Abortion court case Intelwars Justice amy coney barrett roe v wade SCOTUS Supreme Court

Coming Friday: Mississippi heartbeat bill among first cases Justice Amy Coney Barrett will consider

The Supreme Court will deliberate Friday on whether it will review a Mississippi pro-life law that bans abortion after an unborn child’s heartbeat can be detected.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the first potential challenge to Roe v. Wade‘s precedent to come before the court with newly installed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett hearing the arguments.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch petitioned the court last week to review the state’s 15-week abortion ban, asking the court to clarify how lower courts should interpret a previous Supreme Court decision striking down a Louisiana pro-life law, CBS News reported. He cited several opinions from federal appeals court judges that varied in their reasoning on separate abortion-related cases, some citing the Supreme Court’s majority opinion from Medical Services v. Russo to strike down restrictions on abortion, others referring to Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurring opinion to keep those regulations in place.

“This case remains an ideal vehicle to promptly resolve both that question and the first question presented — the contradictions in this Court’s decisions over use of ‘viability’ as a bright line for measuring pro-life legislation,” Fitch wrote in a supplemental brief sent to the Supreme Court.

The case asks the court to decide “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,” taking direct aim at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion before fetal viability at 24 weeks nationally.

The lawyer for the pro-choice group challenging Mississippi’s heartbeat law told CBS News the law explicitly violates Roe‘s precedent.

“Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban defies nearly fifty years of Supreme Court precedent,” Hillary Schneller, the staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told CBS News. “Mississippi’s abortion ban, by definition, is a complete and insurmountable obstacle for pregnant people seeking abortion care after 15 weeks.”

On Friday, the nine justices of the Supreme Court will meet to discuss and vote on whether they will hear this case and others. Four justices must agree to take the case before the Supreme Court will hear the arguments. An announcement on the Supreme Court’s decision is expected to come Monday.

All eyes are on newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the court weighs this decision. Progressives fear and conservatives hope that Barrett’s addition to the court has cemented a 6-3 originalist-leaning majority that will overturn Roe, ending the national legalization of abortion and sending the issue back to the states.

The last abortion-related case to come before the court was Medical Services v. Russo, in which a 5-4 majority blocked a Louisiana law that required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four progressives on the court in a concurring opinion, saying that while he disagrees with prior rulings declaring such restrictions unconstitutional, the court is bound by precedent.

Multiple senators questioned Barrett on the role of Supreme Court precedent during her confirmation hearings, with Democrats attempting to have her clarify her views on Roe in particular. Barrett, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s example, refused to give her opinion on Roe v. Wade‘s precedent, noting that there were pending cases before the court system challenging aspects of Roe and that it would be unethical for her to signal to potential litigants how she might rule.

During one exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), however, Barrett did not list Roe among several cases she called “super-precedents” that the court cannot overturn because they are established law. An example of one such case would be Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 court ruling that declared “separate is not equal,” ending racial segregation in public schools.

She didn’t tip her cards, though, deftly answering Klobuchar’s questions in a way that left her position on Roe‘s precedent ambiguous.

Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled,” Barrett explained.

Other pending cases the Supreme Court may consider are whether a New York prosecutor will get access to President Donald Trump’s financial information and election-related cases.

Abortion catholic church Intelwars Poland Poland pro-life ruling Pro-Life Protests right to life

Protesters invade Polish churches, demand legalized abortion after pro-life legal ruling

Protesters in Poland disrupted church services and told congregants attending Mass on Sunday to “get the f*** out” following a pro-life legal ruling that declared.

Protests have continued for four straight nights since the Polish Constitutional Tribunal ruled last Thursday that “abortion in the case of a high probability of severe and irreversible impairment of the fetus or an incurable disease that threatens the fetus” is not permitted by the Polish Constitution.

Activists demanding legalized abortions stormed Catholic churches in the Polish cities of Warsaw, Krakow, and Pozna?, LifeSiteNews reported, disrupting Mass and confronting police and counterprotesters. The mass demonstrations are in defiance of the coronavirus pandemic social distancing regulations.

Multiple reports indicate that pro-abortion activists dressed as “handmaids” or carrying signs and chanting entered cathedrals and demanded the right to abortion.

Video of the protests shared by Voice of America on social media shows some being arrested by police.

“Crowds of people took to the streets screaming ‘Get the f*** out’,” journalist Krystian Kratiuk told LifeSiteNews.

“On Sunday they organized an action of attacking churches, entering them, interrupting Masses and shouting ‘get the f*** out’ in front of [them],” Kratiuk added. “Left-wing MPs do the same and the mainstream journalists loudly support the crime, as interrupting Mass is in Poland.”

According to LifeSiteNews, some protesters in Pozna? invaded a cathedral during Mass and chained themselves to the altar rails for hours. They carried signs that read “Catholics also need abortion” and “shame,” among other statements.

The Associated Press reports that in some instances the protesters clashed with organized right-wing groups, such as in the southern city of Katowice where riot police used tear gas to keep demonstrators on both sides under control. In Warsaw, “far-right nationalists” reportedly blocked the stairs leading to the entrance of the Holy Cross Church and prevented the pro-abortion protesters from entering the building.

Others describe the counter protests as an organic “bottom-up movement.” One Pole named Piotr, who was involved in protecting churches from the pro-abortion protesters, told LifeSiteNews he and others were “inspired by some people connected to [political party] Konfederacja, with a special involvement of people in the National Movement.”

“They decided to go into the streets to try to protect churches from being profaned or destroyed by the leftists. More people got involved, such as me ? I am not connected to any organization,” he said.

Piotr described how he and others patrolled the streets of Krakow, moving from one church to another and cleaning up debris and graffiti left behind by the demonstrators.

“Fortunately, there was no violence involved,” he said.

Elsewhere, the demonstrations have become violent. Another journalist who spoke to LifeSiteNews, Grzegorz Górny, said some protesters pelted police with stones.

“We are witnessing a great attack against Poland: in the European Parliament, in the Western media, among the EU political elite. Polish leftists have been organizing street demonstrations for four days, they are aggressive, throw stones at the police, destroy the offices of PiS MPs, paint offensive slogans on churches (and even on the Ronald Reagan monument in Warsaw), and disrupt Holy Masses,” Górny said.

“There were no voices of support from around the world for the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, the ruling right wing and Polish Catholics,” Górny added. “Nobody said it was a historic event. Nobody said that the Polish pro-life decision goes against all global trends.”

The chairman of the Polish Bishop’s Conference, Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan, called for “social peace” amid the unrest.

“The position of the Catholic Church on the right to life is unchanged; obscenities, violence and disrupting services as well as profanation are not the right method of action,” Gadecki said in a statement. “I ask everyone to express their views in a socially acceptable way.”

With the outlawing of abortions for fetal defects, the only permissible cases for abortion in Poland are in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is threatened.

Abortion Intelwars Pregnancy Pro-Life washington dc Women's March

VIDEO: Women’s March protesters accost pregnant woman, allegedly tell her ‘your kid should be aborted’

Thousands of protesters gathered in Washington, D.C., amid the coronavirus pandemic on Saturday for the Women’s March 2020. One video from the event that is gaining attention online shows a pro-abortion protester accosting a pregnant anti-abortion demonstrator.

What happened?

According to Daily Caller reporter Matthew Miller, the pregnant demonstrator was playing the sound of her child’s heartbeat over a loudspeaker.

In response, one of the pro-abortion protesters said, “I would want to kill myself if I was that baby.” Other protesters laughed at the coarse remark.

When asked by a nearby reporter to explain herself, the Women’s March protester doubled down. “Imagine using your child for political s***. I’m saying if I was that child, I’d probably want to kill myself, yeah,” she said.

What did the pregnant woman say?

She told the reporter that she attended the protest because she wanted to show pro-abortion advocates that her unborn child is, in fact, a human being.

“To show that my daughter is a real human. Yes, she’s in my body. Yes, I’m responsible for her, but her life matters, too,” the woman said. “This march, they’re not marching for pre-born women. That’s why I’m here, and that’s why my daughter’s here, so that they can have a voice as well.”

The woman explained that protesters had been accosting her all day, telling her to “eff off,” “go home,” and “your kid should be aborted.”

“That’s disgusting, that’s not feminism,” the woman reacted. “We’re here to say, ‘Hey, we want all women to be included, whether they’re born, unborn, black, white, different opinions, different genders. We’re leaving women out.”

According to NPR, 10,000 attendees were permitted to be at Saturday’s left-wing Women March event, despite Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser prohibiting “mass gatherings of more than 50 people.”

Abortion dianne feinstein Intelwars Judiciary NARAL Replaced

Abortion rights group joins calls for Sen. Feinstein to be replaced as Judiciary ranking member

Abortion rights group NARAL has released a scathing statement calling for longtime Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) to be ousted from her position as ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, criticizing her for giving “credibility” to the hearings considering U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

What are the details?

Several Democratic operatives made public cries for Feinstein, 87, to step down from her leadership position on Thursday, after the Barrett hearings ended with the Democrat from California complimenting her Republican colleague, Chairman Lindsey Graham (S.C.), for conducting what she called “the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.”

Feinstein and Graham later embraced in a hug that was published in the media.

On Friday, NARAL jumped on the pile of progressives rallying for Feinstein to be gone, releasing a statement saying:

This nomination is illegitimate and this process is a sham. Tens of millions of Americans have already voted and majorities have said unequivocally that they want to choose the next President who should fill this seat. Amy Barrett and this power grab pose a grave threat to every freedom and right we hold dear and tears the very fabric of our democracy. Americans—whose lives hang in the balance—deserve leadership that underscores how unprecedented, shameful and wrong this process is. The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, failed to make this clear and in fact offered an appearance of credibility to the proceedings that is wildly out of step with the American people. As such, we believe the committee needs new leadership.”

The Washington Post noted that “the statement was all the more remarkable because Feinstein has been a longtime advocate of abortion rights. That has been recognized by NARAL — every year since 2016, Feinstein had received a 100 percent on the abortion rights group’s congressional scorecard, meaning that she sided with NARAL on its legislative priorities when it comes to reproductive rights.”

Anything else?

Freshman congresswoman and fellow California Democrat Rep. Katie Porter — whom some progressives have suggested would make a good replacement for Feinstein or Democratic vice presidential nominee California Sen. Kamala Harris —also issued a condemnation of Feinstein on Friday, but stopped short of calling outright for the 87-year-old to pulled as Judiciary ranking member.

“I disagree strongly with Sen. Feinstein that that set of hearings was one of the best or was even acceptable,” Porter told HuffPost in an interview. “I think Amy Coney Barrett did not answer basic questions about her beliefs and stonewalled repeatedly. We got many fewer direct answers than we have out of most Supreme Court hearings.”

Porter added, “I thought it was a very poor set of hearings.”

Abortion Fleetwood mac Intelwars pro choice Pro-Life Stevie nicks Stevie nicks abortion

Stevie Nicks claims if she hadn’t had an abortion, the world would have been deprived of Fleetwood Mac’s greatness

Singer-songwriter Stevie Nicks says that if she didn’t terminate her pregnancy in 1979, the world may not have known the greatness of Fleetwood Mac.

What are the details?

In a recent interview with The Guardian, Nicks, 72, said that her “generation’s fight” was “abortion rights.”

Nicks, who was dating the Eagles’ Don Henley, said she got pregnant with the couple’s child, but she opted to terminate the pregnancy because there was “no way” she could have had a child then.

“If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac,” she admitted. “There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs. … I would have had to walk away [from the band].”

Nicks explained that she believed her sacrifice was wholly important.

“I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts, and make people so happy,” she gushed. “And I thought: You know what? That’s really important. There’s not another band in the world that has two lead women singers, two lead women writers. That was my world’s mission.”

What else?

Nicks may be regretting her decision in her geriatric years, as she also complained that it was “annoying” so many men of her generation were able to “pair up with younger women and start families later in life.”

Nicks also admitted that she was too far into drugs at one point — specifically benzodiazepines — which ultimately deterred her from having a family.

“I always look back and think: What could I have done during that time?” Nicks lamented. “Made a Fleetwood Mac album or a solo record. I could have gotten married or had a baby or adopted one. Let me tell you, if anybody ever tries to put you on Klonopin, run screaming out of the room.”

She also complained that if President Donald Trump wins November’s reelection — “and puts the judge he wants in” — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett “will absolutely outlaw [abortion] and push women back into back-alley abortions.”

Abortion Amy coney barrett Intelwars Pro-Life prosecutors roe v wade

Amid ACB hearing, dozens of leftist prosecutors declare they won’t press charges for abortion even if Roe v. Wade is overturned

As Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court looms, dozens of leftist prosecutors from around the country signed onto a letter stating they will refuse to press charges for abortion even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Barrett, a pro-life appointee, is believed to favor striking down the controversial 1973 ruling should a challenge to it arise during her tenure — and that possibility evidently has abortion proponents spooked.

What are the details?

In the letter issued by Fair and Just Prosecution, 64 prosecutors ranging from local attorneys to state attorneys generally agree “not prosecute women who obtain abortions [or] health care professionals” who perform the procedures “even if the protections of Roe v. Wade were to be eroded or overturned.”

“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion,” the letter continues. “And not all of us are in states where women’s rights are threatened by statutes criminalizing abortion. What brings us together is our view that as prosecutors we should not and will not criminalize healthcare decisions such as these — and we believe it is our obligation as elected prosecutors charged with protecting the health and safety of all members of our community to make our views clear.”

According to Fair and Just Prosecution’s website, the organization aims to “bring together newly elected local prosecutors as part of a network of leaders committed to promoting a justice system grounded in fairness, equity, compassion, and fiscal responsibility.”

Anything else?

In the letter, the prosecutors specifically take aim at states like Idaho and Utah, which have recently passed so-called “trigger laws,” which would automatically ban most abortions if Roe were overturned.

Regarding these laws, the prosecutors state: “Doctors, nurses, anesthetists, health care providers, office receptionists — virtually anyone who either performs or assists in performing or arranging what is currently a legal medical procedure based on precedent for almost a half century — and in some states, even the patient herself, could face criminal liability under these statutes.”

But that statement may be misleading. At the least, it’s important to note that even if Roe were to be overturned, abortions would not become illegal unless state legislatures passed laws making them illegal in that state.

As for who would be criminally liable for still performing abortions, that would likely need to be further litigated.

(H/T: Forbes)

Abortion Girlhood exhibit Intelwars margaret sanger Planned Parenthood Smithsonian Smithsonian girlhood

Smithsonian ‘Girlhood’ exhibit features Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and a transgender reality TV star

The Smithsonian Institute declared 2020 to be the “Year of the Woman,” to commemorate the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage. The Smithsonian Institute celebrated the “Year of the Woman” by opening an exhibition at the National Museum of American History titled “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)” on Friday.

The description by the Smithsonian Institute on its new “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)” exhibit, “The history of girlhood is not what people think; it is complicated. Young women are often told that girls are ‘made of sugar and spice and everything nice.’ What we learn from the past is that girls are made of stronger stuff. They changed history.”

The 5,000-square-foot gallery features five sections: Education (Being Schooled), Wellness (Body Talk), Work (Hey, Where’s My Girlhood?), and Fashion (Girl’s Remix).

The “Girlhood” exhibit has its own page on the website for the National Museum of American History, where there is a “Talking About Sex” section. There are subsections, including “Teaching about Reproduction,” “Sex Ed vs. Abstinence,” “Experimenting on Girls of Color,” and “Birth Control.”

Near the top of the page is a biography of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, that reads, “Margaret Sanger, a writer and nurse, advocated for girls to know and control their own bodies – but only certain girls. Sanger believed that women who were poor or who had mental disabilities should not have children, in order to promote a ‘healthy’ society.'”

The Smithsonian Institute calls Sanger “complicated.” “While eugenics was popular in Sanger’s time, today such ideas are offensive for devaluing certain lives. How do we reckon with this important but complicated historical figure?”

The “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)” website features a “Not Checking the Boxes” section that starts off by saying, “Sometimes gender isn’t revealed at birth.” The section discusses a person named “Ryan” who “was born intersex.”

“Growing up, he was called by a name traditionally given to girls. But he adopted his name because he felt he possessed ‘a girl body and a boy brain,'” it says.

“Ryan’s story shows how checking boxes as male or female is limited,” the Smithsonian Institute states. “Those boxes could never fully capture the complex realities of one’s gender and sexuality.”

The “Embracing Yourself” section features Jazz Jennings, a transgender reality TV star of the TLC show “I Am Jazz.”

“She shares her girlhood with millions of Americans on television and reminds us that girls can be assigned male at birth and that girlhood comes in many forms,” the Smithsonian Institute says. “Jazz always knew she ‘was a girl trapped in a boy’s body.’ As a toddler, she felt a roar of emotions at not being able to communicate what she was experiencing.”

In the “News and Politics” section of the website, it pays tribute to Naomi Wadler, an anti-gun activist who spoke at the 2018 “March for Our Lives” event at age 11.

NMAH Presents: Girlhood (It’s Complicated) Virtual Opening Event

Abortion Amy coney barrett Election 2020 Intelwars Joe Biden nbc news roe v wade Town Hall

Joe Biden: If I’m elected, Roe v. Wade will become enshrined in federal law

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden reiterated his position Monday that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision must “remain the law of the land,” stating that he intends to codify the Supreme Court decision protecting abortion if he wins the presidency.

Biden, answering a question about abortion and Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination at an NBC News town hall Monday night in Miami, said he would encourage Congress to “pass legislation making Roe the law of the land” if the Senate confirms Barrett to the Supreme Court.

“Number one, we don’t know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she may very well overrule Roe, and the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land,” Biden said. “That’s what I would do.”


Progressive Democrats fear Barrett’s confirmation to the high court would create a 6-3 conservative majority that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Conservatives have enthusiastically supported Barrett’s nomination as a fulfillment of President Trump’s promise to only nominate pro-life judges to federal courts. Many conservatives hope Barrett will vote to overturn Roe‘s precedent if an abortion case comes before the court, which would end the nationwide legalization of abortion and return the issue to the state level, where local governments would be able to permit or restrict abortion as voters see fit.

Since her nomination, Barrett has come under attack from the left for her Catholic faith and for her support for the right to life for the unborn.

Biden’s promise to make Roe v. Wade federal law would face several hurdles in Congress. First, Biden would almost certainly need Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate to advance any of his legislative priorities, abortion included. Secondly, a hypothetical Democratic majority in the Senate would still need to contend with the legislative filibuster, which a hypothetical Republican minority would doubtlessly use to try to kill any bills protecting Roe.

While many Democrats have called for ending the filibuster since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death left an opening on the Supreme Court, Biden refuses to give an answer when the question is posed to him. Biden has also refused to say whether he would support a Democratic-led effort to pack the Supreme Court should Barrett be confirmed before a new president is inaugurated.

Previously, Biden has gone on the record opposing both reforms, leaving in question how he actually intends to keep this promise to codify Roe v. Wade should he win the presidency.

Abortion Intelwars North Texas Pro-life memorial Students vandalize Vandalize pro-life memorial

Liberal students vandalize, steal signs from pro-life memorial at Texas university

A group of students vandalized a pro-life memorial at the University of North Texas on Wednesday, ripping flags and signs from the ground that were placed on the school’s lawn to memorialize babies killed by abortion procedures.

Earlier that evening, members of the school’s chapter of Young Conservatives of Texas had gathered to place 1,000 flags on the school’s property, according to a statement released by the organization. Each flag reportedly represented 60,000 babies killed by abortions since the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. The memorial display was approved by the school.

But only a few short hours after the display was constructed, student vandals descended on it to take it down. The vandals had apparently organized and planned their actions earlier in the day as some of them tweeted about their intentions.

“Can’t wait to spend a Wednesday night ripping out a [sic] 1000 flags,” one Twitter user said, while several others allegedly shared her sentiments.

“Looks like I’ll be tearing them up,” threatened another, according to a report by The Tower.

One individual reportedly even sent a direct message to Young Conservatives President Kelly Neidert encouraging her to kill herself.

Image Source: Twitter screenshot

“I was shocked to see my peers so openly desecrating our abortion memorial,” Neidert said in a statement. “The memorial was intended to give a visual representation of lives lost from abortion in a meaningful way. The students had planned this beforehand and had ‘capture the flag’ teams ready to take the flags down. We called campus police but by the time they showed up, everything had been taken or damaged. Overall it was a horrible thing to see.”

Videos posted on social media show the vandals stealing the flags as well as signs that reportedly read “abortion is murder,” “unborn lives matter,” and “overturn Roe v. Wade.”

University of North Texas Student Activists Destroy Pro-Life Memorial

One vandal shouted, “it’s a woman’s choice!” and “we should let women choose!” as he walked away from the display with flags in hand.

Content Warning: rough language

Ultimately, “more than 350 flags were stolen and multiple signs were taken from the display,” the conservative group noted in its news release. “Chairwoman Kelly Niedert was informed by campus police that an individual had been apprehended and cited for theft of the flags.”

Abortion Acb Amy coney barrett Intelwars Media Pro-Life Supreme Court

Progressives attack Amy Coney Barrett for signing letter opposing abortion in 2006

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is facing renewed attacks for signing a letter in 2006 that endorsed Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life and called for an end to Roe v. Wade.

The letter, reported by the Daily Beast and The Guardian, was sponsored by St. Joseph County Right to Life, a pro-life group based in Indiana, and was published in a newspaper advertisement. Barrett and her husband, Jesse, signed the letter along with hundreds of other people in 2006, when Barrett was working as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

The advertisement, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune, stated: “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

“Please continue to pray to end abortion,” it said under many signatures.

On a separate page, St. Joseph County Right published a commentary on the organization’s position regarding Roe vs. Wade.

“The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion for any reason,” the commentary said. “Now, after more than thirty-two years under Roe more than 47 million unborn children have been aborted. The majority of those abortions were performed for social reasons. Yet poll after poll continues to show that an increasing majority of Americans are opposed to abortion as a method of birth control. And in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that Roe v. Wade allowed and protected the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure — a practice opposed by over 70% of all Americans.

“It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children,” the message concluded.

The Guardian’s report identified St. Joseph County Right to Life as “an extreme anti-choice group.” It also called out the pro-life group for supporting the criminalization of abortionists and the criminalization of discarding frozen embryos created in the in vitro fertilization process.

Jackie Appleman, the executive director of St. Joseph County Right to Life, told the Guardian in an interview that the organization believes in Catholic doctrine that teaches life begins at conception.

“Whether embryos are implanted in the woman and then selectively reduced or it’s done in a petri dish and then discarded, you’re still ending a new human life at that point and we do oppose that,” Appleman said.

“We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions. At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women. We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF process,” she said.

Barrett’s public signature on the 2006 advertisement “is likely to lead to new questions about how Barrett’s personal views on abortion may not only shape reproductive rights in the US for decades to come if she is confirmed by the Senate, but how her appointment could affect legal rights for women undergoing fertility treatment, as well as their doctors,” the Guardian said.

The letter Barrett signed does not mention IVF, or criminalizing abortionists. Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out for National Review that Barrett and the other signatories signed only the statement opposing abortion on demand and supporting the right to life, not the commentary on the legacy of Roe v. Wade.

Yet, the Guardian reported, “Barrett’s public embrace of a strict anti-choice position will nevertheless fuel concerns of progressives and pro-choice Americans about what the 48-year-old judge’s confirmation to the supreme court will mean for abortion rights once conservatives gain a 6-3 majority on the court.”

Progressives are indeed concerned. Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, declared “everything is at stake” with Barrett’s nomination.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) labeled Barrett an “extremist” and claimed, without evidence, she “wants to put women in prison for exercising control of their bodies.”

Author Lauren Rankin said Senate Republicans want to nominate an extremist to the court.

Hillary Clinton’s former senior adviser Zac Petkanas said Barrett’s signature on that letter is “disqualifying” for the Supreme Court.

Abortion Baltimore planned parenthood Black Lives Matter Black preborn lives matter BLM Intelwars Planned Parenthood

Pro-life activists converge on Baltimore Planned Parenthood, paint ‘Black Preborn Lives Matter’ on street outside

Pro-life activists painted “Black Preborn Lives Matter” outside of a Baltimore, Maryland, Planned Parenthood on Saturday.

Activists arrived to begin the day’s work around 5 a.m. local time.

What are the details?

As reported by The Washington Times, multiple groups of pro-life activists — Students for Life of America, the Frederick Douglass Foundation, and the Human Coalition — banded together to paint the message on the street outside of the facility on Howard Street in Baltimore.

Following the job, the demonstrators held up a sign reading, “President Trump, Help Us Save Lives. Defund Planned Parenthood.”

In a statement, the Students for Life of America said “About 13% of American women are black, but they submit to over 38% of all abortions. This is exactly why we say #BlackPrebornLivesMatter. Black women and their preborn children MUST be protected from the atrocity of abortion.”

In August, the groups informed Democratic Baltimore Mayor Bernard Young in a letter of their intention to paint the phrase on the street, citing previous instances of activists painting streets with phrases such as “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police.”

The groups reasoned that Young should permit such a move in light of previous demonstrations.

“Your original decision to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ on the street may very well be government speech,” a portion of the letter read according to the outlet. “However, your decision to allow private citizens to paint additional messages such as ‘Defund the Police’ and ‘Black Trans Lives Matter’ and to intervene on behalf of a public display of another’s speech indicates that public areas are now an open forum for free speech.”

In August, Washington, D.C., authorities prevented the groups from painting the message in front of the city’s Planned Parenthood facility on 4th Street NE. Authorities also arrested two members of the group who wrote the message in chalk on the sidewalk instead.

“Fortunately, the event was far more in line with the constitution than our attempt to paint the street with the same message in Washington, D.C.,” Students for Life said of the Baltimore demonstration. “There, two of our students were arrested not for painting, but for sidewalk chalking. Six cop cars were there to meet us in our nation’s capital, doing the bidding of pro-abortion Mayor Muriel Bowser.”

Students for Life shared an aerial shot of the artistry, writing, “Student [sic] for Life and Frederick Douglass Foundation joined with local Baltimore pro-life activists outside the Planned Parenthood to paint on the street early this morning! #BlackPrebornLivesMatter[.]”

Abby johnson Abortion Faith Intelwars RNC Rnc 2020 Rnc convention Rnc speakers

‘It’s … graphic’: Abby Johnson unveils preview of ‘provocative’ RNC abortion speech

Pro-life advocate Abby Johnson offered up a preview of her upcoming Republican National Convention speech during a recent interview with “The Church Boys Podcast,” explaining that she’s hoping her five-minute address will be stirring, memorable — and convicting.

“I felt a lot of pressure to make the most provocative, impassioned, memorable pro-life … speech ever made,” she told hosts Chris Field, Lucas Miles, and Billy Hallowell.

(Read also: Ex-Abortion Workers Reveal Why They Became Pro-Life)

Johnson, whose personal story of converting from a Planned Parenthood clinic director to one of America’s most famous pro-life activists was told through the movie “Unplanned,” didn’t go into detail about the specific contents of her speech, which she will deliver Tuesday. But she did note that “it’s pretty graphic.”

Listen to Johnson preview her RNC speech at the 9-minute mark (and unveil details about her new podcast, “Politely Rude”):

“I was talking to my husband and I said, ‘They could have asked a lot of people. There are a lot of great pro-life speakers out there and they asked me,'” Johnson said, noting that her “lived experience” is what differentiates her from many others in the pro-life speaker circuit.

She has been a “part of abortion” in the past and has seen it first-hand — something those who saw “Unplanned” know all too well.

(Read also: 5 Pro-Life Movies You Can Watch Now)

Now, Johnson is hoping to make a profound impact through her speech, leaving the audience with a deeply stirring message about the true nature and impact of abortion.

“I feel like people are going to listen to this 5-minute speech and they’re going to walk away,” she said. “And they’re not going to ever be able to say, ‘Wow, we had no idea that those things happen during abortion.’ They’re going to know.”

Johnson added that she likes “shocking people out of their apathy and into action.”

This article was written by Pure Flix Insider. Visit Pure Flix for access to thousands of faith and family-friendly movies and TV shows. You can get a free trial here.

Abortion Catholic priest Democratic National Convention dnc Intelwars James Martin Jesuit Pro-Life Unborn children

Catholic priest prays for God to ‘open our hearts’ to unborn children in DNC closing prayer

A Catholic priest mentioned the sanctity of life and prayed for hearts to be opened to unborn children at the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night, a message that aligns with Catholic beliefs but is rarely, if ever, espoused by members of the Democratic Party establishment.

Father James Martin, a Jesuit, prayed for a variety of people, asking God to “open our hearts to those most in need.”

“Loving God, open our hearts to those most in need,” Martin began. “The unemployed parent worried about feeding his or her children. The woman who is underpaid, harassed or abused. The black man or woman who fear for their lives. The immigrant at the border, longing for safety. The homeless person looking for a meal. The LGBT teen who is bullied.”

“The unborn child in the womb,” Martin continued. “The inmate on death row. Help us to be a nation where every life is sacred, all people are loved, and all are welcome. Amen.”

A Catholic priest advocating for the sanctity of unborn life isn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be surprising. However, the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion has gotten increasingly liberal in recent years, to the point where a politician who advocates for any limitation on abortion rights faces criticism from the left.

Abortion rights have been rebranded in the Democratic Party platform under the label “reproductive health, rights, and justice.”

“Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice,” the party’s 2020 platform reads. “We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.”

The platform goes on to advocate for restoring full federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, and repealing the Hyde Amendment, which currently prohibits the use of federal funding for abortion in most cases.

Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who publicly professes to be a Catholic, said in June 2019 that he supported the ban on federal funding for abortion. The revelation kicked off a firestorm of criticism from other Democrats and pro-abortion advocates, so one day later, he totally flipped his stance to support repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

In October 2019, Biden was denied communion at Saint Anthony Catholic Church over his abortion advocacy. The priest, Father Robert Morey, said “any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching,” CNN reported.

Biden has said he personally opposes abortion, but doesn’t believe he has the right to tell women what to do on the matter.

Abortion Black Lives Matter Chloe clark First Amendment gay marriage Intelwars Iowa Iowa State University

Iowa State prof forbids students to disagree with BLM, abortion. University takes action.

Iowa State University administrators took action this week after an English teacher forbade her students to disagree with abortion, gay marriage, and the Black Lives Matter movement.

What happened?

Students who signed up for ISU assistant professor Chloe Clark’s English 250 class for the fall semester learned in their syllabus that they would be “dismissed” from class if they argued against “gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter.”

The syllabus stated:

GIANT WARNING: any instances of othering that you participate in intentionally (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, sorophobia, transphobia, classism, mocking of mental health issues, body shaming, etc) in class are grounds for dismissal from the classroom. The same goes for any papers/projects: you cannot choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc). I take this seriously.

Further, Clark wrote in the syllabus that her class will discuss books that “may contain violent or disturbing imagery” and offered to provide students with a “trigger warning.”

“If, at any point, you would like a Trigger Warning before viewings/readings that may contain this imagery, please let me know and I’m happy to provide them!” she wrote

Clark’s syllabus generated attention after a concerned student leaked the document to Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative student advocacy organization.

How did the university respond?

The university acknowledged the syllabus is inconsistent with students’ First Amendment rights and has been updated.

Further, the university said Clark is undergoing constitutional education.

Here’s the complete statement, according to YAF:

The syllabus statement as written was inconsistent with the university’s standards and its commitment to the First Amendment rights of students. After reviewing this issue with the faculty member, the syllabus has been corrected to ensure it is consistent with university policy. Moreover, the faculty member is being provided additional information regarding the First Amendment policies of the university.

Iowa State is firmly committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of its students, faculty, and staff. With respect to student expression in the classroom, including the completion of assignments, the university does not take disciplinary action against students based on the content or viewpoints expressed in their speech.

Clark has been an assistant professor in the English department at ISU since last August, according to her LinkedIn page. She previously worked there as a lecturer.

Abortion bill gates Global News Government Intelwars margaret sanger Politics Society U.S.

Fact Check: Progressive Hero Margaret Sanger Was a Racist Eugenicist (Corbett Report Must-Watch Video) – #PlannedParenthood #Eugenics

* * * Please support I. U. PayPal: Donate in USD PayPal: Donate in EUR PayPal: Donate in GBP

Abortion eugenics Intelwars Videos

Fact Check: Progressive Hero Margaret Sanger Was a Racist Eugenicist

Planned Parenthood are erasing Margaret Sanger’s name from their Manhattan Health Center . . . but they won’t tell you why. On today’s fact check, James verifies the truth about Sanger and the real racist and eugenicist roots of Planned Parenthood that are not being explored in the establishment corporate PR.

Abortion Intelwars John Roberts Josh hawley Pro-Life roe v wade Senate Supreme Court

Sen. Josh Hawley: I won’t support any Supreme Court nominee who won’t say Roe was ‘wrongly decided’ — ‘and I don’t care who nominates them’

Rumors have swirled that President Donald Trump could get the chance to nominate a third member of the Supreme Court later this year. One Republican senator — and member of Judiciary Committee — is making it clear that any nominee sent to the upper chamber must oppose Roe v. Wade to get his support.

In an interview with the Washington Post Sunday, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he would not support any nominee who was not publicly on record — before being nominated — that Roe, which declared women had the right to abortion nationwide, was “wrongly decided.”

“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided,” Hawley told the Post.

And because nominees are often lauded by individual senators for what the would-be justices tell them in private one-on-one conversations in their personal offices, Hawley made it clear that any nominee that he would support will have to have made their stance clear before being presented to the Senate.

“By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated,” he said.

Ongoing fight

Knowing a nominee’s position on Roe has been a leading issue in Senate hearings for years. The left wants judges who will say that Roe is “settled law” that the high court should not change … ever — a sort of super stare decisis. Which means pro-Roe judges can share how they would rule on cases related to the infamous abortion ruling.

However, any nominee who might consider Roe to be “wrongly decided” is considered prudent for not sharing that viewpoint publicly if he wants to be confirmed.

Hawley has had enough of that.

“I don’t want private assurances from candidates,” the senator said. “I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”

Hawley’s position does not come as much of a surprise: Most political watchers expect him to make a run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, and it’s important to establish his conservative bona fides now.

Also, Hawley once served as a Supreme Court clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, who has drawn the ire of many conservatives who have felt betrayed by his record while on the high court — from his oft-criticized Obamacare ruling to his most recent controversial decision rejecting a Nevada church’s plea to host more parishioners.

Roberts set off pro-lifers in June with his deciding vote in Medical Services v. Russo, which struck down a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The chief justice made a stare decisis argument to support his vote, saying his position to strike down the Louisiana law was based on a 2016 ruling that struck down a similar Texas law (Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt); however, Roberts was a dissenting vote in the Texas case.

It was at Roberts’ 2005 nomination hearing that the late Sen. Arlen Specter famously asked Roberts if he thought Roe would qualify for “super stare decisis,” a term that the then-nominee correctly noted wasn’t a thing in Supreme Court opinions … “yet.” Specter later pressed Roberts again, asking if “Roe might be a super-duper precedent,” but Roberts, who said he did support stare decisis, wouldn’t share his thoughts on the merits of Roe itself.

And since the Roberts hearings, explicit public support for protecting Roe has been paramount to the left.

Hawley wants that to change going forward.

“Roe is central to judicial philosophy,” he told the Post. “Roe is and was an unbridled act of judicial imperialism. It marks the point the modern Supreme Court said, ‘You know, we don’t have to follow the Constitution. We won’t even pretend to try.'”

His position likely won’t thrill pro-choice fellow Republican senators, namely Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who have long opposed SCOTUS picks they believed were hostile to Roe and notably supported Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh after he assured Collins that he agreed with Roberts on Roe.

But Hawley isn’t playing.

“This standard, for me, applies to Supreme Court nominees, whether they’re a sitting judge or whatever,” he said. “If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them.”

“And I don’t care who nominates them,” Hawley added.

2020 Election 2020 presidential election Abortion Democratic National Convention democratic party Intelwars Pro-Life

Pro-life Democrats warn their party as convention nears: Cut the radical pro-abortion platform, or it will cost us in November

As the Democratic National Committee prepares for its 2020 national convention scheduled for Aug. 17-20, they’re being warned by the pro-life members in their ranks: Temper the radical abortion language in the party’s platform — or it will cost us come November.

What’s the history?

In July 2016, with Hillary Clinton as its nominee, the Democratic Party adopted its most extreme position on abortion to date. For the first time ever, the DNC officially called for federal taxpayer funding of abortions — and it upset a lot of the then 32% of Democrats who considered themselves pro-life.

In 1996, the party — under Bill Clinton, who twice vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban — at least called for making abortion “less necessary” and “more rare.”

They even declared that pro-life Democrats were welcome: “The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party.”

What’s the warning?

Now pro-life Democrats are warning their party to take a more temperate stance on abortion or the party will alienate religious voters, the Associated Press first reported.

A letter from the Christian group Democrats for Life sent to the DNC on Friday called on the party to jettison the call for taxpayer funding for abortions. It stated, in part:

Inspired by the Christian faith, we note that the Bible calls on us to speak up in favor of those who do not have a voice (Proverbs 31:8-9; Matthew 25:45). We also note that life begins at fertilization (Psalm 22:10- 11; Galatians 1:15; Luke 1:41; Psalm 139:13-15; Jeremiah 1:5). Finally, we note that abortion takes the life of the innocent, which is against Scripture (Exodus 20:13; 2 Kings 17:17; Deuteronomy 5:17; Revelation 22:15; Psalm 106:38; Proverbs 6:17).

Informed by human reason, we recall that 95% of biologists affirm the biological view that life begins at fertilization. Likewise, we recall the opinion of leading scholars, who have rejected Roe v. Wade as “bad constitutional law.”

We recall that denying personhood to the pre-born child has disturbing parallels to Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Sadly, the US is just one of seven countries, alongside North Korea, to allow the horrific practice of elective late-term abortion after 20 weeks.

The letter also asked the party to stop having a pro-abortion litmus test for Democratic politicians.

“We call upon you to recognize the inviolable human dignity of the child, before and after birth,” Democrats for Life wrote. “We urge you to reject a litmus test on pro-life people of faith seeking office in the Democratic Party.”

“Crucially, we urge you to end the explicit support in your platform for abortion extremism, such as taxpayer-funded abortion in America and overseas, opposed by 60% and 76% of voters,” they added.

The letter cited a Marist Poll from January that found 60% of voters oppose using taxes to pay for Americans’ abortions, and 76% of voters oppose using tax dollars to fund abortions in other countries. The poll also revealed that only 21% of Americans are OK with allowing elective abortion on demand at any time during an entire pregnancy.

“79% of voters oppose elective abortion on demand, including, but not limited to, many people of faith,” the letter concluded. “They deserve a home in the Democratic Party.”

The AP noted that the signatories included longtime Tennessee state Rep. John DeBerry, who in April was scratched from the Democratic primary ballot in part because of his votes against the DNC’s position on abortion, and the Rev. Gabriel Salguero, who heads the National Latino Evangelical Coalition and served on former President Barack Obama’s faith-based advisory council.

Democrats for Life Executive Director Kristen Day told the AP that the group’s work this year will be “a much bigger effort” than their failed attempts to sway party leadership in 2016. More from the AP:

Day also warned that the addition of another position [presumptive Democratic nominee Joe] Biden has backed — codification of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling — would alienate anti-abortion religious voters.

Biden is “a little bit ahead” of where Hillary Clinton was in 2016 in terms of faith-based voter outreach, Day said, but the prospect that the Democratic platform would back codification of Roe “would just massively damage relationships with religious voters who don’t necessarily want to see that.”

Day said that “it’s hugely important for the campaign and Vice President Biden to understand” just how important the upcoming DNC vote on the abortion language for the platform truly is for religious pro-life Democrats.

“It shouldn’t be taken for granted,” she warned.

Abortion Divorce Intelwars kanye west Kim Kardashian Kris jenner Social Media white supremacy

Kanye West accuses wife Kim Kardashian of white supremacy by attempting to hospitalize him

Rapper Kanye West went on another Twitter tirade Tuesday night, saying that his wife, Kim Kardashian, and her mother are engaging in white supremacy by speaking out against him.

On Monday night, West
told his Twitter followers that Kardashian was trying to involuntarily commit him after he claimed that the two considered aborting their first child, North West.

West made the tearful remarks during a campaign rally in Charleston, South Carolina, over the weekend.

What are the details?

West, clearly agitated, revealed, “Kris and Kim put out a statement without my approval…that’s not what a wife should do. White supremacy.”

Elsewhere during the rant, West said that his family is trying to hospitalize him, and insisted that he’s been trying to divorce Kardashian.

“They tried to fly in with 2 doctors to 51/50 me,” he
wrote. “I been trying to get divorced since Kim met with [rapper] Meek [Mill] at the Warldorf [sic] for prison reform.”

West has since deleted all of the tweets in question.

The news comes on the heels of reports that Kardashian was reportedly irate over West’s remarks during the presidential rally in South Carolina.

West announced his presidential bid on July 5. Though he missed the deadline to qualify for the ballot in several states, he was able to appear as a candidate on Oklahoma’s presidential ballot and hosted the Charleston rally on Sunday.

You can see the tweets below.

Anything else?

The New York Post cites a Kardashian source who said that the couple’s marriage could be in very serious trouble amid West’s latest behavior.

“I don’t know if they can survive it,” the source said, calling the situation “really bad.”

Despite West’s protests, the source added that the family “has such compassion for him right now,” and that “anger is not a motivation” in any help the family may be attempting to provide to West.

“The family is trying to work out what to do,” the source said, “and hoping that this nightmare will be over soon and they can get Kanye into treatment.”

Abortion abortion clinic Disavow eugenics Intelwars margaret sanger New York City Planned Parenthood Racism

Planned Parenthood to remove founder Margaret Sanger’s name from NYC clinic because she supported racist eugenics

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York will remove the name of Margaret Sanger — a founder of the organization — from its Manhattan clinic due to her “harmful connections to the eugenics movement,” the New York Times reported Tuesday.

What are the details?

A public health nurse, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in Brooklyn in 1916, the paper said, adding that since then she’s been lionized as a feminist icon and reproductive rights pioneer.

In front of the Sanger Clinic on Amber Street in Brooklyn, October 1916, which became Planned Parenthood of America. Photo by Underwood Archives/Getty Images

But the Times reported that Sanger also supported eugenics. The paper defined it as “a discredited belief in improving the human race through selective breeding, often targeted at poor people, those with disabilities, immigrants and people of color.”

“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” Karen Seltzer, the chair of the New York affiliate’s board, said in a Tuesday statement, the paper added.

Planned Parenthood also is talking to city leaders about replacing Sanger’s name on a street sign — Margaret Sanger Square — near its offices on Bleecker Street, the Times said, adding that Planned Parenthood of Greater New York lobbied for the Sanger street sign after moving its offices there over two decades ago.

More from the paper:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the national organization, has defended Ms. Sanger in the past, citing her work with Black leaders in the 1930s and 1940s. As recently as 2016, the group issued a fact sheet saying that while it condemned some of her beliefs, she had mostly been well intentioned in trying to make birth control accessible for poor and immigrant communities.

The national organization said in the fact sheet that it disagreed with Ms. Sanger’s decision to speak to members of the Ku Klux Klan in 1926 as she tried to spread her message about birth control.

It also condemned her support for policies to sterilize people who had disabilities that could not be treated; for banning immigrants with disabilities; and for “placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope fiends on farms and in open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.”

The national Planned Parenthood offices said in a statement that it supports the New York chapter’s decision to remove Sanger’s name from the clinic, the Times said, adding that while there’s no sign on the clinic, it had been identified internally and publicly with Sanger’s name. Now the clinic will be called the Manhattan Health Center, the paper said.

There are still Sanger fans out there

Ellen Chesler — author of a Sanger biography and senior fellow at a think tank called the Roosevelt Institute — told the Times that Sanger’s views have been misinterpreted.

Chesler added to the paper that Sanger rejected some eugenics tenets, including that white middle-class families should have more children than others, and instead believed that the quality of all children’s lives could be improved if parents had smaller families. She also noted to the Times that Sanger believed black people and immigrants had a right to that better life.

“Her motives were the opposite of racism,” Chesler told the paper while citing Sanger’s relationships with prominent black leaders such as W.E.B. Du Bois.

Agreeing with anti-abortion conservatives?

In disavowing Sanger, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York now finds itself agreeing — on at least one point — with anti-abortion conservatives such as Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and federal HUD Secretary Ben Carson, both of whom have questioned Planned Parenthood for its connection to a eugenics proponent, the Times said.

But Merle McGee, the New York chapter’s chief equity and engagement officer, told the paper it won’t concern itself with conservatives’ reaction.

“We’re not going to obliterate her,” McGee added to the Times. “If we obliterate her, we cannot reckon with her.”

Anything else?

Amid the furious movement since George Floyd’s killing to cancel historical figures who owned slaves or otherwise held racist views, the National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis earlier this month asked, “How Long Will Margaret Sanger Last?

In fact, DeSanctis pointed out that in June, “more than 350 current and former staffers of Planned Parenthood’s Greater New York affiliate — along with several hundred donors and volunteers — published an open letter condemning Sanger as ‘a racist, white woman’ and arguing that the organization is guilty of ‘institutional racism.'”

Upon hearing the news that the clinic is removing Sanger’s name, DeSanctis tweeted that “it’s great that one Planned Parenthood affiliate has finally decided to admit that Margaret Sanger was icky. But isn’t it a sign of our upside-down world that they’ll apologize for having the name of a racist on their building while continuing to kill 350K unborn children a year?”

DeSanctis in her National Review piece added that “if removing offensive statues is the new norm, perhaps the bust of Sanger in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery should be the next to go.”

Image source: YouTube screenshot

A group of black pastors and pro-life leaders in 2015 demanded that the gallery remove the Sanger bust over her eugenics support, but the gallery reportedly said no:

Call to remove bust of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger

Abortion christian Commentary Intelwars Moral Crisis Politics Pro-Life

1.5 Billion Children Are Dead – What Is The Appropriate Sentence For Such A Crime?

One out of every six people in the world is missing.  If 1.5 billion children had not been systematically killed over the past 50 years, the total population of the planet would be 9 billion instead of the current level of 7.5 billion.  And of course I am not even counting the children and the grandchildren that the missing 1.5 billion would have had if they had been allowed to grow up.  There have been other great genocides throughout human history, but there has never been one that has literally wiped out one-sixth of humanity.  Virtually every nation in the world has eagerly participated in this horrific genocide, and that arguably makes us the most evil generation to ever walk the face of the Earth.

So what would the appropriate punishment be for killing 1.5 billion children?

Not a lot of people think about this.  In fact, most of those that approve of all this killing think that they are totally going to get away with it.

These days, even most Christians seem to think that there won’t be any consequences for all of the great evil that we see throughout our society.  According to them, it really doesn’t matter that virtually every form of evil imaginable is exploding all around us, because America and the rest of the globe are heading into a golden new era of peace and prosperity that will be greater than anything we have ever seen before whether there is repentance or not.

I am sorry, but it simply does not work that way.

The other day I got an email from one of these believers.  He was all upset that my articles were not more “positive”, and I guess he wanted some sort of an explanation.

1.5 billion children are dead and great wickedness is running rampant everywhere we look.  Does he actually believe that this is going to lead to a positive ending to our story?

The modern era of abortion began in 1970 when some U.S. states began to pass laws legalizing the practice.  The following comes from Wikipedia

In 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the woman,[146] and New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska and Washington. A law in Washington, D.C., which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that “health” meant “psychological and physical well-being”, essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama and Massachusetts allowed abortions only in cases where the woman’s physical health was endangered.

The landmark judicial ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The immediate result was that all state laws to the contrary were null. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy.

Today, the U.S. government gives Planned Parenthood more than 500 million dollars a year through the regular budgetary process, and this has continued year after year no matter what political party has had control in Washington.

And year after year the federal government has also funded “scientific research” on the organs that are harvested from the children that Planned Parenthood kills.

Over time, almost every nation on Earth has followed the lead of the United States and has legalized abortion.  According to Life Institute, this has resulted in more than 1.5 billion abortions over the last 50 years…

  • More than 1.5 BILLION babies have been aborted worldwide in the past 50 years.[i]
  • An estimated 50 million abortions are carried out throughout the world every year.[ii]
  • One in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.[iii]
  • Approximately 90% of Down syndrome babies are aborted worldwide.[iv]
  • 42% of all yearly deaths in the world are from abortion.[v]
  • Every two seconds a baby is aborted – every time your heartbeats a baby dies. [vi]
  • Baby girls are a particular target of abortion: at least 100 million girls have already been wiped out through gendercide – the deliberate targeting of baby girls for abortion.[vii]
  • In 2011 the Wall Street Journal reported that 163 MILLION babies were aborted simply because they were girls. They called it “The war against girls.” [viiib]

If 50 million abortions continue to be performed year after year around the globe, that would put us on a pace for 2.5 billion abortions over the next 50 years.

But I don’t believe that will happen, because I don’t believe that God will let us get that far.

Of course that are some voices that are speaking out about all of this, but they are always greatly criticized.  For example, Kanye West spoke out against abortion during a rally that he held on Sunday

At the rally in North Charleston, S.C., on Sunday, West spoke about how he and his wife discussed the pregnancy of their first child, daughter North “Nori” West.  They considered abortion at one point and Kardashian even had “the pills in her hand,” pills that cause an abortion, said West.

West cited the Bible, stating, “In the Bible, it says, ‘Thou shall not kill.’” He then described calling his wife one day during the pregnancy and she said to him, “We’re gonna have this baby,” and he replied, “We’re gonna have this child.”

Sadly, the mainstream media responded to his rally by claiming that he has mental health problems and by suggesting that his wife may want to divorce him.

As I have warned so many times before, if we stay on the path that we are currently on, there is no future for America.

At one time, the United States was a Christian nation and a tremendous light to the rest of the world.  But as Jonathan Cahn has pointed out, just like ancient Israel we have greatly fallen away…

“Israel was consecrated from its birth to the purposes of God,” Cahn writes. “It had known more, been blessed more and thus fallen more. And to whom much is given, much is required. And so Israel was more accountable, and thus its judgment more severe. America was likewise consecrated from its foundation to the purposes of God. And America has, likewise, been given more and so has more greatly fallen.”

When my new book comes out later this month, many of you may wonder why God would allow such terrible things to happen to our world.

At whatever point in the book you have that thought, come back to this article and read it again.

1.5 billion children are dead, and it is difficult to imagine a sentence that would be too harsh for what we have done.

About the Author: I am a voice crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep. My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing those books you help to support my work. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “About the Author” section with each article. In order to comply with those government regulations, I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Abortion Christianity God Intelwars kanye west Kim Kardashian North west Parenting Pro-Life Videos

Kanye West sobs, ‘I almost killed my daughter’ with abortion, says God stopped him. His family is ‘seriously concerned’ for his mental health now.

The family of rapper and supposed presidential candidate Kanye West, according to TMZ, is “seriously concerned” over West’s Sunday appearance at a South Carolina rally and reportedly says that the Christian entertainer is in the middle of a very serious bipolar episode.

West broke down in tears during his first campaign rally for the 2020 presidential election and claimed that he almost aborted his daughter.

West announced his presidential bid on July 5, but having missed the deadline to qualify for the ballot in several states, he qualified to appear on Oklahoma’s presidential ballot.

What did he say that’s reportedly got them so upset?

At the Sunday night rally in Charleston, South Carolina, West sobbed, saying that he had pressured his wife, Kim Kardashian, to abort their child North West in the months following the news of Kardashian’s pregnancy.

“I almost killed my daughter!” he shrieked. “I almost killed my daughter!”

“I was having the rapper’s lifestyle,” he recalled. “I was sitting up in Paris, and I had my leather pants on. … I had my laptop up, and I got all of my creative ideas. … And then the screen went black and white and God said, ‘If you f*** with my vision, I’m going to f*** with yours.”

West, openly crying at this point, said that the moment prompted him to phone Kardashian and tell her that he didn’t want her to have an abortion.

“I called my wife and she said, ‘We’re gonna have this baby.’ I said ‘We’re gonna have this child.’ … Even if my wife were to divorce me after this speech, she brought North into the world when I didn’t want to,” he said. “[Kardashian] stood up and she protected that child.”

According to TMZ, people around West believe he is in “desperate need of professional help,” but he reportedly refuses to listen to anyone.

The outlet adds that West’s remarks could hurt some of his businesses, “if not all of them.”

“His family and friends know comments like these are the things that trigger boycotts,” TMZ reports.

The Kardashian family is also unhappy that West discussed Kardashian’s first pregnancy with their daughter, North, and how the couple reportedly discussed abortion.

Finally, the outlet reports, “His family and friends are also upset because they feel Kanye is a distraction to what is a very important election.”

Elsewhere during his Sunday speech, West said that the media coverage of the rally would likely be negative.

“They’re going to run this,” he said. “They’re going to tell you that I’m crazy. [Well], the world’s crazy!”

Sobbing Kanye West admits he & Kim Kardashian nearly aborted North at his first presidential rally

Anything else?

Also during the rally, West said that new parents should be given $1 million to discourage abortion.

“Everybody that has a baby gets a million dollars,” West said, according to reports from the Associated Press. West reportedly referred to the move as “Plan A,” which is in stark comparison to emergency contraceptive pill “Plan B.”

He explained, “If you had the opportunity to be given a million dollars, just for being pregnant, would you have considered it? And then everybody would start having children, the greatest gift of life.”

West also said that famous abolitionist Harriet Tubman did not actually free slaves.

Kanye West talks racism, Harriet Tubman, abortion

Abortion Harriet Tubman Intelwars Kanye 2020 kanye west Marijuana Presidential Election

Kanye West says Harriet Tubman didn’t free slaves, all parents should get $1M, and marijuana should be free

Kanye West held a campaign rally Sunday, and his remarks included some inflammatory claims about abolitionist Harriet Tubman and a bizarre proposal to help families so fewer people choose abortion, according to the Associated Press.

West is supposedly running for president, although he has qualified for the ballot in only one state, Oklahoma, so far. Sunday’s campaign rally was in South Carolina, where he’s seeking the 10,000 required signatures needed to get on the ballot in the state. He has until noon on July 20.

The rapper is attempting to run as an independent, although his alliance with President Donald Trump and his views on religion and abortion make him somewhat of a conservative-leaning candidate. For example, West has been aggressively critical of Planned Parenthood, although he believes abortion should be legal.

At the same time, West advocated for an outlandish policy to help families support children — a policy that would not be mistaken as conservative in nature.

“Everybody that has a baby gets a million dollars,” West said, according to AP. This plan was reportedly referred to as “Plan A,” a play off Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill.

During his discussion about abortion, he tearfully said his mother considered aborting him, and that he even considered abortion for his own daughter at one point. From the New York Post:

The Chicago rapper wore a bulletproof vest and had the numbers “2020” shaved into his head as he addressed the crowd, revealing that he and wife Kim Kardashian West considered terminating their first pregnancy — but didn’t after he had a “vision from God,” according to a livestream of the event.

He then began to cry hysterically as he said: “My mom saved my life. My dad wanted to abort me.”

“I almost killed my daughter,” West, 43, continued in tears, referring to the couple’s eldest, North West.
“No more Plan B, Plan A,” he added.

“The only thing that can free us is by obeying the rules that were given to us for a promised land,” West said, according to Reuters. “Abortion should be legal because guess what? The law is not by God anyway, so what is legality?”

West stirred up controversy and lost some of the audience with his comments about Harriet Tubman.

“Harriet Tubman never actually freed the slaves,” West said while discussing economic inequality, prompting audible protest from the crowd. “She just had the slaves work for other white people.”

West also said marijuana should not only be legal, but it should be free.

The rally was, at times, contentious. West got into brief verbal altercations with attendees; one who asked him to name the “fellow billionaire” West referenced during an answer about gun reform, and another with the woman who asked that gun reform question. She posted a video about her experience online.

Abortion abortion pills Coronavirus Federal judge abortion Intelwars Telemedicine

Federal judge opens door to women receiving abortion pills without visiting a doctor

A federal judge has ruled that women seeking abortion pills during the coronavirus pandemic should be able to do so without physically seeing a doctor, a decision which abortion advocates hope will eventually extend beyond the virus.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang on Monday granted a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from enforcing its rule that patients must visit a doctor before receiving the pills until at least 30 days after the Department of Health and Human Services declares the current public health emergency is over.

In the case, Chuang agreed with the plaintiffs — which included the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN), and SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective — that the FDA’s “in-person requirements” presented a “substantial obstacle” to abortion-seeking patients and are likely unconstitutional.

What the process used to be: Current FDA regulations dictate that patients seeking a non-surgical abortion must visit a medical facility such as a hospital or doctor’s office to be consulted on the side effects before receiving a prescription.

What the process is now: Given the preliminary injunction, patients now can receive a prescription for the drugs via telemedical appointments and receive the pills in the mail.

A non-surgical, or medical, abortion is a procedure that uses two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, to terminate a pregnancy.

According to the Mayo Clinic, “mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, causing the lining of the uterus to thin and preventing the embryo from staying implanted and growing. [Then] misoprostol, a different kind of medication, causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo through the vagina.”

The procedure, which can be accomplished at home, poses legitimate risks such as an incomplete abortion, heavy and prolonged bleeding, and infection.

ACOG President Eva Chalas said in a statement that the ruling “represents a victory for patients, who should not have to face the additional burden of increased COVID-19 exposure as a condition of receiving their prescribed mifepristone.”

Abortion advocates want the ruling to be permanent: A staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the ACOG and other groups, hoped that the decision would ultimately become law regardless of the pandemic.

“We look forward to a day when federal reproductive health care policy is grounded in science, not animus, and this medically baseless requirement is lifted once and for all,” said attorney Julia Kaye.

The president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, highlighted the potential risks while expressing her disappointment with the Chuang’s ruling.

“The current FDA regulations are reasonable and necessary to protect women from serious and potentially life-threatening complications of abortion drugs, including intense pain, heavy bleeding, infection, and even death,” she said in a statement.