Tag Archive for: abortion

Pro-Abortion Protest Turns Violent: Lawmakers ‘Held Hostage’ In Arizona Capitol

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Lawmakers were instructed not to exit the Arizona state capitol as protestors gathering outside the building created a “hostage” situation late Friday night into early Saturday morning.

“Violent anti-abortion protestors attempts of an insurrection at the Arizona State Senate were thwarted Friday night, thanks to the swift action from local and state law enforcement,” the Arizona State Senate said in a press release.

“Protesters threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass,” Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted.

Police used tear gas to disperse the protestors and regain control of the building, according to Fox News.

“We are currently there being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security,” State Senator Kelly Townsend wrote on Twitter. 

State Senator Warren Peterson said several of his fellow Senators were armed.

One Senator compared the violence to the breach of the United States Capitol that occurred on January 6, 2021.

“I expect a J24 committee to be created immediately,” she said on Twitter.

“Extremist demonstrators made their way to the entrance of the Senate building and began forcibly trying to make entry by breaking down windows and pushing down doors,” according to the Arizona State Senate press release.

According to the press release, the air circulation system in the building pulled the tear gas deployed on the demonstrators into the Senate chambers, preventing lawmakers from returning to the Senate floor.

“Senate proceedings were moved to another room in the building.”

Senate President Karen Fann thanked law enforcement for responding quickly to the situation.

“We are incredibly thankful for our local law enforcement who quickly intervened during what could have been a destructive and dangerous situation for our members, staff and public inside the Senate,” Fann said.

AUTHOR

SARAH WEAVER

Staff writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Attempts To Incite People Into ‘The Streets’ Outside Supreme Court

‘What Other Judicial Outrage Must We Endure?’: Dems Call For Expanding SCOTUS After String Of Losses

Democratic Candidates Waste No Time Begging For Money Off Dobbs Decision

‘Horrifying Decision’: Democrats Lose Their Minds After Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Rights

Tyrant Justin Trudeau Weeps Over US Women ‘Losing’ the Right Over Their Bodies — After Forcing Every Person in Canada to Receive Experimental Vaccine

RELATED VIDEO: Day 1 of the Abortionist Insurrection

RELATED TWEET: Day 1 of the Abortionist Insurrection – Democrat Leaders Lead Calls for Mass Violence, Violent Mobs Terrorize Communities, Crack Heads

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Squad’ Democrats Vote Against Security For SCOTUS Justices After Spending Small Fortunes On Private Security

/in , , , , , , , /by

Democratic “Squad” members in the House voted against a bill Tuesday extending security for Supreme Court Justices despite spending a combined six figures on private security in 2021, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records and House Disbursements.

Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, as well as New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman are among the 27 Democratic members who voted against the approved security measure. Still, these lawmakers spent roughly $348,000 on private security in 2021.

The legislation comes as Republican-appointed justices get targeted by pro-abortion demonstrators after a leaked draft opinion showed the Court will likely overturn the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. It passed in the Senate unanimously over a month ago and was introduced by Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Democratic Delaware Sen. Chris Coons.

Bush, who has frequently called to “defund” the police, spent roughly $200,000 in campaign funds on security in 2021, Fox News reported. Ocasio-Cortez, who indicated she would not support the security bill since she is prioritizing gun control legislation, spent roughly $75,000 on private security in 2021, the outlet reported.

Pressley, who spent $14,000 from her Member Representational Allowance (MRA) in 2022 on security, spent roughly $63,000 of her MRA on security between May and December 2021, The Daily Caller reported. Tlaib spent under $3,000 on security in 2021 and Bowman spent more than $7,800 in 2021, Fox News reported.

“The lack of concern bordering on hatred for the families of the six judges appointed by Republican presidents is scary,” Republican Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman told TheDCNF. “I can never imagine something so callous and uncaring being done if the shoe was on the other foot.”

Offices for Bush, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Pressley declined The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment and pointed to the member’s remarks after her vote claiming the Supreme Court has “put lives at risk,” alluding to the leaked draft opinion.

“While elected and appointed officials, including Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices, do in fact already have protections when it comes to their security, abortion care providers and patients—who already face and will undoubtedly face persistent threats of violence and criminalization should Roe fall—do not,” said Pressley, the Boston Herard reported.

On May 5, a left-wing group called “Ruth Sent Us” leaked the addresses of the six Republican-appointed justices. The group, one of the several pro-abortion groups that published the addresses of the justices, claimed Monday it was not responsible for the attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh since the man charged was white.

That man, Nicholas Roske, was arrested and charged last week after police spotted him outside Kavanaugh’s home with weapons, including a firearm.

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Are Democrats Willing to Assassinate a SCOTUS to Appoint a Liberal Judge?

‘The Squad’ Pushes To ‘Defund The Police’ While Spending Thousands On Private Security To Protect Themselves

Arsonists Firebomb Pro-Life Legislator’s Office In Latest Attack

Biden Approval Rating Drops. Again

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. 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 licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Social Justice Unionism Means Pro-Abortion Big Labor

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Last week, Politico reported on a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion regulation to the states, ending the Court’s invention of a constitutional right to abortion. The draft opinion was greeted with predictable outrage from left-progressives, including those in organized labor.

Statements

Now, many people, especially those on the social-conservative right who are re-exploring aligning with organized labor, might not expect union bosses to be among the left-progressive leaders ready to jump on a leaked, not-finalized Supreme Court opinion, but they were. Examples include:

  • Liz Shuler, who ascended to the presidency of the AFL-CIO after the death of Richard Trumka, argued, “We must be able to control our own bodies—which has a direct impact on economic justice and the ability of working people to make a better life for themselves and their families.”
  • Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), denounced an “extremist, anti-woman majority of the Supreme Court” (that, it should be noted, is suspected to include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a woman) for taking away “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion.”
  • Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, said the opinion “should be viewed as part of the broader far-right assault on gender-affirming health rights in this country, including the laws targeting trans youth and their families, attacks on LBGTQ individuals, and homophobic bans on the word ‘gay’ in education,” presumably a deceptive reference to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, frequently misnamed in “objective” press accounts.

I Told You So

These statements and other pro-abortion activities by organized labor, such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana rallying with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and Planned Parenthood or the new Amazon Labor Union calling for protests in New York City, demonstrate that American labor unions are inseparable from social left-progressivism through an ideological practice known as “social justice unionism.” Back in 2021, we published a serial outlining how organized labor provided financial support to Washington State measures introducing Planned Parenthood–aligned sex education material into public school curriculums.

And what of the expressed hope of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), that union organizations could provide a counterweight to “a requirement that the workers embrace management’s latest ‘woke’ human resources fad”? Well, I was skeptical, noting that “operatives who run the labor unions endorse woke H.R. fads. And to the extent they don’t, they support going even further.”

Now, I may enter into evidence the statement of Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants’ union AFA-CWA and rumored candidate to challenge Shuler for the leadership of the House of Labor, last seen campaigning to extend the now-enjoined traveler mask mandate when it came up for renewal in March. Nelson explicitly called on her members’ bosses to engage in woke capitalism:

We call on airline management to stand with us and for equality, anti-discrimination, and mutual respect. It is not enough that corporations espouse these principles as core to their missions—now is the time to demonstrate this commitment to their employees and passengers. This is about our safety and our freedom. We cannot work if we are not safe.

Social justice unionism means that organized labor is an additional pressure point forcing capitalists to be woke, not a point of opposition. The reaction to the Supreme Court leak should prove that beyond doubt.

AUTHOR

Michael Watson

Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a…+ MORE BY MICHAEL WATSON

DHS: ‘Domestic violent extremists’ are ‘infiltrating’ the abortion debate

/in , , , , , , , /by

What would we do without the Department of Homeland Security? Those intrepid defenders of our liberties are showing these days how richly they deserve our taxpayer billions, as DHS officials, ever on the watch, warned on Monday that “domestic violent extremists” are “infiltrating” the national debate over abortion, with nefarious plans to “incite violence amongst their supporters.”

Now, I must admit, I’m not as sharp as the all the knives in the drawer over at the DHS, and I don’t have my finger on the pulse of threats to “our democracy,” which Leftists are constantly telling us is in imminent peril from people who believe in the U.S. Constitution and the basic goodness of the American experiment. So I hope that Alejandro Mayorkas and his henchmen, that is, colleagues, at the DHS will forgive me for not realizing that domestic violent extremists have only recently infiltrated the abortion debate. I had the crazy idea that domestic violent extremists had actually infiltrated the abortion debate decades ago; in fact, I thought they had been there from the very beginning. After all, there are people out there who think that those who dismember babies in the womb are performing a decent and righteous act; if that’s not domestic violent extremism, what is?

But that is, of course, not the kind of domestic violent extremism that the DHS has in mind. To be sure, our intrepid defenders didn’t specify exactly what kind of domestic violent extremism they did have in mind. ABC News reported that the DHS official who disclosed this warning “did not specify which side, if any, the extremists were taking.” However, it’s not hard to figure out which side the DHS has in mind. The FBI, as well as DHS officials, have quite frequently repeated the claim that “white supremacists” are the most formidable “domestic extremist” threat that the nation faces today.

This is an administration that has likened parents who have protested at school board meetings against Communist indoctrination and transgender propaganda in public schools to terrorists, while not saying a thing about genuine Antifa violence and thuggery, so when the DHS warns that “domestic violent extremists” are infiltrating the abortion debate, it’s absolutely certain that the people they are tarring with this label are pro-lifers. And while there have been a handful of pro-lifers who were violent in the past, it’s far more likely that DHS is equating dissenting words with violence.

Why do I say that? Because it has happened to me. Last year, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an organization created by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube to police terrorism on the Internet, bizarrely designated my organization Jihad Watch a “violent extremist” group, despite the fact that pretty much all we do is type and report on jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world. In response to a letter from my attorney demanding a retraction, the GIFCT refused to back down. Those who designated Jihad Watch as a “violent extremist” group explained that we reported on violent activity — terrorist bombings, murders, etc. — and that this in some way “dehumanized” Muslims.

How we did this was left unexplained; it would have been impossible to explain, as it was absurd on its face. If reporting news that puts some group in a bad light is “dehumanizing,” the GIFCT and DHS should go after the establishment media for “dehumanizing” Trump and his supporters. The response to my attorney’s letter was essentially the increasingly common Leftist argument that speech that dissents from its party line is violence, and hence must be shut down.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, fresh from defending his sinister and Orwellian new Disinformation Governance Board, promises that his department is right on top of this alleged “domestic violent extremist” threat: “Over the past year, we in the Department of Homeland Security have improved and strengthened our approach to combating this dynamic, evolving threat.”

How reassuring. Meanwhile, Leftist pro-abortion ideologues have been demonstrating at the homes of the Supreme Court Justices who are likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in a naked attempt to intimidate them into changing their vote. Despite the fact that it is a felony to demonstrate at private homes, the Biden administration has applauded these protests. The government is presently in the hands of thugs who believe that bullying and frightening people into submission is an acceptable political tactic. Can the DHS, in such an environment, spare even a few agents to try to head off any possible Leftist violence regarding a possible overturning of Roe? After all, Leftists are much, much more likely to be violent than pro-lifers. This is true both historically and recently and is indicated by the nature of what they’re so avidly defending.

AUTHOR

Robert Spencer

Senior Fellow.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MISINFORMATION WATCH: It’s Rob Reiner, Mia Farrow and Nancy Sinatra Who Hate Women

/in , , , , , , , /by

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

Disinformation is a subset of propaganda and is defined as false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people.

Malinformation or malicious information is having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone; given to, marked by, or arising from malice or malicious gossip.

In this Misinformation Watch article to expose mis, dis and malinformation we look at Rob Reiner, Mia Farrow and Nancy Sinatra. 

As JFK said,

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

Rob Reiner and Nancy Sinatra

Rob Reiner in a tweet said that Republicans don’t respect women.

Nancy Sinatra agreed with Reiner and said she does not understand why any women are Republicans: “Yes, I have thought that for decades, and it’s beyond my comprehension why a woman, any woman would be a republican. Ever – unless she can’t read.”

Another woman tweeted this in response to Rob Reiner’s tweet:

This idea of women and respect is classic disinformation. It is a myth that supports the liberal ideal of mothers murdering their babies. Abortion is the bedrock of the Biden administration and those like Rob Reiner, Nancy Sinatra and Melissa Rosenstock who want others to believe that if you do not believe in mothers killing their unborn babies then you “hate” women.

Here’s the reality of abortion on the black community:

  • Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
  • Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
  • Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
  • Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
  • More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
  • The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.

You see it’s not Republicans who created the baby formula shortage, it is Biden and his administration. If mothers can’t get baby formula their babies’ heath is put at risk. So, ipso facto it is Democrats who hate women, particularly mothers with children.

What those who are against abortion are for mothers having their babies but if they don’t want or can’t support their babies give the baby away to another woman and mother who will take care of them.

Abortion is a zero sum game for the unborn. It is either life or death.

Democrats want death. Republicans want life and more and more babies born healthy, happy and ultimately good and prosperous citizens.

Abortion is a form of genocide particularly of minorities. You see if abortion is done away with then more black and Hispanic babies would be born. Democrats can’t have that happen, can they?

Democracy or Constitutional Republic

The Founding Fathers created via the U.S. Constitution a Republic. Their goal was to remove themselves from the aristocracy of the King of England and become free men by limiting the powers of the central government. The U.S. Constitution limits the role of the federal government and given each state powers over everything else that is not constitutionally allowed. The federal governments powers are limited and the states are empowered. America is the only nation with a Constitutional Republican form of government.

Finally Rob Reiner tweeted the following:

America is not a democracy it is a Constitutional Republic. John Adams, in The Letters of John and Abigail Adams, wrote:

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

Rob Reiner and Democrats want to establish an a democracy where the majority rule and the minority obey. Democracy is worse than either an aristocracy or monarchy. Biden and his administration is feverishly working to turn America into a democracy, which is now wasting its people, exhausting itself in debt and murdering future generations via abortion.

Adams warned:

“It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

Mia Farrow

Sharia Law applies to the followers of Mohammed. Muslims believe that women are necessary but must be controlled. Sura 33:59 of the Qu’ran reads,

“O Prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments (when in public): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as decent women) and not annoyed.

Wearing a full covering over their bodies is a symbol of obedience to Allah. Muslim groups like the Islamic State and the government of Afghanistan have firmly implemented this Sura.

Responding to Reiner’s tweet Mia Farrow tweeted that Republicans “would be happy to impose Sharia laws [on women].”

They’d be happy to impose Sharia laws

— Mia Farrow?? (@MiaFarrow) May 12, 2022

Here’s a Mia Farrow tweet this in June of 2015

Remember that on March 20th, 1854 in Ripon, Wisconson the Republican Party was founded on the platform to end slavery. Former members of the Whig Party met to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the Western territories. According to History.com:

The Republicans rapidly gained supporters in the North, and in 1856 their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, won 11 of the 16 Northern states. By 1860, the majority of the Southern slave states were publicly threatening secession if the Republicans won the presidency. In November 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president over a divided Democratic Party, and six weeks later South Carolina formally seceded from the Union. Within six more weeks, five other Southern states had followed South Carolina’s lead, and in April 1861 the Civil War began when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor.

Here is a recent article about a Muslim family:

Muslim Family convicted of Modern Day Slavery in Virginia

AsAm News:

A federal jury convicted a family in Richmond, VA of holding a Pakistani woman in forced servitude for 12 years, the Department of Justice recently announced.

Zahida Aman, Mohammad Nauman Chaudhri and Mohammad Rehan Chaudhri will face sentencing for conspiracy to commit forced labor. In addition, the jury convicted Aman of forced labor and document servitude, and defendant Rehan Chaudhri of forced labor….

Aman is said to be 80 and her son Mohammad Nauman is 54 and her other son Mohammad Rehan is 48….

One neighbor called news of the conviction disturbing. The Jones family told WRIC it never suspected or witnessed any abuse inside the home.

According to WTVR, the victim was related by marriage. Prosecutors say they kept her as a slave. True Crime reports the mother arranged the marriage between the victim and a third son who also lived in the home. Two years later, that son moved to California, but his wife stayed behind. They had four children together who lived in Virginia.

quotes those passages in the Qur’an that allow for human slaves:

Slavery is acceptable in Islam. The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “O prophet, indeed, we have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war.” (Qur’an 33:50)

Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)

Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:

Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.

What is most interesting is that Mia doesn’t tell you is the history of Arabs who are currently holding elected positions in the U.S. House of Representatives and their religious affiliations.

If Mia is worried about Shariah law coming to America she needs to look at the beliefs of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who recently put forward the Palestinian Nakba resolution condemning the Jewish state of Israel.

Here’s the most current list of U.S. Representatives and their religious affiliations from Wikipedia.

House of Representatives

Picture Representative
(lifespan)		 Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity Party State Term start Term end Notes
Rep. Graves Garret Graves
(born 1972)		 Lebanese Roman Catholic Republican Louisiana January 3, 2015 Incumbent
Rep. LaHood Darin LaHood
(born 1968)		 Lebanese Catholic Republican Illinois September 10, 2015 Incumbent
Rep. Crist Charlie Crist
(born 1956)		 Lebanese Methodist Democratic Florida January 3, 2017 Incumbent
Rep. Kihuen Rubén Kihuen
(born 1980)		 Lebanese Catholic Democratic Nevada January 3, 2017 January 3, 2019 Retired
Rep. Mucarsel-Powell Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
(born 1971)		 Lebanese Catholic Democratic Florida January 3, 2019 January 3, 2021 Lost reelection
Rep. Omar Ilhan Omar
(born 1981)		 Somali Muslim Democratic Minnesota January 3, 2019 Incumbent
Rep. Tlaib Rashida Tlaib
(born 1976)		 Palestinian Muslim Democratic Michigan January 3, 2019 Incumbent
Rep. Bice Stephanie Bice
(born 1973)		 Iranian Christian Catholic Republican Oklahoma January 3, 2021 Incumbent

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Pools Of Blood’: Authorities Shut Down Abortion Clinic For Endangering Patients

Dem Witness Says Men Can Get Pregnant And Have Abortions

/in , , , , , , , , /by

A Democratic witness testified that men can get pregnant and have abortions during a Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on abortion access and care.

Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop first asked witness AVOW executive director Aimee Arrambide how she defines a “woman.” AVOW is a pro-abortion non-profit organization working to secure unrestricted access to abortion for Texas.

“I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,” Arrambide said.

“Ok. Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop followed up.

“Yes,” Arrambide responded.

Bishop also asked reproductive healthcare Dr. Yashica Robinson, who uses “she/her” pronouns, if she could define what a “woman” was prior to questioning Arrambide.

“It’s important for you to understand why I said I use ‘she/her’ pronouns,” Robinson said. “It’s because I understand that for people-”

Bishop then cut her off and again asked “what is a woman?”

“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things we do, and so the reason why I use ‘she’ and ‘her’ pronouns is because I understand there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way, and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way that they desire not to be called,” Robinson said.

Bishop again asked if she was going to answer his question about the definition of a “woman.”

“I’m a woman,” Robinson said.

“Is that as comprehensive a definition you could give me?” Bishop asked.

Robinson said that the most comprehensive definition she could provide for the time being.

A “woman” is defined as “an adult female person,” according to Merriam-Webster. A female has XX chromosomes while men have XY chromosomes. Men do not. have the same reproductive organs that females have and are unable to get pregnant or receive an abortion.

Robinson and Arrambide are not the only ones unable to provide a definition of what a “woman” is. The Daily Caller reached out to every Senate Democrat to see if any of our leaders would provide a definition. Each request was met with silence. Only 15 Republican Senators were willing to provide a definition of what a “woman” is when questioned by the Caller.

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson also dodged the question during her hearing, telling Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn she is “not a biologist” and therefore could not define what a “woman” is.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

Reporter. Follow Brianna on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Not Just Women That Are Getting Pregnant’: Abortion Activists Sound Off At ‘Bans Off Our Bodies’ March

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Pelosi Calls The Supreme Court ‘Dangerous To The Freedoms Of Our Country’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had harsh words for the Supreme Court, Sunday, telling CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of The Union” that Trump-appointed justices had made the judiciary “dangerous” to freedom.

“Who would have ever suspected that a creature like Donald Trump would become president of the United States, waving a list of judges that he would appoint, therefore, getting the support of the far-right, and appointing those anti-freedom justices to the court?” Pelosi exclaimed after Bash asked her why Democrats hadn’t anticipated an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade.

“Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The ball is this court, which is dangerous to the freedoms of our country,” Pelosi added, further suggesting that the court would also rule against marriage equality in the future.

WATCH:

Her words come after protestors have descended upon the homes of Trump-appointed justices, protesting the possible overturn of the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade decision.

When asked whether this potential ruling could have an impact on the midterms, Pelosi said she believed it would, urging voters to “focus” on what Roe v. Wade meant for them personally.

“Just focus on what this does and what this means to you,” Pelosi stated. “I don’t disrespect people’s views and how they want to live their lives. But I don’t think that it’s up to the Donald Trump appointees on the court or any politicians to make that decision for women,” she told Bash.

“The fact is, this is a dangerous court to families, to freedom in our country. And that is why people have to mobilize. And my saying is, we don’t agonize; we organize,” Pelosi concluded.

AUTHOR

GRETCHEN CLAYSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Of Women’s March Promises ‘Summer Of Rage’

Despite Liberal Spin, Most Americans Want Voters To Decide Abortion Laws: POLL

‘It’s Intimidation’: Bill Maher Rails Against Protests At Justices’ Homes

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Abortion and Biden’s SCOTUS Nominee

/in , , , , , , , , /by

WATCH: An anti-abortion activist testifies against Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination. Eleanor McCullen, an anti-abortion activist, delivered testimony in opposition of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination, on the final day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

With a bang of a gavel in 1973, 63 million fellow Americans were condemned to die. And the number keeps growing.

Now if the Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, another pro-abortion justice will be added to the Supreme Court.

Last week, Judge Jackson, nominated by Biden to the Supreme Court, faced four days of hearings in the Senate. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham raised an intriguing point to her: “Every group that wants to pack the court, that believes the court is a bunch of right-wing nuts who are going to destroy America, that considers the Constitution ‘trash’—all wanted you picked. That is all I can say. That so many of these left-wing radical groups who would destroy the law as we know it…supported you is problematic for me.”

Jon Schweppe of the American Principles Project noted, “On abortion and religious liberty, it’s clear where she stands. Jackson co-authored an amicus brief for the Massachusetts NARAL chapter characterizing pro-life sidewalk counselors as ‘indisputably harmful’ and supporting the notion that they should not be allowed anywhere near an abortion clinic.”

He adds, “Why would leftist groups like American Atheists, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association and the Southern Poverty Law Center push the White House to nominate Jackson and the Senate to confirm?….Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woke Trojan horse, as the preponderance of evidence suggests.”

When asked to define what a woman is, Judge Jackson declined, claiming she’s “not a biologist.” When asked when human life begins, she said to Louisiana Senator John Kennedy: “Senator, um… I don’t know.”

Gary Bauer responded to her answer: “Of course, this well-educated, Harvard graduate knows life begins at conception. The problem is that she’s all in on abortion on demand.”

The Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) established by judicial fiat a right to abortion. Thus abortion, said Judge Jackson, is “settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a pregnancy. They established a framework the court has reaffirmed.”

One Constitutional authority had some criticisms of Roe v. Wade as a legal opinion. She said that Roe “tried to do too much, too fast—it essentially made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop—leaving it open to fierce attacks. ‘Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped…may prove unstable.’”

Who was this radical anti-abortion activist that would dare criticize the left’s most beloved decision? It was Ruth Bader Ginsburg–before she became a justice on the high court who did everything in her power to preserve Roe v. Wade.

Writing for Lifenews.com, Micaiah Bilger observes that Judge Jackson has called peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors at abortion clinics “hostile, noisy and in your face” people.

Bilger added, “Jackson has the support of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which advocates for abortions without limits up to birth…She also ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to defund the billion-dollar abortion chain Planned Parenthood, and she clerked for pro-abortion Justice Stephen Breyer when he issued an opinion against the partial-birth abortion ban.”

I believe abortion is the single most important political issue of our time. It’s not complicated. Abortion takes a human life every time.

When judges rule in favor of abortion, they are playing God. I find it amazing that the left constantly decries bullying, yet they favor abortion rights. What could be more bullying than dismembering a defenseless, unborn child limb by limb because it is perceived as somehow inconvenient?

Some critics on the left, like Bill Maher, say that the only reason conservatives oppose Judge Jackson is because she’s black. But people need to remember that the founder of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was Margaret Sanger, who spoke at a Ku Klux Klan meeting. She wrote a letter to one of her board members (Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, 12/10/1939): “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” No wonder the majority of abortion facilities are in urban areas—to this day.

In our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, our founders said that our rights come from the Creator—and first among these rights is the “right to life.” Indeed, if you’re dead, how can you enjoy any other right?

The Constitution, which is predicated on the Declaration, notes in the preamble that one of its purposes is: “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Our posterity? That is, the yet to be born.

To paraphrase Dr. D. James Kennedy, Judge Jackson should get down on her knees and thank God that her mother wasn’t “pro-choice.”

If you get abortion wrong, you tend to get everything else wrong too.

What the Abortion Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Abortion thrives in darkness.  Abortion advocates are doing their best to keep people ignorant of the true nature of the abortion business.

There are lots of botched abortions, but the abortion industry tries to cover them up and tell people abortion is ‘safe’. Women have died from botched abortions, but the abortion industry doesn’t want you to know that.  At the moment, there are four lawsuits pending in Alabama, Maryland, and D.C. arising from botched abortions.

Abortion advocates are claiming the abortion drug Mifepristone is safer than Tylenol and sends fewer people to the emergency room.  Nice try.  Here are the facts:  Mifepristone has been linked to 24 deaths and 4,000 serious complications from the year 2000 to 2018. The numbers would be higher but the Obama administration stopped requiring the reporting of non-fatal complications – another cover-up.  The claim the drug is safer than Tylenol is based on a single 2013 study showing a 0.3 percent hospitalization rate, but other studies found much higher hospitalization rates, as high as 20 percent.  But you won’t hear anything about these studies from abortion advocates.

In fact, you won’t hear anything about independent research from abortion advocates, at all.  Instead, the industry pays hired guns for research that, unsurprisingly, concludes abortion is good.  One such study:

reportedly proves that 95 percent of women have no regrets about their abortions and that abortion causes no mental health problems. But a new exposé reveals that the authors have misled the public, using an unrepresentative, highly biased sample and misleading questions. In fact, over two-thirds of the women approached at the abortion clinics refused to be interviewed, and half of those who agreed dropped out. Refusers and dropouts are known to have more post abortion problems.

A public charter school in Boston is teaching ninth-graders abortion prevents pregnancy.  Class material defines abortion as a “procedure performed by a doctor that prevents a pregnancy once the sperm has already joined with an egg.” Critics say the school is misleading students, and the critics are right.  Isn’t there something wrong when you have to resort to misleading gullible youth to stay in business?

The abortion industry doesn’t want you to know lots of workers have quit after seeing the true nature of the abortion business up close.  An abortion clinic worker in Florida quit from feeling guilty after helping “railroad” a woman into a $7,000 late-term abortion.  The worker had been accumulating doubts about the clinic’s obsession with money and that was the final straw.  “I couldn’t face myself in the mirror,” she said.

In another indication abortion advocates don’t want the truth to be known, activists vandalized a pro-life billboard in Mississippi in January, then celebrated the destruction online.  The vandalism turned the billboard’s message about abortion pill reversal treatment into a pitch for abortion drugs, instead.  Activists are throwing smoke-bombs at pro-lifers and threatening violence as they become increasingly unhinged at the prospect of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Abortion advocates lied to the press in their campaign to get the Supreme Court to approve abortion in the 1970s.  And they’ve been lying ever since.  This is all they’ve got.   They know they don’t have an argument left.  They’re pathetic and I, for one, can’t wait for the Supreme Court to throw out the federal right to abortion.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Products Made From Aborted Fetal Cells

/in , , , , , , /by

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” ― Ronald Reagan

“[I]t seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.” ― Mahatma Gandhi, All Men are Brothers: Autobiographical Reflections

We have been asked about products that use fetal cells from aborted babies. This issue has gained greater attention as it has been revealed that aborted human fetuses have been used in Covid vaccines. This coupled with the Biden’s vaccine mandates has lead people of faith to refuse to use certain Covid drugs.

In a column titled “Another Pharmaceutical Company – Johnson & Johnson Using Aborted Fetal Cells to Develop Covid-19 Vaccine” wrote:

…Janssen Pharmaceutical, owned by Johnson and Johnson, that is using their PER C6 Ad5 technology, derived from an aborted baby’s retinal tissue. Dr. Alex van der Eb revealed the information on this abortion at FDA hearings in 2001:

“So I isolated retina from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special with a family history or the pregnancy was completely normal up to the 18 weeks, and it turned out to be a socially indicated abortus – abortus provocatus, and that was simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus… what was written down was unknown father, and that was, in fact, the reason why the abortion was requested.”

Read the full article.

Human Life International has compiled a list which readers can request and download. To get a copy of Products Made From Aborted Fetal Cells click here.

Click here for Abortion Myths and Facts.

PRODUCTS MADE FROM ABORTED FETAL CELLS

Here is a short list of some of the products that contain human aborted fetal cells:

FOODS:

  • N E S T L É
  • F I R M E N I CH
  • AJ I N O M O T O

VACCINES AND MEDICATIONS

  • C O V I D – 1 9 VACCINES – Vaccines produced by these companies have been either tested or produced with fetal cell lines: Altimmune, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Vaxart, Novavax, University of Pittsburgh, Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech, Sanofi Pasteur, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Arcturas Therapeutics.
  • M U M P S – RUB E L LA
  • P O L I O , P O L I O C O M B I N AT I O N
  • RAB I E S
  • RHEU M AT O I D AR THR I T I S
  • SHI N GL E S

COSMETICS:

  • N E O CUT I S
  • D E C O UV E R T E

Sources: list of U.S. aborted fetal products from Children of God for Life; vaccine charts from Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute; Human Life International’s article “Products that Use Aborted Fetuses.”

Conclusion

In 2019 President Donald J. Trump ordered the Department of Health and Human Services  to ban the National Institute of Health from using fetal tissue in research.

In a June 7, 2019 article Elizabeth Bachmann from the Catholic News Service wrote:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services banned the National Institutes of Health from using human fetal stem cells from electively aborted babies for government funded research June 5.

The department also issued a $20 million grant for research to develop models that do not rely on human fetal tissue.

HHS released a statement saying that “promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President (Donald) Trump’s administration.”

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement on this decision, commending the Trump administration for directing tax dollars away from fetal tissue and toward alternative research solutions.

Read the full article.

Under Biden this policy has changed. Today Americans of faith are ordered to get jabbed or lose their jobs.

Oh how far we have fallen since January 20th, 2021.

©Dr. Rich Swier and Human Life International. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The morality of vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines

Are There Remains of Aborted Babies Used in Vaccines?

The Misadventures of a Pro-life Senator

/in , , , /by

Hadley Arkes on Sen. Ben Sasse, who champions pro-life bills by promising Democrats they won’t affect abortion access, an appeal that fools no one.  

In the British comic Review in the 1960s, Beyond the Fringe, a commanding officer in the Royal Air Force sought to persuade a pilot to go on a kamikaze mission.  “Smedley,” he said, “we need someone at this moment to make a [Grand] Futile Gesture.”

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska has made his career with Grand Futile Gestures, not because his policies have been wanting in merit, but because he has shown little interest in doing the grinding work of a legislator in working out bills in committee and persuading his colleagues.

When he landed in the Senate in 2015, he quickly took hold of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.  That is the sequel to our Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act (2002), the bill that sought to protect the child who survived an abortion.  The new bill would restore the serious penalties that had been stripped from the original Act.

Sasse rushed to be the sponsor of the bill, which would pass by hefty margins in a Republican-controlled House in 2015 and 2018.   But Sasse never seemed able to do the work that would bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.   He was finally able to get the bill to the floor in February 2020, when the Democrats had control of the House, and there was no chance of passing it.  The bill gathered 56 votes in favor of bringing it to the floor, but under the rules of a filibuster,  60 votes were needed to put the bill on the floor for the decisive vote.

Sasse had made a fine, impassioned speech in favor of the bill,  which he knew would be mainly a flying of the flag.  His object was just to preserve the awareness of the bill as an ongoing part of our public business.  Over the past several years some of us have made attempts to sharpen and improve that bill, but our friends among other senators have been reluctant to make any move without the consent of the sponsor of the bill.  And yet that sponsor was not to be found.  He was usually elsewhere, giving speeches.

Sasse’s persistence then has been offset by his inattentiveness, but that persistence still deserves praise.  He introduced the bill anew on January 26th, with the Republicans no longer in control of the Senate.   He was forced, then, to bring the bill forth in the mayhem of the Vote-a-Rama:  The Democrats were trying to pass a massive budget as a matter of “budgetary reconciliation,” requiring only a majority vote (no need to get 60).

The occasion triggered a host of amendments on all kinds of subjects, as senators sought to tack their own pet measures on a bill bound to pass.  But amendments could be ruled out if they were thought to have only a tenuous connection to the budget.  And Sasse’s amendment was indeed ruled out; it could not come to a vote.

Sasse made once again a moving case for the bill. “Infanticide,” he said, “is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is actually about. Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?”

Sasse put his accent there by appealing to people on the other side that this bill was simply about “protecting babies that have already been born and are outside the womb.”  But in making that appeal he went overboard and gave an account of the bill that was at odds with the purpose that had brought forth the bill.  And so Sasse found himself insisting to his colleagues that “this bill has nothing to do with abortion itself. Nothing in this bill changes the slightest letter of Roe v. Wade. Nothing touches abortion access in this bill.”

But that appeal to the other side fools no one.  The Democrats understand that this modest bill is of course about abortion.  The strategy of the first Born-Alive Act in 2002 was to lure people from the other side by showing the reach of that right to abortion, a reach that makes even pro-choicers recoil.

And from there we might start rolling back that practice of abortion step by step.  We would ask: What was different about that child five minutes before it was born – or five days, five weeks, five months?  The other side understood that their position could come unraveled.  On that point they were never fooled, and we had never sought to fool them.

But our deeper purpose was to establish that this matter was not the sole business of the courts.  We sought to remind people of the constitutional grounds on which Congress may indeed legislate on this matter and act directly to protect unborn children.  We invoked a key line from Chief Justice Marshall in the classic case of Cohens v. Virginia (1822), when he remarked that any question arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States may rightly come within the reach of the judicial branch of the federal government.

And we then asserted the corollary:

If the Supreme Court can articulate new “rights” under the Constitution, the legislative branch must be able to vindicate the same rights under the same Clause in the Constitution where the Court claims to have found them.  And in filling out those rights, the Congress, at the same time, may mark their limits.  The one thing that should not be tenable under this Constitution is that the Court may articulate new rights – and then assign to itself a monopoly of the legislative power in shaping those rights.

A pro-life Republican Congress will not summon the conviction to legislate directly to protect babies in wombs until the members of Congress understand again that they do, in fact, bear the authority to do precisely that.  The score:  Ben Sasse fools no one on the other side, while he distracts his colleagues, and even the pro-lifers, from what they need to know in getting on with their work.

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Why I’m a One Issue Voter

/in , , , , /by

The issue of abortion has barely come up in the debates of Election 2020. But for many of us, it is still the issue that matters most.

I am a one issue voter, without apology, and that issue is abortion. I’m against it. If a politician thinks it is acceptable—whatever the rhetoric—to deliberately kill a living, developing human being in the womb, that politician is wrong. And he or she will never have my vote.

The issue of life is so basic. It is even the first Creator-given right listed in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. Without life, how can there be liberty or the pursuit of happiness or the right to property? Or any other right?

Those politicians who get the issue of life wrong tend to get just about everything else wrong.

With the window to the womb that science provides today, the emperor has no clothes when they say that a baby is not being killed.

Remember the case of Abby Johnson, manager of a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic and “Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year,” who resigned her lucrative position when she saw a sonogram of an abortion in her own clinic? She suddenly realized that this was not a clump of tissue being cleansed away. This was a tiny little human being in the making, fighting a losing battle against a high-power suction machine. Her book (with Cindy Lambert), Unplanned, chronicles all this.

In this election, there has arisen a group that claims to be “evangelical” and “pro-life” that in reality supports pro-abortion politicians. Who are they fooling? What they claim is that the “pro-life” position goes beyond simply the issue of abortion to such issues as “climate change.” All they do is to attempt to dilute the phrase “pro-life” so that it loses its real meaning: opposition to abortion.

For example, they claim that being “pro-life” means being against racism, which they inconsistently argue somehow necessitates voting for pro-abortion candidates. Imagine that—fighting racism by supporting Black genocide. The fact is, abortion kills almost 30 percent of Black children in the womb—and more than half of them in New York City.

It is well documented that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, was a racist.

On December 10, 1939, in a letter to her board member, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, Sanger wrote,

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., told me in a television interview: “During her lifetime Dr. Margaret Sanger said ‘colored’ people are like weeds and they need to be exterminated.” No wonder that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood facilities—to this day—are in the minority neighborhoods.

Former Vice President Joe Biden used to be (supposedly) “moderately pro-choice.” But now he’s shifted to the position of accepting abortion up to the moment of birth. And he believes we the taxpayers should fund it. His running mate is fiercely pro-abortion. As attorney general of California, Kamala Harris prosecuted and persecuted David Daleiden, the pro-life whistle-blower who made “60 Minutes”-style undercover videos, documenting that abortionists were trafficking in baby body parts for profit.

In contrast, President Donald Trump has been described by Steven Ertelt, editor of Lifenews.com, as “the most pro-life president in history.”

Since a president chooses judges and the senate confirms or rejects them, abortion is definitely on the ballot in Election 2020. And there is stark contrast between where the parties stand on this life-and-death issue.

At D. James Kennedy Ministries, we provide a simple party platform comparison on a variety of key issues. Here’s the comparison on the issue of life:

  • Republicans: “We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”
  • “Democrats believe that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.”
  • The Word of God: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:13-14)

We hear endlessly about evils from Americans in times past—especially slavery. I firmly believe that future generations will look back at us and see the rampant practice of abortion, and they will judge us for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies—even more deplorable in light of the window to the womb we have through modern technology.

Christians need to vote our values, and the issue of life is the most important of these.

Thomas Jefferson said that he trembled when he considered that God is just and that His justice cannot slumber forever. No, indeed it won’t.

©Jerry Newcomb. All rights reserved.

On the Nature of Complicity

/in , , , , , /by

Randall Smith: In the future, will America’s bishops renounce their failure to condemn politicians who support abortion as German bishops have recently done for their former support of Nazism?

In a column last year titled “Politicizing the Eucharist?” I pointed out that no one now claims that when Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three Catholics for publically encouraging people to defy his order to de-segregate the Catholic schools, he was “politicizing the Eucharist.”  Rather, Rummel is now praised highly for his singular courage, especially since his condemnation was so contrary to the more “accommodating” views of many of his fellow southern Catholics.

I also mentioned Cardinal Adolf Bertram, the ex-officio head of the German episcopate in the 1930s, who ordered Church bells rung in celebration of Nazi Germany’s victories over Poland and France and who sent greetings to Hitler on his 50th birthday in the name of all German Catholics, an act that angered his fellow bishops Konrad von Preysing and August von Galen.

The subject of whether the bishops should speak out publically against the treatment of the Jews arose at a 1942 meeting of the German bishops at Fulda. The consensus was “to give up heroic action in favor of small successes.”  In the 1933 Reichskonkordat between the Holy See and the German government, Church leaders pledged to refrain from speaking out on issues not directly related to the Church.  Repeated violations of the Konkordat on the part of the government, including closing churches and church schools, did not change their minds. And it also didn’t keep bishops like Bertram from endorsing government actions they favored, such as opposition to communism and the subjugation of Poland.

If you imagine I am being too tough on these German bishops, then perhaps you should read the twenty-three-page report made public last May by Germany’s Council of Catholic Bishops in which they admitted “complicity” by their predecessors who did not do enough to oppose the rise of Nazi regime and its mistreatment of Jews.

In eighty or ninety years, will future U.S. bishops be submitting a similar document of their own, confessing the “complicity” of their predecessors who did not do enough to oppose the abortion regime?  Will Catholics of that time be as baffled about our present bishops and prominent Catholic politicians as we are about the accommodationist Catholics of Nazi Germany?

How could Catholics of that time have failed to understand the evil staring them in the face? And why did they “accommodate” a regime that had labeled Christianity, and Catholics in particular, as “enemies of the state”?  Was it perhaps because so many leaders of the regime had been raised Catholic and some were still rosary-carrying church-goers?

Who, in retrospect, would not look back in shame at a German bishop who called questioning the Catholic commitments of Catholic Nazi leaders “offensive because they constitute an assault on the meaning of what it is to be Catholic.” Because “being Catholic means loving the Church; being Catholic means participating in the sacramental life of the church; being a Catholic means trying to transform the world by the light of the Gospel”?

And yet those are the words of our own Bishop McElroy of San Diego about those who question Joe Biden’s Catholicism.

And we transform the world in the light of the Gospel how?  Is it not by opposing the killing of innocent human beings?

In retrospect, we would suspect that a bishop who had said about the treatment of Jews, as Bishop McElroy has about abortion, that “To reduce that magnificent, multidimensional gift of God’s love to a single question of public policy is repugnant and should have no place in public discourse” had little or no serious concern for the lives being lost.  “Sure, abortion is bad, but what about global warming!”  “Sure the ill-treatment of Jews is unfortunate, but what about the future of Europe!” Wouldn’t we consider that to be repugnant?

What would anyone say now about a Catholic politician as prominent as Mario Cuomo if, during the 1930s in Germany, he had said:  “I accept the Church’s teaching about Jews, but must I insist others do so?  Our public morality. . .the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives – depends on a consensus view of right and wrong.  The values derived from religious belief will not and should not be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large by consensus.” That statement would have worked equally well for Catholic segregationists in the American South.

If that Catholic politician in 1930s Germany had available to him the “seamless garment” argument used by Mr. Cuomo, he might have said, “I grant that the treatment of Jews may have a unique significance but not a preemptive significance.”  “The Jewish question is an important issue for Catholics, but so is the question of the injustice of the reparation payments we have been forced to make along with all the resulting hunger and homelessness and joblessness, all the forces diminishing human life and threatening to destroy it.”

All the forces diminishing human life and threatening to destroy it?  Like . . . oh, I don’t know . . . abortion?

Who, in retrospect now, wouldn’t find such a “Catholic” politician either an obvious liar or a delusional hack?

If you find my comparison between the Catholics who enabled the Nazis and modern Catholics who enable abortion troubling, perhaps you should read Anne Applebaum’s article in The Atlantic titled “History Will Judge the Complicit.” Take out all the tendentious stuff about the numbers at Trump’s inauguration and a phone call with the Ukrainian ambassador and replace it with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden’s support for abortion and for policies that result in the closure of faithful Catholic institutions, and then change the title to “On the Nature of Complicity: Abortion’s Catholic Enablers and the Judgment of History.”

That judgment is unlikely to be any kinder to them than it has been to their German predecessors.

COLUMN BY

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is a tenured Full Professor of Theology. His book Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Guidebook for Beginners is available from Emmaus Press. And his book Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Scholastic Culture at Paris: Preaching, Prologues, and Biblical Commentary is due out from Cambridge University Press in the fall.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO Exposé: Kamala Harris’ Support of Selling Baby Parts by Planned Parenthood

/in , , , , , , , /by

This is a 5:00 minute video I recommend all should watch Kamala Harris and her abuse of power as California District Attorney defending illegal activities of Planned Parenthood!

I know I’m preaching to the choir but here are the Conclusions:

  1. Harris used her office as CA DA to defend PP against fetal trafficking of body parts.
  2. She is a huge threat to our 1st Amendment rights and civil liberties if she becomes V.P. and inevitably President if Biden wins & turns totally senile.
  3. If we don’t work hard enough to re-elect POTUS Trump, Harris will use her POWER to abuse and punish anyone with different views other than her own radical Marxist views.

Thanks to www.conservativewomensforum.com for this video.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

Abortion and the Battle Over the Supreme Court

/in , , , , , /by

Now that Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) has passed on to her eternal state, there will be an intense debate over whomever President Trump nominates to replace her.

Why the intensity of the coming debate? The answer is obvious: Abortion.

  • Why did the left 30 years ago pull out all the stops and vilify through vicious lies that man who became one of the most important Black Americans in history, Clarence Thomas? Answer: Abortion
  • Why did the left attempt to sully and drag the reputation of Brett Kavanaugh through the mud, accusing him of misogyny? Ironically, the late Justice Ginsburg even commended Justice Kavanaugh for his true reputation of lifting up women any way he could. But why was there an unending circus of past accusations of alleged sexual misconduct against him, none of which had the slightest corroboration? Answer: Abortion.
  • Why is the left gearing up even now for World War III in the Senate? Why are some of them seemingly losing their minds over the looming battle? For example, CNN host Reza Aslan typifies the left: “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down.” Again, the answer is obvious: Abortion.

Abortion, even when not directly mentioned in the Senate judiciary hearings, is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. It is the underlying issue at the heart of the real battle.

On the eve of the Kavanaugh hearings, I interviewed Wendy Wright, president of Christian Freedom International, for D. James Kennedy Ministries television. Little did we know of the extent of the fireworks against the justice’s confirmation that were just around the corner.

I asked Wendy about abortion and such confirmation battles. She told me, “Yes, abortion has become like the symbol, in a sense, of the extreme role of the Supreme Court—a symbol of an atheistic view that God should have no place when it comes to the public square. Abortion has become this symbol of the extreme role of the Supreme Court to rule on our day-to-day lives and to even insert itself in places that the Supreme Court should not be inserting itself.”

Indeed, every human being, even in utero, is made in the image of God. The Greek New Testament uses the word “brephos,” meaning “baby” to describe both babies in the womb and out of the womb.

Since RBG never met an abortion she didn’t like, her replacement will likely change the makeup on the court over the issue of abortion—and other issues. I maintain that if a person cannot get the issue of abortion right, then they can’t get many other things right. And vice versa.

True to his campaign promise, Donald J. Trump has nominated many good pro-life judges and justices to the federal bench, and they are now making a positive difference. He has promised to replace RBG with a female justice before the election (which even RBG said in 2016 is in a president’s constitutional purview).

A frontrunner nominee, of course, is Amy Coney Barrett, a former professor at Notre Dame Law School. The Wall Street Journal (9/21/20) notes: “Judge Barrett has written and spoken favorably of the conservative Justice [Antonin] Scalia, who died in 2016, and his close attention to the texts of statues as written and support for originalism, or interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning.”

Judge Barrett said, “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”

Abortion is a “right” the Supreme Court created—not from within the pages of the text of the Constitution or its amendments.

You can read the Constitution until you’re blue in the face, and nowhere will you see even remotely the right for an abortion, the right to terminate one’s pregnancy. It’s not there. It had to be imposed onto the Constitution by activist judges.

In this era of “wokeness,” millions of Americans look back, rightfully, with horror at slavery—the evil practice that nearly torpedoed the Constitutional Convention and that tore the country in half during the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died “to make men free.”

I believe future generations will look back at us aghast at this horrible practice of abortion, in an age when we have a scientific window into the womb through 3D sonograms and other technology. We are sacrificing tens of millions of babies on the altar of convenience. Those who promote and sanction this barbarity will have to answer to the Almighty one day for this grave injustice. And from Him there is no higher appeal.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.