’s seat of our post-decency culture is to strike the right balance: condemn Christianity for its views on sexuality, and also for the violation against those norms by its pastors, while promoting such transgressions in the wider world – in just the right doses as the timing of our ongoing collapse permits.
We are not just dealing with a simple or abstract disagreement here. We are dealing with dangerous people and disastrous ideas. Perhaps the ever more brazen attempts to target children will lead people to see how one transgression logically leads to the next, and reject the sexual revolution outright.
But our degradation runs so deep, our divide is so unbridgeable, that talk of some sort of pending civil war is not rash. Nobody wants that, but if we can’t push back against the ongoing – indeed accelerating – targeting of children, we’ll have lost without firing a shot.
Matthew Hanley is senior fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center. With Jokin de Irala, M.D., he is the author of Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West, which recently won a best-book award from the Catholic Press Association. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Hanley’s and not those of the NCBC.
EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: email@example.com. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.
There’s a reason Planned Parenthood likes to challenge pro-life laws on the West Coast. They know the cases will eventually bubble up to the most liberal bench in the country — the Ninth Circuit. There’s just one problem. After almost three years of President Trump, their favorite appeals court isn’t exactly liberal anymore. And that’s throwing a major wrench into the abortion industry’s plans.
Elections have consequences, and they’ve been big ones for the make-up of America’s courts. Just this week, President Trump added another originalist to the Ninth Circuit bench, Daniel Bress — bringing the administration’s total for the much-maligned court to seven. For the first time in decades, the Ninth Circuit, which Trump has accused of being “out of control” with “a horrible reputation,” is on the verge of ideological balance. And for liberals, who rely on the courts to do what legislatures will not, the prospect of losing their grip is daunting.
On Thursday, abortion extremists started to feel the effects of the president’s court-leveling when the Ninth Circuit refused to stop the administration’s family planning rules from taking effect. In a shocking blow to Planned Parenthood’s ego, the judges ruled 7-4 that HHS’s rule stopping Title X grantees from promoting abortion could go into effect. Making the decision even more upsetting for liberals, two of the judges in the majority were Trump appointees.
If the rule goes into effect, groups like Leana Wen’s Planned Parenthood could stand to lose millions of dollars. Wen, who’s obviously unaccustomed to bad news from the Ninth, called the decision “devastating.” And not just for her bottom line, which could suffer a $60-million loss — but for the Left’s whole court-shopping strategy.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
“In the past, when gays were very flamboyant as drag queens or as leather queens or whatever, that just amused people. And most of the people that come and watch the gay Halloween parade, where all those excesses are on display, those are straight families, and they think it’s funny. But what people don’t think is so funny is when two middle-aged lawyers who are married to each other move in next door to you and your wife and they have adopted a Korean girl and they want to send her to school with your children and they want to socialize with you and share a drink over the backyard fence. That creeps people out, especially Christians. So, I don’t think gay marriage is a conservative issue. I think it’s a radical issue.” ―
There are a small number of those in America who consider themselves members of the LGBT community. Gallup in a May 22, 2018 report titled “In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%” stated:
- Rise in LGBT identification mostly among millennials
- LGBT identification is lower among older generations
- 5.1% of women identify as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men
Gallup’s Bottom Line:
This 2017 update on LGBT identification underscores two significant conclusions. First, the percentage of adults in the U.S. who identify as LGBT has been increasing and is now at its highest point across the six years of Gallup’s tracking of this measure. Second, the increase has been driven almost totally by millennials, whose self-reports of being LGBT have risen from 5.2% six years ago to 8.1% today. Baby boomers and traditionalists have actually become slightly less likely to identify as LGBT since 2012, while the LGBT percentage among Gen Xers has risen only marginally.
QUESTION: Why the rise in LGBT identification among millennials and women?
ANSWER: The media, the Democratic Party and public schools.
The media includes LGBT themed Hollywood films, newspapers, major main stream media reports, TV programs (including those for children), TV and internet ads, and social media companies like Google’s search engine that provides 2,000,000,000 links when you type in the word “Gay.”
In a July 1, 2019 PJ Media column titled “Thanks, HGTV: Americans VASTLY Overestimate the Gay Population in U.S., Gallup Finds” Paula Bolyard reported:
In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen penned a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s wherein the authors outlined a strategy for transforming how Americans viewed homosexuality. They proposed to harness the power of the ad industry and media to depict gays “in the least offensive fashion possible” while stigmatizing those who disagreed with the gay lifestyle. Kirk and Madsen were honest about their cynical scheme to manipulate the American public: “We’re talking about propaganda.”
They proposed “A continuous flood of gay-related advertising” while making “homo-hating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.” [Emphasis added]
The term “homophobia”, first used by in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw by George Weinberg, an American clinical psychologist, has become a tool to silence those who disagree with the LGBT lifestyle.
The media companies literally began mainstreaming the LGBT agenda in High Definition programs like Netflix’s Sex Education, Everything Sucks and Sense8. Gallup explained that “representation of LGBT people as television series regulars on broadcast primetime scripted programming reached an all-time high of 8.8% in the 2018-2019 television season, which is nearly twice Gallup’s estimate of the actual population.”
DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND “GAY RIGHTS”
In a May 14, 2019 Pew Research Center report titled “Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage” found:
Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (75%) and fewer than half of Republicans and Republican leaners (44%) favor same-sex marriage.
More independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (81%) favor gay marriage than Democrats (71%). Similarly, Republican leaners are more supportive (56%) than Republicans (37%).
Support for same-sex marriage now stands at 88% among self-described liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners and 64% among conservative and moderate Democrats. Fewer conservative Republicans and Republican leaners (36%) support same-sex marriage than moderate and liberal Republicans (59%). [Emphasis added]
The Democratic Party has become literally the gay flag bearer for the LGBT community. 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for gay reparations. Another presidential Democratic Party candidate and the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg is openly gay.
Eagle Forum in a July 9, 2019 email noted:
This week the House of Representatives votes on H.R. 2500 or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) and the Speier Amendment. Although, the NDAA is necessary to fund our nation’s defense Democrats have insisted on using the legislation to advance their anti-Trump and gender redefining agenda.
[ … ]
Additionally, the NDAA Reauthorization includes many anti-family provisions. Among these are access to emergency contraception, or abortifacients, for sexual assault survivors and SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) language, which attempts to use the military as a tool to redefine gender. Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s amendment makes broad steps to force acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda. Not only does the Speier amendment completely undermine the Trump/Mattis Policy provision allowing a mentally-stable person with gender dysphoria to serve in the military only under their biological sex, but it also affirms that Congress believes gender is something that can be chosen on personal whim, not through DNA.
‘‘(c) GENDER IDENTITY DEFINED. — In this section, the term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.’’
This is happening at a time when the LGBT agenda has become more radicalized and support for gays is dwindling, increasingly among millennials. Democrats now face a LGBT community that wants to silence any and all voices that believe there are only two genders, that marriage is between one male and one female and that a business can decide, based upon their religious beliefs, to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.
With the scandals unfolding in the Catholic Church involving gay priests and bishops molesting little boys and seminarians. With the Boy Scouts facing bankruptcy after allowing gay scout leaders, who then abused young boys leading to multiple law suits.
It is now clear that in predominantly Democratic Party controlled cities and states that the public schools are being used to raise a new generation of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Public schools are now breeding grounds for LGBT “propaganda.”
In a July 9, 2019 a column titled “California Implements Extreme New Sex Ed Curriculum” Mary Margaret Olohan writes:
The California Board of Education implemented progressive sex and gender education curriculum in public schools across the state, regardless, in some cases, of parental knowledge or consent.
Progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood, collaborated on AB-329 in 2016 and the recently introduced Health Education Framework in May as highlighted by a video created by the conservative group Our Watch.
Both these pieces of education legislation mandate that school districts require sex ed and encourage students to question their parents on sexual topics—topics explored in the kindergarten through 12th grade sex education curricula implemented in California schools. [Emphasis added]
New York City is following suit to push homosexuality in its public schools. In a column titled “The Empire State’s New Clothes” the Family Research Council notes:
In New York City public schools, students can choose their classes, their sports, and their genders! Starting this fall, Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is making the Big Apple an even bigger news story by radically changing the city’s policy on registered names, dress codes, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletics. He says this is his way of celebrating Pride month. But “proud” is the last word most parents would use to describe the news.
In this new Wild West of gender identity, Carranza is giving the green light to everything from unofficial name changes to unisex school uniforms. “Schools are safe havens for students to develop their passions and discover their true identities, and these new guidelines celebrate and affirm all students,” Carranza insisted in a statement. For the first time, kids in the 2019-2020 school year will be able to “self-report names and genders” when enrolling in the city’s public schools. [Emphasis added]
Watch this video on Comprehensive Sexuality Education:
It is clear that the media, the Democratic Party and now public schools are all rapidly and repeatedly pushing homosexuality as the new normal. The goal is to “radicalize and sexualize children.” They use words like “homophobic”, “civil right”, “inclusive” and “tolerance” to silence any and all opposition.
Parents, American families and especially those who are religious (e.g. Muslims, Jews, Christians) have no say in the matter.
RELATED VIDEO: Antifa Drag Queen Clan Harass and Threaten Conservative Reporter.
The evolution of technology has given us more ways to implement it. Moreover, it has improved many of the things we know and use, which is the case with biometric guns. These smart guns have been specially created to make sure a household with a gun is safer to live in – past experiences have shown that accidents can occur if the gun is left unprotected. Moreover, there have been a lot of mass shootings in the US, so many people are suspicious to whatever involves guns.
Biometric guns have come as a way to prevent these incidents from happening, or at least decrease their number. That being said, here are some interesting facts about biometric guns that you may want to know.
- They’re Unlocked with Fingerprints
The main goal of biometric guns is to make sure that only the rightful owner can gain access to the gun. Each person has a unique fingerprint, so those who have started working on improving gun safety have taken this into consideration. As a result, biometric technology has been implemented in these guns to ensure the weapon unlocks only when your fingerprint is detected.
- They’ve Had Pushback
Debates about guns are nothing new, particularly in today’s world. After seeing the many tragedies that involved the use of guns, citizens are afraid of weapons, and would rather see them all gone.
But once smart guns have become a thing, gun control supporters were pushing the idea that smart guns should be the only ones sold on the market. That means any other traditional gun without smart technology should be eliminated.
However, the NRA opposed the law that prohibited American residents from purchasing guns without biometric mechanisms.
- They’re Much Safer in a Household
The coolest thing about biometric guns is how they can provide safety on a whole new level. Not only that they provide you with a way to protect yourself in case of a threat such as a burglary, but they don’t allow anyone except the owner to use the gun. With fingerprint technology, these weapons only recognize the owner’s unique fingerprint – this means that nobody else would be able to unlock the gun. Pretty amazing, right?
You can also come up with multiple protection mechanisms, such as gun safes, even if you’re on a tight budget. You can find safes under 500 – these represent a great way to keep your biometric gun away from outside danger. So, you don’t have to break the bank for some additional security.
- Reliability Is an Issue
Many people worry about the reliability of this technology. While improvements have been made over the years, it always comes in question whether the fingerprint always works or not. Of course, the fingerprints have issues if your hand is wet or dirty. Thankfully, improvements are made all the time.
- They Can Protect Police Officers
We’ve seen many cases when police officers were dealing with a criminal, and their gun got taken away and used against them? This won’t be happening anymore as long as biometric guns are in their possession. Criminals may be able to snatch them but using them won’t be possible.
- They May Not Always Be Good for Self Defense
Of course, self-defense is the main purpose of these guns, but in certain situations, they may be ineffective. If they are affected by temperature or moisture, they might not work properly. The same can be said if the battery is dead – in this case, you won’t be able to use the firearm. This could only endanger one’s life. It’s always important to take precautions and ensure nothing affects the gun’s performance.
- Gun Control Advocates Support Them
As expected, those who value gun control are very happy with these inventions. Since traditional guns can lead to so many tragedies, smart guns are safer as they prevent an unauthorized person from gaining access to them. Some people who were affected by the Sandy Hook massacre have grouped with Silicon Valley technology members in order to launch a special campaign. This would offer prizes to those who work to improve guns’ safety.
- Some Gun Rights Activists Oppose Them
If you thought nobody would be against them, you’d be surprised to know that there are, in fact, some gun rights activists that don’t like them. For example, the NRA said in the past that these items were not proven to increase safety. Moreover, they went to say that the fingerprint-reading features and many others are unreliable.
- They May or May Not Be Hacked
People are unaware whether these systems can be hacked or not. Apparently, a glue-mold hack was used to show that the Galaxy S5 technology can be hacked, which means biometrics could also be unsafe too. This is not certain, though, considering it wasn’t tested.
- They Are Not Really for Sale
It’s hard to think that after almost two decades, smart gun technology is not yet fully accessible to the public. Many US residents are interested in this safe gun ownership method, but apparently, the political pressure from gun rights activists, as well as the lack of investment in development, prevented these guns from being widely available. Moreover, some are still only in prototype form.
- Former President Obama Encouraged Their Use
The former president of the US has pushed law enforcement agencies to adopt biometric guns, as a way to give people a secure method of using weapons for self-defense. To Barack Obama, it seemed very surprising that gun manufacturers weren’t focusing more on the idea of biometrics for gun safety. Although he is no longer leading the US, manufacturers may still try to consider his guidelines.
Biometric guns may help the US with mass shootings situations and can prevent accidents from happening. With fingerprint protection, it’s unlikely that someone else will be able to unlock your firearm. Hopefully, they will make their way on the market soon enough.
BOTTOM LINE: Biometric guns are something that the market should determine, not politicians.
Live Action published the below video with commentary:
“If we make abortion illegal, women will seek dangerous back-alley abortions and deaths will skyrocket.” This is a very common argument used to defend abortion today. But how accurate is it?
Let’s unpack this statement with Dr. Kathi Aultman, former abortionist and Medical Director for Planned Parenthood.
If we make abortion illegal, won’t women have dangerous back alley abortions?
I used to think that legal abortion was necessary to protect women from the dangers of illegal abortion. I not only thought that abortion was necessary, I also believed it was a woman’s right. I used to perform 1st trimester suction abortions and 2nd trimester dismemberment abortions, and I felt I was doing something good for women. I was also a medical director for Planned Parenthood for about 2 years. I even had an abortion myself.
I came to realize that the whole idea of keeping abortion legal to protect women’s safety was a lie. With every abortion, I was harming a woman and killing a child.
There is no such thing as a “safe abortion.” One person is killed, and the other is at risk for serious complications, including death. A woman cannot kill her child and remain unharmed.
Historically speaking, legalizing abortion did not make it less deadly for women. From the 1940’s to the 1970’s, deaths of women due to abortion rapidly declined because of better medicine and increased use of antibiotics, not because abortion was made legal.
The widespread belief that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions was a lie propagated mainly by two individuals. Their names were Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson, co-founders of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. Like me, Bernard Nathanson eventually converted from abortionist to pro-life advocate. He admitted, “When we spoke of [deaths due to illegal abortion], it was always 5,000 to 10,000 per year. I confess I knew the figures were totally false.”
Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (1979)
In 1960, over a decade before the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade legalized abortion in all 50 states, the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood at the time, Mary Calderone, made this statement, and I quote, “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.” End quote
“Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem” Mary Calderone. 1960 (Paper presented before the Maternal and Child Health Section of the American Public Health Association at the Eighty Seventh Annual Meeting in Atlantic City, N.J. October 19, 1959.
In 1972, the year before Roe v Wade, 39 women died from illegal abortion, and 24 women died from legal abortion. In 1973, the year of Roe v Wade, 19 women died from illegal abortion, and 25 women died from legal abortion. So, in the year that abortion was nationally legalized, more women died from legal abortion than illegal abortion.
The truth is that whether it is legal or illegal, abortion poses long term physical and emotional harm for women, including an increased risk of suicide, future infertility, pregnancy loss, and damage to her internal organs. Women still die from legal abortion today. Tonya Reaves and Cree Erwin are two women who recently died from legal abortions at Planned Parenthood.
Despite legalized abortion, the United States maternal mortality rate is HIGHER than that of nations with MORE restrictive abortion laws. The United States has a maternal mortality rate of around 14 deaths per 100,000 live births, but in Poland, for example, where abortion is illegal except in rare cases, the maternal mortality rate is only 3 deaths per 100,000 live births. Or Malta, where abortion is illegal for any reason, the maternal mortality rate is only 9 deaths per 100,000 live births.
After Roe v Wade, the number of abortions in the United States skyrocketed. As of today, over 60 million children have been legally killed by abortion. The reality is, legalizing abortion has not made abortion safer – it has only led to the deaths of more children and has harmed more women. This doesn’t need to continue, however. If we truly care about the safety of women and their children, then we should make abortion illegal.
Anti-gun folks typically characterize their gun control restrictions as “common sense” and “responsible,” regardless of how poorly grounded in reality these “solutions” tend to be, or how little their proponents understand what these measures will do (like the gun control supporters at one event who, when asked, were unable to explain what an AR-15 or a bumpstock is).
A related, recurring theme is their claim that the gun community opposes these incredible “gun safety” measures due to blind, reflexive obstructionism, rather than because of any actual concerns about the merits.
Last week, former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden provided a stunning example of this kind of irresponsible rhetoric. According to a newspaper source, Biden outlined his proposals for gun control – should he be elected as president of the United States – to a select group of donors at a posh Upper East Side penthouse in New York City. “[I]f that happens,” he said, “guns, we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it…We have that capacity to do it now. You know it.” He added, further, that “the gun manufacturers” had pulled the plug on this technology as soon as “two folks started to sell some of those guns to two dealerships,” apparently because of some misplaced apprehension over the Second Amendment.
During Thursday’s debate between the Democratic Party presidential candidates, Biden went even further, claiming that he would impose a ban on the sale of any firearm that wasn’t a so-called smart gun: “No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger. It’s within our right to do that.”
There is no gun that incorporates both DNA and fingerprint verification technology. No firearm technology requires a “DNA match” before the gun can fire, and this isn’t a feasible option in any event. DNA extraction and analysis is currently a complex and time-consuming process involving specialized equipment, which means it is completely unworkable as the basis of any design intended to allow immediate access to and use of a gun. A handgun using a biometric fingerprint sensor is reportedly in development, but has some significant flaws (it depends on a rechargeable battery, the sensor can’t recognize a dirty fingerprint or someone wearing gloves, and the prototype only works for right-handed shooters). Like the teleportation transporter in Star Trek, the magic wands in Harry Potter, or the Iron Man’s bodysuit, we do not “have the capacity now.”
It’s no wonder that America’s gun owners continue to reject Biden’s make-believe ideas on gun control.
So, while Joe Biden may be raking in donations from the elites of Tinseltown, it doesn’t mean he should likewise accept whatever “James Bond-style” fantasies Hollywood puts on the big screen as the gospel truth.
EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
Is your name written in the Book of Life? The most important question of all time.
When assessing America’s or any of the Western world’s universities — wondering whether you should send your child to one; whether you should pay for a child to attend one; whether you should go into great debt to attend one; whether you should donate money to one; and related questions — it would seem that the single most important question to be answered is: What type of person does the university produce?
It is hard to imagine any parent — left, right, liberal, conservative or apolitical — who would disagree with asking this question. They would disagree about what constituted a desirable outcome — obviously left-wing parents would want their child’s college to send home a child with left-wing views, and a parent on the right would not be happy if their child returned home with left-wing views — but every parent would agree that the question, “What type of person did college produce?” is an important one.
My belief is that most of the time, colleges today produce a worse human being or, at the very least, a person who is no better, wiser or more mature than when he or she graduated high school.
Let’s begin with behavioral issues.
There is a good chance your son or daughter will have spent much of his or her free time at college partying, which often means getting drunk, smoking marijuana and hooking up with someone for casual sex. While none of those activities necessarily means your son or daughter became a worse human being, all of us can agree that none of them made your child a better one.
Regarding college drinking, Alcohol Rehab Guide, an online alcohol addiction site, reports:
“A large percentage of college students consume alcohol by binge drinking. … For men, binge drinking involves drinking five or more alcoholic beverages in two hours. On the other hand, binge drinking for women is considered four or more drinks within a two-hour time period.”
The website also states that “Roughly 80 percent of college students — four out of every five — consume alcohol to some degree. It’s estimated that 50 percent of those students engage in binge drinking … ”
BMC Public Health reported in 2013:
“One young adult in two has entered university education in Western countries. … (This) is often associated with risky behaviour such as excessive alcohol consumption. … We found that the more a student was exposed to college environmental factors, the greater the risk of heavy, frequent, and abusive drinking. Alcohol consumption increased for students living on campus, living in a dormitory with a higher number of room-mates, and having been in the University for a long spell.”
And we are all aware of the sexual activity that emanates from college drinking and can be regretted the next day (usually by the woman).
Then there is depression and mental illness at college. In the words of clinical psychologist Gregg Henriques through Psychology Today, “It is neither an exaggeration nor is it alarmist to claim that there is a mental health crisis today facing America’s college students. Evidence suggests that this group has greater levels of stress and psychopathology than any time in the nation’s history.”
Now, let’s move on to values and character.
Did your son or daughter (or niece or nephew, grandson or granddaughter) return home from college:
More, less or equally kind a person?
More, less or equally respectful of you, his or her parent(s)?
More, less or equally grateful to you for the monetary sacrifice you made to enable him or her to attend college?
More, less or equally proud to be an American?
More, less or equally respectful of religion?
More, less or equally wise?
More, less or equally committed to free speech?
More, less or equally open to hearing views he or she disagrees with?
I think I know the answers to those questions, in most instances. But far more important than what I assume is what you will find out. Please ask not only the college students and recent college graduates but their parents and other relatives these questions.
Then decide whether you want to risk sending your child to a place that will greatly increase their chances of being depressed, engaging in binge drinking and learning nothing important — while being taught how awful America is, why speech he or she doesn’t agree with should be suppressed, how pathetic religious Christians and Jews are, how wonderful religious Muslims are and how important skin color is.
I acknowledge that students who are entering STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields must attend college. But for most of the rest, sending your child to college is playing Russian roulette with their values, character and even joy of life.
RELATED ARTICLE: What’s Lost in College
Turning around in Walmart, I saw a large exhibit of Listerine mouthwash. The exhibit was covered in rainbows stating that it was in celebration of LGBTQ (and other alphabets that I can’t remember) pride. The wording on the exhibit preached to us about love, respect and anti-bigotry. Why is Johnson & Johnson which owns Listerine making a big deal about portraying perverted lifestyles engaged in by less than 3% of the population as something beautiful and crucially important?
My wife Mary showed me a photo on Facebook of a Philadelphia politician with his male sex partner. The politician’s male sex partner had a full beard with his face painted in gaudy feminine makeup wearing a dress. When did things get so crazy in America that admitting being repulsed by the obviously perverted photo would get one branded a bigot, publicly shamed and severely punished?
The greatest trick of LGBTQ activists was convincing corporations and bullying law makers into believing their lie that those in LGBTQ lifestyles are born that way. Science proves no one is born LGBTQ. And yet, anyone who dares to state this truth risks a total destruction of his or her life.
Take just the ‘T’ in that LGBTQ alphabet represented in that rainbow flag. Dr. Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of American College of Pediatricians explained that if a brain was born the wrong sex due to factors before birth, every single identical twin would have the same gender identity every time. They do not. Identical twins have identical DNA. Therefore, if it were in the genes, 100% of the time, both twins would be transgender or non-transgender. Studies show that if one twin is transgender, 72% of the time the other twin is normal. This proves that post-birth effects primarily impact your identity. In other words, transgenderism is a mental disorder.
Using their “born this way” lie, LGBTQ activists claim rejecting their lifestyle in any of its manifestations is bigotry, the same as rejecting me because I am black. This is nonsense. My DNA confirms that I was born black. But there is no homosexual gene. As I stated, daring to state this scientific truth is not permitted; igniting swift and intense retaliation on offenders. It blows my mind that we are not allowed to publicly state facts, commonsense and truth. The LGBTQ enforcers demand that we embrace lies, evil and craziness.
Dr Cretella shared a horrific story: In a California kindergarten class, the teacher read her students two transgender indoctrination stories for kids. After the teacher finished reading these stories, little Joey went to the restroom and returned to class wearing a dress. The teacher said: “Boys and girls, Joey is really a girl just like Jazz in our story. From now on we need to call her Josephine.” This was Joey’s parent’s and the teacher’s way to introduce Joey’s transformation to his fellow kindergartners.
Joey’s classmates were extremely confused. One little girl was terrified. At home, after bathing in the tub, the girl’s mom wrapped her in a towel. Passing a mirror, the girl noticed that her hair was slicked back. Panicked, she burst into tears. “Mommy, am I turning into a boy? I don’t wanna turn into a boy! Joey turned into a girl. Am I gonna turn into a boy?” Folks, allowing our kids to be traumatized with LGBTQ crazy ideology is incredibly cruel, insane and irresponsible. God commands us to protect children.
“But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone hung around your neck.” Mark 9:42
Folks, do you know the only diagnosis used to begin gender reassignment is a child saying they feel like the opposite sex? That’s insane.
“I Am Jazz” was one of the transgender indoctrination children books read to Joey’s kindergarten class. Insanely, Jazz’s parents started his male to female transition at 3 years old. How on earth could rational parents conclude that their 3 year old was born in the wrong body? Looking like a female from the waist up, Jazz is now 17, star of his own TV show. LGBTQ enforcers are on the verge of making the reading of “I Am Jazz” a mandatory part of the national curriculum in public schools.
It shows that government mandated sexual child abuse is taking root in public schools across America. Meanwhile, far too many Christian pastors give us sermons about how we must be more tolerant of the LGBTQ agenda.
Still, I keep trusting God. Responsible parents said no to the mandatory reading of “I Am Jazz” to their children in schools. The great Christian patriots at Liberty Counsel are handling the parents’ case. Here is one of the fake news media headlines trashing the parents. “Elementary school cancels reading of book about a transgender child after ‘hate group’ threatens to sue.” The tactic of LGBTQ enforcers and their fake news media minions is to brand all who oppose them infecting our children with LGBTQ craziness “haters”.
Dr. Cretella made a great point. She said if someone wants to cutoff a healthy arm or leg because they believe they are an amputee trapped in a normal body, medical professionals correctly diagnose that person mentally ill suffering with Body Identity Integrity Disorder. And yet, if a person wishes to cutoff her healthy breasts or his healthy penis, medical professionals diagnose them as transgender. Dr. Cretella says transgenderism is a mental illness which should not be a civil right.
The problem is everyone is terrified to publicly state commonsense, facts and truth regarding LGBTQ ideology. Dr Cretella said she has been secretly contacted by even leftists medical professionals, thanking her for her courage to tout the absurdity of LGBTQ ideology. They won’t go public because they fear losing their jobs as she does.
When I was a black kid growing up in the projects of Baltimore in the 1950s, I thought America was the greatest source of good around the world. I still believe that. I thought presidents were exceptional people because six year old George Washington confessed to chopping down his father’s cherry tree. He could not tell a lie. Roy Rogers and Superman were good guys like my dad who always tried to do the right thing. As a young man, I thought politicians could not lie because of video. Silly me.
Today, youths are taught there is no longer such a thing as definite right and wrong.
What happened to us? Biblical morality upon which America was founded is systematically being banned from government and our culture. The Democratic party, LGBTQ enforcers and fake news media demand that biblical morality be replaced with government mandated satanic evil, lies and plain craziness. We must not allow craziness to become America’s accepted norm.
This is terrifying.
Thank you Richard
RELATED VIDEO: The sick pedophile agenda at the heart of ‘sex education.’ Discretion advised. Deeply disturbing.