Categories
Domestic terrorism accusation Intelwars Joe Biden National prayer breakfast pro-abortion Pro-transgenderism speech watch White supremacy allegation

Biden in ?Prayer Breakfast pulpit calls out ‘white supremacy,’ ‘domestic terrorism’ — then fellow Catholic slams him for backing abortion, transgenderism

President Joe Biden made sure to use his pulpit for the National Prayer Breakfast to hit all the Democratic talking points.

Let’s see: Climate change, racial justice, lives and jobs lost due to COVID-19, the Capitol riots — which he characterized as “an assault on our democracy … a violent attack that threatened lives and took lives” — and the need to “confront and defeat political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism.”

“For so many in our nation, this is a dark, dark time. So, where do we turn?” the Democrat inquired.

He had an answer; but the first Catholic commander-in-chief since John F. Kennedy didn’t say “God” or “Jesus” — or even “Buddha” or “Muhammad.”

“Faith,” Biden replied to himself before finally quoting a religious figure — philosopher Soren Kierkegaard — saying “faith sees best in the dark.”

“I believe that to be true,” he continued. “For me, in the darkest moments, faith provides hope and solace. It provides clarity and purpose as well. It shows the way forward as one nation in a common purpose to respect one another, to care for one another, to leave no one behind.”

After reminding us that “the Bible tells us ‘weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning,'” Biden concluded his speech by finally invoking God: “May God bless you all, and may God protect our troops.”

Pushback

As you might guess, not everyone was tickled pink by Biden’s address.

The
Christian Post reported that Brian Burch — president of CatholicVote, a national faith-based advocacy organization — stated that the president ignored “the aggressive and hostile steps taken by his administration against people of faith, including the anti-science transgender mandate and the deeply unpopular decision to fund abortion around the world.”

While Biden has been criticized by Catholics and other Christians for such views, he’s seen plenty of support elsewhere. The New York Times called Biden the “most religiously observant commander-in-chief in half a century,” pointing out that he “regularly attends Mass and speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies. And with Mr. Biden, a different, more liberal Christianity is ascendant: less focused on sexual politics and more on combating poverty, climate changes and racial inequality.”

But Burch wasn’t buying any of it.

“It’s important to also remember that President Biden does not speak for Catholics or the church,” he said, according to the Post. “In fact, he explicitly departs from many of the church’s non-negotiable beliefs and teachings. For this reason, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have rightly pointed to deep concerns about Biden’s policies that would ‘advance moral evils’ on issues such as marriage, family, religious liberty, and the defense of vulnerable children in the womb.”

He added, “Our country is desperately in need of healing and unity. Throughout our history, our leaders have called the country to prayer and obedience to the truths of our Judeo-Christian heritage. President Biden’s words this morning were both underwhelming and disappointing,” the outlet noted.


President Joe Biden delivers remarks at National Prayer Breakfast

youtu.be

Share
Categories
Abortion abortion clinic Coronavirus Coronavirus america COVID-19 Intelwars pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life

Some people are worried about how the coronavirus fallout could hurt abortion clinics

While the United States and the world take prudential steps to confront and combat the global spread of the new coronavirus — formally known as COVID-19 — some people have actually raised concerns that the response efforts might negatively impact women’s ability to abort their unborn children.

For example, a story published Tuesday at HuffPost describes the situation of Texas abortionist Joe Nelson, who decided to self-quarantine for two weeks after he exhibited respiratory symptoms and was unable to get the coronavirus test. Nelson — who conducts abortions at three different clinics in the state — said he was worried that his self-isolation might have a “huge impact” on people seeking abortions in the Lone Star State.

“There are not that many doctors who provide abortion care in Texas,” Nelson told the outlet. “A lot of the doctors that do come in from out of state. In a situation where doctors are less likely to want to travel, if there’s no one to cover me, patients will have to wait.”

That kind of concern isn’t limited to Texas, however.

An article published last week by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute also points to concerns about the availability of people and supplies to perform abortions amid the ongoing public health crisis, saying that “what may be lost in the chaos” is “the specific impact on sexual and reproductive health and rights, both for people in the United States and around the world.”

One outcome, the authors say, is that diverting medical personnel to deal with the crisis “may create a shortage of clinicians who can provide sexual and reproductive health services and increase wait times for patients in need.” They add that for places without many providers in the first place “this will put an extreme strain on capacity to serve patients, especially for non-emergency care.”

National Abortion Federation President Katherine Hancock Ragsdale echoed similar abortion access anxieties, telling HuffPost, “One or two people unable to show up can make the difference between a clinic being able to function or not.”

In addition of a shortage of personnel to perform the procedure, Ragsdale also voiced concerns about the possibility of finite medical supplies being taken away from abortion procedures in a shortage so they can instead be used for other procedures considered more important.

“We worry that all health care resources are being channeled to non-elective procedures, and abortion tends to be classified as an elective procedure,” Ragsdale said. “We understand that abortion isn’t a stroke or a heart attack, and it can be scheduled out. But it can’t be scheduled out indefinitely.”

According to numbers compiled by Johns Hopkins University, the United States had over 6,500 confirmed cases of the coronavirus and had seen 115 deaths as a result of the outbreak as of Wednesday morning. Globally, the same numbers show over 200,000 confirmed cases of the virus and over 8,200 deaths.

Share
Categories
Abortion doctor Intelwars pro-abortion Salon san francisco University of California

‘Having an abortion can be transformative’: Doctor details why abortions can lead to better lives for ‘pregnant people’

Dominika Seidman — a doctor and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences — wrote a piece for Salon saying that “having an abortion can be transformative.”

Here’s the paragraph containing her sentiment:

Giving birth can be transformative. Having an abortion can be transformative. If we don’t give people the opportunity to pursue the decision that is right for them, we’re compounding their trauma and creating new obstacles to recovery and wellness. Our job as doctors who provide abortion care — whether we meet patients at a shelter, clinic, hospital or anywhere else — is to provide them the care that is right for them, with compassion and free from judgment.

What are the details?

Seidman began her piece by criticizing the state of Louisiana for arguing to the Supreme Court last year in order “to save a law that would severely limit abortion access” and also convince the high court “to rule that abortion providers and clinics no longer have the standing to challenge abortion restrictions on behalf of their patients.”

She then described her job with UCSF working “with pregnant people our healthcare system has cast aside. These individuals are experiencing incarceration or homelessness, have substance use disorders or significant mental illness.” Seidman added that their “trauma runs deep, back to childhoods in the foster system or nights living on the streets. When they’ve tried to engage in care, they’ve been ignored or poorly treated. Their kids have been taken away by a Child Protective Services System steeped in a long history of racism. They’ve left their belongings in a tent on the street to go to the doctor, knowing their things might be vandalized or stolen, only to be berated for being late or forced to wait for hours.”

Seidman insisted that when it comes to the “pregnant people” she assists, she stays out of their decisions regarding whether or not to continue their pregnancies.

She then detailed the experiences of two women she worked with — one who chose abortion and another who gave up her child for adoption. The woman who aborted her baby decided to do so after learning she would be in jail for longer than expected and wouldn’t be able to be with her other kids at home.

“We talked regularly to ensure that the abortion was what she really wanted,” Seidman noted. “It was an incredibly emotional and intense decision for her. I saw her a year later and she was thriving, back with her kids, and working as a counselor at a substance use recovery program. She talked about how the abortion was so important for her own recovery and made her a better parent.”

More from her piece:

Another patient with a substance use disorder came to us when it was too late for her to have the abortion she wanted. We helped her plan around an adoption. The entire birth center rallied around her, and she had one of the most beautiful births I’ve ever seen. An experience that could have been weighed down with stigma and judgment was surrounded by love and support.

Seidman concluded by noting that it’s “my job to challenge restrictions to” her clients’ “reproductive autonomy” — and that “the Supreme Court should continue to allow people who provide abortion care to stand up in court on behalf of our patients, as yet another essential way we provide care that puts our patients first.”

How did others react?

Believe it or not, not every comment on the Salon piece agreed with Seidman:

  • “‘Having an abortion can be transformative.’ In other words, abortion is not a regrettable but sometimes justified choice, but actually a good thing? Something to be celebrated? Some sort of line has been crossed here.”
  • “Let’s talk medical science: I do not see how you can justify terminating a child with a unique human DNA, often a heartbeat, brainwaves, and if late enough it can feel pain.”
  • “Bizarre that this author went on for the entire article without ever mentioning the second person involved with this decision — the human life that will be terminated if abortion is chosen.”
  • “Uh…pregnant ‘people’?”
  • “This doesn’t seem to be about logic or about rights of the unborn. There seems to be an emotional commitment on the part of many pro-abortion advocates to ignoring such matters; the only view is that abortion is fine and dandy and any questioning of this view is right-wing. I’m a socialist and atheist. I want an open debate with a commitment to evidence and reason on all sides.”

(H/T: LifeNews)

Share
Categories
Abortion Democratic National Committee democratic party dnc Intelwars pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life right to life Tom Perez

When pressed on his extreme abortion comments, DNC chair questions the faith of Trump supporters

When pressed about the Democratic Party’s abortion stance in a recent interview, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez responded by questioning the faith of people who “go to church on Sunday” while also supporting President Donald Trump.

“I think the challenge that I see among a lot of people that go to Donald Trump rallies, and then they will go to church on Sunday, and I’m not, I don’t know what faith they are worshiping,” Perez told Axios’ Jonathan Swan in an interview published Sunday. “Donald Trump has done more to hurt the least of us, among us, than just about any president I can think of.”

Perez made the remarks after a back and forth about whether or not there’s still room for pro-life voices and views in the Democratic Party, given some of his own hardline comments on the abortion issue.

During the interview, Swan brought up Perez’s 2017 remarks that Democrats’ support for abortion is “not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.” He also asked the party chief to respond criticisms from Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, who wrote in 2018 that “it saddens me, and weakens the democracy millions of Americans cherish, when the party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us.”

“Well, actually the majority of Catholics voted for Democrats in 2016, so apparently the cardinal may not understand that Matthew 25 is a pretty important teaching,” Perez countered, referring to the parable of the sheep and the goats in the New Testament.

“Matthew 25 says, you know, when you were hungry, I fed you. When you were naked, I provided you with clothing. When you were an immigrant, I welcomed you,” Perez added. “I think one of the reasons why so many people are moving away from Donald Trump is that he’s abandoned all of those values.”

Axios’ writeup of the interview notes in a fact check that Catholic voters were “closely split between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016,” according to exit polling and analysis.

Swan also asked Perez about the success of Louisiana Democratic Gov. Jon Bel Edwards, whose stances and actions on unborn life differed considerably with the kind of pro-abortion ideological orthodoxy that Perez put forward in his 2017 statement.

Perez said that Edwards shouldn’t have to “turn in his Democrat card,” as Swan put it, but that the governor was “wrong” to sign a heartbeat abortion ban bill passed by the state legislature last year.

“I profoundly disagree with the position he took there, and I think I speak for most Democrats in saying that” Perez said of Edwards. “And I will continue to say that publicly because I think it’s a really important issue.”

The question of the Democratic Party’s openness to pro-life voters became subject of debate earlier this year on the 2020 primary campaign trail after then-candidate Pete Buttigieg was was confronted on his abortion stance by Pro-Life Democrats executive director Kristen Day in late January. When questioned on his thoughts on the matter Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) later said that “by this time in history, I think, when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is essentially, an essential part of that.”

The overall trend of Democrats abandoning the former mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” for a far more unapologetic and extreme stance has been well documented over the last few years. Meanwhile, the party’s leftward march on abortion would appear to be leaving a lot of its voters behind. Gallup polling conducted in May 2019 showed that 29% of Democrats identified as “pro-life,” while Marist polling conducted in January found that 44% of Democrats favor restrictions on abortions ranging from limiting it to the first three months of a pregnancy to not allowing it under any circumstances.


DNC chair responds to criticism for saying Democratic support of abortion rights is non-negotiable

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Abortion Intelwars Legislation pro-abortion Pro-Life ultrasound utah

Female state senators from both parties walk out of chamber as Utah Senate passes pro-life ultrasound bill

All six of Utah’s female state senators walked out of the Senate chamber Tuesday as lawmakers passed a bill that would make getting an ultrasound a requirement before getting an abortion.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the women walked out in protest, leaving only the chamber’s male members to vote on the bill, which passed 16-7:

Spanish Fork Republican Sen. Deidre Henderson successfully amended the bill to prohibit the use of transvaginal ultrasounds under the bill, a more invasive procedure than transabdominal ultrasounds. But while the bill went too far before the amendment, she said, the amendment resulted in the bill going “a little less too far.”

Henderson and the other female senators, which included one other Republican, spoke in favor of the amendment and then exited the chamber as their names were called for a final vote on the bill, HB364.

“The six Republican and Democratic women of the Senate decided to walk out in protest,” Henderson later said in a statement, according to KSTU-TV. “It wasn’t planned, but a spontaneous decision to put an exclamation mark on our concerns regarding the invasive nature of the bill.”

“I am very pro-life, and always vote for pro-life bills. But I’m concerned that we are overstepping with government mandates of medically unnecessary procedures.”

Two of the Democratic legislators who walked out also posted about it on social media afterward.

“Love my sisters in the Senate,” Sen. Luz Escamilla (D) wrote. “A spontaneous decision not planned of sisterhood against the invasive nature of HB 364.”

“Thank you to these incredible women,” Sen. Kathleen Reibe (D) tweeted. “Invasive and unnecessary medical procedures are never best practice.”

An earlier version of the bill passed the Utah House last week by a vote of 47-20. In response to that passage, Planned Parenthood Action Council of Utah slammed the legislation as “yet another restriction in a long list of laws the Utah legislature has passed to chip away at the right to abortion,” and added that it “could add trauma to an already complex and often difficult experience.”

Contrary to the complaints about the bill, its proponents argue that the grave nature of abortion makes it necessary for women be properly informed before making the decision to end an unborn child’s life.

“If you are going to take the life of a child, if you are willing to terminate that life through an abortion, it seems appropriate that you get the best information about the development — the stage of development, heart beat,” Senate sponsor Curtis Bramble (R) told KSL-FM. “We are talking about a human being.”

Share
Categories
Abortion Cathedral Female protesters Intelwars International Womens day Mexico City Mexico protests molotov cocktails nazi pro choice pro-abortion Protests mexico Smash windows Vandalize churches Violence violence against women Violent protests mexico

VIDEO: Violent feminist, pro-abortion protesters smash windows, toss Molotov cocktails, vandalize churches during International Women’s Day protests in Mexico

International Women’s Day protests in Mexico turned violent Sunday as feminist, pro-abortion protesters smashed windows, vandalized churches, and launched Molotov cocktails into crowds, leaving dozens injured.

The violence was a part of a day of protests where 80,000 people marched through Mexico City’s historic center — as well as many other places across the country — protesting for greater access to abortion as well as an end to violence against women.

According to Reuters, outside the National Palace and Mexico City’s main cathedral, women activists wearing green bandanas symbolizing support for abortion clashed with counter-protesters, some reportedly with “shaved heads” who gave Nazi salutes. The women tore down banners that depicted abortion as femicide and then set them ablaze as they traded insults with counter-protesters.

One female protester was caught on video launching a Molotov cocktail into a crowd that included a group of policewomen in riot gear. The firebomb set on fire a female photographer who was later hospitalized with second-degree burns.

Elsewhere in the city center, masked protesters smashed the windshield of a car with hammers, overturned a van, and burned buildings, Reuters reported.

Protesters also sprayed graffiti on buildings, including the National Palace, where the president lives. Some graffiti messages said “the president doesn’t care about us” and “misogynist AMLO,” referring to President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Churches were also vandalized in other parts of Mexico

In Sonora, Mexico, feminist protesters attacked a local cathedral, smashing its windows and attempting break down the doors as families celebrated mass.

Two videos of the incident included in a report from ACI Prensa, a Catholic Spanish news outlet, show the outside of the cathedral vandalized with graffiti and protesters attempting to break in as churchgoers barricaded the door with benches.

Inside the cathedral, churchgoers can be seen scrambling to protect their families as outside protesters loudly bash the door and smash the windows.

According to ACI Prensa, protesters launched similar attacks on cathedrals in Campeche and Motolinia and on a monument in Guadalajara. LifeNews, in its report on the violence in Mexico, posted Twitter videos of the incidents in those places.

Besides demanding more access to abortion, protesters in Mexico were also responding to the increase in femicides in the country, which, according to Reuters, has risen 137% over the past five years.

“They’re killing 10 women a day — the ones that we know about — in the country I’ve lived in my whole life, it’s unacceptable,” preschool teacher Daniela Garcia, 33, told Reuters.

Share
Categories
abortion clinic Christianity Intelwars Jesus Prayer pro-abortion Pro-Life Satan watch

‘Satan is the one true lord’: Woman harasses pro-life students outside abortion clinic. Students respond by saying they’ll pray for her.

Pro-life students were harassed in a variety of ways while they peacefully prayed Saturday outside the Bellingham, Washington, Planned Parenthood, Students for Life reported.

But perhaps the most pointed reaction to the pro-life students from Whatcom Community College was a woman caught on video driving up to them and declaring allegiance to the devil.

‘Satan is the one true lord’

“Satan is the one true lord,” she announced, looking at the students through the passenger window of her vehicle. “Satan — the dark lord.”

“We’ll pray for you,” one pro-life student replied before adding that the students were “just out here praying, trying to support the community.”

“We don’t need your prayers,” the woman replied before driving off and announcing in a ta-ta-for-now tone, “Hail Satan!”

Check it out:



youtu.be

But there was more in store

According to Autumn Lindsey, a leader for Whatcom Community College Students for Life, there was much more action at the demonstration. Such as:

  • Drivers passing by and yelling obscenities and displaying crude gestures.
  • A group of people yelling threateningly in one student’s face, calling him a “c***sucker.”
  • A man riding a bike by students and throwing a glass vial at them, which shattered. Police were called to make sure it wasn’t dangerous or harmful, and the fire department tested and cleaned up the fluid.
  • A woman flashing the students while yelling, “My body, my choice!”
  • Oh, and a car passenger masturbating toward the students as the vehicle passed them.

“What happened Saturday shows us the worst of the worst of the pro-choice movement; obscenity, Satan worship, and lewdness towards students,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America said.

Lindsey added, “This kind of intimidation causes some of our volunteers to feel uneasy to sign up to pray for mothers and preborn children during a 40 Days for Life event. We are only 11 days in, and we have already been bullied and threatened to the point where our volunteers are nervous to go alone. But we will not back down because this just demonstrates how evil the abortion industry is. We will stand united together and not let the bullies stop us even though the violence of abortion is celebrated by increasingly violent people.”

Share
Categories
2020 democratic primary 2020 Election Abortion Intelwars Planned Parenthood pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life

Bernie Sanders’ radical abortion agenda: ‘Free’ abortion for everyone, banning abstinence sex ed, and defunding crisis pregnancy centers

2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) rolled out his “reproductive health” — i.e. abortion — agenda over the weekend and it contains some extreme positions that are par for the course for the rest of his far-left and expensive political agenda.

To begin, Sanders’ plan promises that, under his signature “Medicare for All” plan, “the Hyde Amendment will be repealed and all reproductive health services will be provided free at the point of service.” Of course, the government cannot really make any commodity or service truly “free,” but merely change how it is paid for and who pays for it, meaning that this would leave American taxpayers to pick up the tab for all abortion services.

But the proposal talks about more than covering the cost of abortion. It adds that a Sanders administration would also invert one of President Trump’s more combatted pro-life policies — stripping abortion providers of Title X funding — by turning that defunding effort on pro-life pregnancy resource centers and threatening to strip them of Title X and “other government funds.” At the same time, the proposal also pledges to defend and increase government funding for Planned Parenthood — America’s largest abortion provider.

Sanders’ abortion plan also addresses how America’s children would be educated on the subject of sex by vowing to ban “ineffective abstinence-only sex education,” rather than leaving the question of sexual education curricula up to parents and educators.

The Vermont senator’s proposal goes on to address pro-abortion advocates’ anxieties about the future of abortion rights in the realm of federal court decisions.

“As President, Bernie will work tirelessly to undo the damage Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have done,” the plan says, referencing the White House and Senate’s efforts to fill federal judicial vacancies under President Trump. “That means working with reproductive justice and advocacy groups to fill vacancies with highly qualified, principled judges who will protect reproductive rights at every level.”

On that front, Sanders’ proposal says guarantees that he would require “all judicial nominees to support Roe v. Wade as settled law” and that the 1973 abortion ruling would also be codified in “legislative statute.”

Further down the page, the plan also pays special attention to how issues of so-called “reproductive justice” affect minority populations.

“If abortion is legal, but your state has no or too few reproductive health clinics, then you do not have reproductive justice or freedom,” the page reads. It later adds, “We must address these issues holistically to ensure true reproductive justice for all, especially in communities of color.”

In contrast to those listed concerns, however, many pro-life advocates to argue that abortion providers specifically target black communities. 2012 research from the Life Issues Institute based on 2010 census data found that Planned Parenthood had “79% of its 165 surgical abortion facilities within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods,” and updated research from the same organization in 2015 found 78% facilities in walking distance of either black or hispanic neighborhoods. Furthermore, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention numbers from 2018 showed that black women had abortions at much higher rates than their white counterparts.

Sanders’ plan drew praise from NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, who called it “robust” and “a very solid plan on its merits” while saying the organization “would like to see the same” from rival candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.

But since so much of Sanders’ abortion proposal hinges on his “Medicare for All plan,” there are legitimate questions about exactly how much of it could actually make the difficult transition from campaign pledge to standing policy.

Sanders campaign surrogate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) admitted weeks ago that the plan might not be able to get the congressional support necessary for passage if Sanders is elected.

“A president can’t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a mid-February HuffPost interview. She added that “The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option.”

Disclosure: The author of this post is a volunteer board member at Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center, a pregnancy resource center in Washington, D.C. His reporting is his own.

Share
Categories
Abortion abortion clinic Intelwars pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life

Washington city adopts noise ordinance aimed at pro-life protests

Earlier this week, a city council in Washington state approved a noise ordinance aimed a quieting pro-life protests outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic, which pro-life activists say is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

According to the Spokesman-Review, the Spokane City Council voted 6-1 to pass a new noise ordinance after facing pressure to address the sound of pro-life protests outside a local Planned Parenthood clinic:

Council members who supported the measure stressed that it was not intended to restrict protesters’ rights to march, hold signs and pray.

“All we’re asking is that you keep the noise down to a reasonable level,” said Councilwoman Karen Stratton.

Councilwoman Betsy Wilkerson, who co-sponsored the measure, said, “When noise outside your health care facility disrupts, prevents, or interferes with your ability to receive health care, it’s completely unacceptable,” according to KREM-TV.

The measure was proposed in part, the Associated Press note, because a pro-life group called the Church at Planned Parenthood has “regular gatherings” of demonstrators “who sing and pray outside of the clinic’s walls” at events that “can draw hundreds of people.”

However, Councilman Michael Cathcart — who cast the lone vote against the new ordinance — told the Spokesman-Review that he objected to the bill because noise is subjective and “it’s too hard to interpret who’s causing the noise,” as well as a provision that would allow patients to sue protesters. The newspaper also noted that Cathcart was jeered by pro-abortion activists at the meeting.

According to city council documents, a first violation of the ordinance would result in a civil penalty with escalating criminal penalties for continued infractions that start with a $500 fine and/or 24 hours in jail.

Paul Dillon, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, called the measure’s passage a “major victory” in a statement to KREM and said that the organization was looking forward “to the implementation and enforcement of the new changes to the noise ordinance with respect to health care facilities.”

Naturally, pro-lifers are concerned about what the new law will mean for their ability to speak out for the unborn.

A recent blog post from Students for Life of America lamented that “the city will now be empowered to use police officers to shut up the hundreds of pro-life Christians who regularly pray outside a local Planned Parenthood abortion facility.”

In the post, SFLA’s Washington Regional Coordinator Karlie Lodjic said that the ordinance “specifically targets” pro-lifers with the goal to keep them quiet.

“We know that this is about one thing; making it harder for people to hear the truth about abortion and what happens inside abortion facilities every day,” Lodjic added. “This is a clear and direct assault on the First Amendment.”

Share
Categories
Abortion Intelwars pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life

Reality show participant opens up about the trauma of feeling pressured into an abortion: ‘I can’t survive that again’

Despite the firestorm Netflix set off last year with its brief foray in pro-abortion politics over Georgia’s heartbeat law, a recent reality dating show on the streaming platform actually offered viewers an honest, heart-rending look at the traumatic affect that abortion can have on women.

“Love is Blind” is a dating reality show on Netflix and hosted by former boy band singer Nick Lachey and his wife, Vanessa. It basically works like this: During the first phase of the show, a group of 30 single men and women — 15 of each — get to meet each other in a format that resembles speed dating, according to Entertainment Weekly, but is done through a thin wall where participants can only hear one another’s voices from each other’s “pod.”

After that the participants can decide whether or not to get engaged to any of the other participants and — after some time getting to know each other outside of the show’s voice-only “pod” environment — have to make a final decision about whether or not to get married.

During the second episode of the show’s first season, which came out last month, a contestant named Amber opened up to another contestant, Barnett, about her traumatic experience of feeling pressured into getting an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy during a past relationship.

After telling her past significant other that she thought she was pregnant, Amber explained across the wall that “immediately he’s in problem-solving mode: ‘Well, how are we going to fix this?'” She went on to tell Barnett that she doesn’t have children, “so obviously I didn’t follow through with the pregnancy.”

“It was really the hardest thing I’ve ever gone through in my life,” Amber said through tears, her voice starting to break.

In a cutaway shot, Amber explained, “I was still learning what it meant to be in love with somebody and, because I loved him so much, I, I had an abortion. S***. It’s not exactly something that like I’m proud of.”

As the camera returned to the interaction between the two contestants, Amber explained the difficulties she faced in the aftermath of aborting her child.

“After the fact, we were just talking; I’m telling him like, I’m trying to explain what I’m going through, like, I’m having a really hard time getting out of bed in the morning; I don’t eat; I’m not really sleeping,” Amber tearfully explained. “I just, this was supposed to be my other half, and his reaction, he goes, ‘Why don’t you just get over it? You just need to get over it already. Like, move on.'”

And that awful experience, Amber said, has informed her current expectations for romantic partners.

“That is the last thing in the world you want to hear,” Amber said to Barrett. “I need to know that, if a situation like that comes up, and an unexpected pregnancy happens, it’s not going to be, I won’t be forced to choose. I can’t survive that again. Like, I just I — it would destroy me.”

(H/T: Newsbusters)

Share
Categories
Abortion ACLU Court Intelwars Lawsuit pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life Sanctuary City

ACLU sues Texas towns that declared themselves ‘sanctuary cities’ for unborn children

In its latest pro-abortion litigation effort, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against seven East Texas towns that declared themselves “sanctuary cities” for unborn children.

The ACLU brought the suit on behalf of two pro-abortion groups, the Lilith Fund and the Texas Equal Access Fund (TEA Fund), saying that their rights to free expression and association are violated by the pro-life ordinances.

The first of the “sanctuary” ordinances listed in Tuesday’s lawsuit was passed by the city of Waskom back in June; the other listed cities which followed later are Naples, Joaquin, Tenaha, Rusk, Gary, and Wells.

According to the ACLU of Texas’ news release on the lawsuit, the ordinances in question contain language that would outlaw abortion altogether within city limits if the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, which the 79-page legal complaint argues “misleads residents of these cities as to whether individuals can in fact exercise their right to access abortion.”

The lawsuit also contends that the cities’ ordinances have dubbed abortion providers and pro-abortion entities as “criminal organizations,” which keeps them from clearing up confusion and assisting people with aborting their unborn children.

“As a result of being designated criminal, Plaintiffs are prohibited from operating, speaking, and associating within these cities,” the lawsuit contends. “Consequently, Plaintiffs are hampered from countering or clarifying the confusion created by the ordinances as to the legality of abortion services.”

“These ordinances are unconstitutional,” said ACLU of Texas staff attorney Anjali Salvador in a statement. “Abortion is legal in every state and city in the country. Cities cannot punish pro-abortion organizations for carrying out their important work – especially when they do so in a way that violates the First Amendment.”

Mark Dickson, the director of Right to Life East Texas, has been a leading figure in the unborn sanctuary movement in the Lone Star State for months now. Before Waskom passed its initial ordinance, he voiced his frustration to the city council that legislators in Austin weren’t passing “meaningful legislation that protects unborn life.”

“We have every intention of targeting every part of the state,” Dickson told the Texas Tribune last month. “Every city, no matter what size, is valuable.”

In a Tuesday facebook post, Dickson derided the ACLU’s complaint as “a meritless lawsuit brought to deter and intimidate cities from enacting these ordinances, which are entirely constitutional and consistent with the laws of Texas.” He also said, “We have a legal team ready to defend these ordinances at no charge to the cities, and we are prepared to defend all other cities that enact these laws at no charge to the taxpayers.”

Share
Categories
Abortion abortion clinic Heartbeat law Intelwars Mississippi pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life

Appeals court rules against Mississippi heartbeat abortion ban

Citing Supreme Court precedent, a federal appeals court has ruled against a Mississippi pro-life law that would outlaw abortion when an unborn child’s heartbeat is detected.

Thursday’s ruling comes from a unanimous panel of three federal judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, who also cited the appeals court’s recent December ruling against a 15-week abortion ban the state passed in 2018 on the grounds that such a ban would take place before the unborn child is viable outside the womb.

The decision hinges on previous Supreme Court decision precedent that uses the viability of an unborn child outside the womb as a standard for whether or not abortion laws meet constitutional muster. While the point of viability has generally been considered to be around the point of 24 weeks, other babies have been born earlier and survived.

While the parties in the case may disagree about when an unborn child’s heartbeat begins during a pregnancy, “all agree that cardiac activity can be detected well before the fetus is viable,” the ruling contends. Fetal heartbeats are usually detectable around the sixth week of a pregnancy.

“That dooms the law,” the ruling explains. “If a ban on abortion after 15 weeks is unconstitutional, then it follows that a ban on abortion at an earlier stage of pregnancy is also unconstitutional.”

Following the law’s passage and signature, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case on behalf of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the state’s only abortion clinic — in March. A district court judge blocked the law from going into effect in May, a decision which the Thursday ruling upheld.

The pro-abortion organization celebrated the panel’s decision.

“This is now the second time in two months the Fifth Circuit has told Mississippi that it cannot ban abortion,” Center for Reproductive Rights senior staff attorney Hillary Schneller said in a statement. “Despite the relentless attempts of Mississippi and other states, the right to legal abortion remains the law of the land.”

“A ban at six weeks of pregnancy means many of our patients would lose their right to have an abortion before they even know they’re pregnant,” said Jackson Women’s Health Organization said of the decision. “Most of our patients are past that point.”

Mississippi’s was just one of several state-level abortion bans to be signed into law last year and subsequently halted by a federal court. Others include Alabama’s ban on nearly all abortions, Georgia’s heartbeat law, Kentucky’s heartbeat law, Ohio’s heartbeat law, and Missouri’s eight-week ban. Many pro-lifers hope that the numerous legal fights about such measures will eventually lead the Supreme Court to reconsider its past abortion rulings, such as Roe v. Wade.

Share
Categories
Abortion Doug jones Election 2020 Intelwars pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life

Democratic senator laughs off abortion question, calls it ‘stupid’

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala) laughed off a question about an abortion restrictions on Wednesday and derided it as “stupid.”

According to Yellowhammer News, the exchange took place between the Democratic senator and an election tracker who is also a constituent.

During the recorded exchange, the constituent begins by asking Jones “Do you think abortion should be banned after five months?” as the senator is walking away from a black SUV.

Apparently not hearing to the initial question, the senator greets the constituent by asking, “What stupid question do you have for me today?”

After the constituent repeats the question, Jones responds with a laugh.

“Should abortion be banned after,” the senator chuckled as he repeated the first half of the question, “as I said, what a stupid question.”

In response to the jocular dismissal, the questioner said, “You’re voting on it next week, sir.”

The comment was in reference to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

“Yeah, and I’ll vote on it next week,” Jones responded while walking away, “just like I did the last time.”

That “last time” Jones was referring to happened in late January 2018, when the Senate last voted on a pain-capable bill. It would have imposed a federal ban on abortions conducted after 20 weeks of pregnancy, when proponents of such legislation say that unborn children can feel pain. Jones voted against the measure.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set up votes for the pain-capable legislation along with an anti-infanticide measure that would mandate medical care for the born-alive survivors of botched abortions, for a vote after this week’s congressional recess. Last year, Jones was one of only three upper chamber Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote in favor of a born-alive bill in the Senate.

The short, 17-second video clip probably won’t do Jones any favors in his upcoming re-election bid in the state, which passed a law banning nearly all abortions in the state last year. He was elected in a 2017 Alabama special Senate election that was thrown into chaos by sexual misconduct allegations against the Republican nominee, Roy Moore. He is now widely viewed as the upper chamber’s most vulnerable incumbent in November’s general election.

Share
Categories
Abortion Autism Disability disabled Down Syndrome Intelwars life March for life pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life Progressivism the daily caller Virginia

VIDEO: Autistic pro-lifer makes impassioned case for not killing unborn babies with disabilities

A man with autism at the Virginia March for Life made an impassioned plea for not aborting unborn babies just because they have disabilities.

The man noted that though “we are getting better at detecting disabilities” before children are born that should not be a reason to end someone’s life before it begins.

“Basically, I’m trying to encourage people to not abort children with disabilities,” he told the Daily Caller while marching.

“A lot of people think, ‘Oh, they’ll have disabilities, their life is going to suck, and it will be terrible,’ … [but] you really should not have that viewpoint — I am learning, it is possible to have a happy life as a person with disabilities,” he argued.

“You know people with disabilities are often portrayed as freaks, loners, and losers who have no friends. But that’s not what has happened to me at all,” he added.


youtu.be

Aborting unborn babies with disabilities has become a recent talking point for some on the left, who argue that terminating the life of a disabled child before birth could be seen as compassionate.

Some progressive countries have even put their so-called compassion into practice. In 2017, CBS News reported that Iceland was on pace to “virtually eliminate” Down syndrome in the country — by aborting all the unborn babies who had it.

Discussing pushback against a 2019 law in Indiana that would prohibit abortions based on disability, Glenn Beck illustrated how the strategy is about as compassionate as Nazi-style population control.

(H/T: The Daily Caller)

Share
Categories
Abortion Anti-abortion Intelwars pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life reproductive health Reproductive justice reproductive rights

‘It makes my day’ when abortion patients come back to me for another, physician says

A physician who provides abortions wrote on Twitter that he was happy when patients who had previously gotten an abortion from him returned to get another.

Joe Nelson, who describes himself on Twitter as “your friendly neighborhood abortion provider,” and who has tweeted with the hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion, said it’s a “huge compliment” for these patients to return.

“Every single day, I see patients who I’ve seen before for abortion services but end up with another undesired pregnancy,” Nelson wrote Saturday. “When they come back, they are often quite embarrassed to be in that position again and are worried we might be judging them. We don’t.”

“In fact, as a family physician who does exclusively abortion work now, it makes my day to see a familiar face,” Nelson continued. “Those of us who do this work understand that this can happen to anyone at any time, and we take it as a huge compliment if you trust us with your care again.”

According to statistics provided by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, there were 862,000 abortions performed in the United States in 2017.

After the tweet gained attention, Nelson addressed pro-life users who had responded negatively to him, calling them “part of the problem.”

Nelson seems to be erroneously conflating opposition to killing unborn babies with mistreatment or judgment of women, which is a common stance taken by pro-abortion advocates to undermine the pro-life position. He then applies that logic to reach the conclusion that supporting women means celebrating abortion, to the point where it can “make your day” to see someone having to get another one.

To be pro-life doesn’t mean to think that women who get one, or even multiple abortions are bad people. But it’s a mistake to assert that the refusal to affirm a such a choice is equivalent to judgment or condemnation.

Pro-life advocates can agree with people like Nelson who decry the shaming and blaming of women who get abortions—women who have made or are considering making that difficult choice need and deserve support, empathy and compassion. But that support cannot expand to celebration if they again find themselves in the position of ending an innocent life.

Share
Categories
abortion clinic Attack on pro-lifer HARASSMENT Intelwars pro-abortion Tennessee watch

‘Daddy still butt-f***ing you?’: Pro-abortion thugs — one with nifty pentagram necklace — gang up on pro-lifer, allegedly bump, grab, and even lick her

A Tennessee pro-life advocate has numerous pro-abortion activists on video ganging up and harassing her in front of an abortion clinic — the Bristol Regional Women’s Center — and her assailants go so far as to allegedly touch and grab parts of her body and even lick her.

To say nothing of the mountain of verbal harassment she’s received — with one of them allegedly asking her, “Daddy still butt-f***ing you?”

What are the details?

Thomas More Society — a legal firm that stands up for religious liberty and pro-life issues — has taken up the matter and helped sidewalk counselor Erika Schanzenbach file petitions for orders of protection against members of what the law firm calls a “radical pro-abortion organization.”

More from the firm:

Thomas More Society Counsel Michael McHale explained that the offenders have often sought out Schanzenbach for harassment wherever she stands, even when she remains across the street from the abortion facility to avoid confrontation. The offenders subject Schanzenbach to a variety of abuses, including surrounding her and blocking her from view with large, open umbrellas; licking her arms; following her very closely wherever she walks — even back to her vehicle hundreds of feet away from the abortion facility; stealing and destroying her leaflets; and hurling profanities, taunts, and obscene gestures directly in her face. […]

These abusers boast online about their illegal conduct, identifying themselves as “Pro-Choice Bristol.” Their Facebook post, “Pink Manifesto,” states that they will “use any means necessary to physically block” pro-life witnesses “from sight” and will do “anything at all not being enforced equally for the protection of patients whether demonstrably legal or not.” The radical group also declares that “When local government fails” it will “step in.”

Schanzenbach has been on the receiving end of harassment, abuse, and stalking by Denise Skeen, along with Denise’s adult daughters, Alethea and Rowan. Each is named as a respondent in petitions for court orders of protection. Also named is Cheryl Hanzlik, who on multiple occasions has attempted to cause permanent hearing damage by pointing a bullhorn blaring loud police siren sounds directly into Schazenbach’s face. Supplemental court complaints have also been filed against Hanzlik and Alethea Skeen for ongoing illegal harassment.

Here’s one clip. (Content warning: Language):


youtu.be

Schanzenbach repeatedly tells the women to stop touching her, specifically to cease pressing their breasts against her body. Some verbal tidbits from the pro-abortion activists:

  • “Suck my d***!”
  • “What does she f***ing expect?”
  • “Call the cops!”
  • “She touched my t***y!”

In the below clip a white-bearded man screams in Schanzenbach’s face to “shut up!” repeatedly and later adds that “it’s going to be like this every single time.” (Content warning: Language):


youtu.be

According to protection orders Thomas More Society filed:

  • Last Sept. 4, Denise Skeen asked Schanzenbach, “Daddy still butt-f***ing you?” and has in the past harassed her with descriptions of oral sex, sodomy, and masturbation.
  • That same day, Alethea Skeen pressed her body against the victim and screamed at her, “Suck it up you little bitch!” And on one occasion she advised Schanzenbach, “Stop coming to the clinic, and this all ends.”

Here’s a third video:


youtu.be

The law firm said that the cases will return to court in April when Schanzenbach’s legal team will present substantial video evidence and live witness testimony demonstrating the ongoing abuse against her.

(H/T: PJ Media)

Share
Categories
Abortion Intelwars pro-abortion Pro-Life

Pro-abortion advocates pounce on Ted Cruz’s response to Alabama vasectomy bill?, then miss the point about rights of the unborn

Abortion proponents on social media are criticizing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for his response to an anti-pro-life messaging bill out of Alabama, but the whole pro-abortion side of this story is missing the point about the rights of the unborn.

This story started last week, when Alabama state Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D) introduced a bill to force men in the Yellowhammer State to have a vasectomy at their own expense.

“Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men,” the bill’s synopsis reads. “This bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy within one month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first.”

The bill seems to be more about making a statement about abortion policy than it is about creating a new law. In fact, Hollis told AL.com that the legislation was put forward in response to the state’s ban on abortions, which was signed into law last year.

“The vasectomy bill is to help with the reproductive system, and yes, it is to neutralize the abortion ban bill … it always takes two to tango,” Hollis told the outlet about her proposal. “We can’t put all the responsibility on women. Men need to be responsible also.”

In a tweet over the weekend, Cruz responded to the bill, tweeting, “Yikes. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything…literally!”

Abortion proponents on Twitter pounced on the opportunity to call out the senator and imply that his pro-life views are really just stem from a one-sided desire to use the force of government to take control of women’s reproductive systems.

“Ted thinks the government becomes [too] big when it tries to seize control *HIS* body,” wrote NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue. “Never mind that he’s been a politician voting to do that to women for…checks notes…EVER.”

“I never thought I’d say this, but I agree w Sen Cruz that the idea of governments attempting to control our most intimate body parts and reproductive rights is abhor…wait,” archeologist Sarah Parcak wrote.

“Oh so tell me more about your positions on government making reproductive decision… For women,” Democratic House candidate Shannon Freshour tweeted.

“That awkward moment Ted Cruz realizes the government has no business legislating reproductive health care between a patient and a doctor,” Democratic House candidate Brianna Wu wrote.

“After years of advocating for government control of citizens’ reproductive choices, the senator is suddenly shocked by the idea,” Washington Post book critic Ron Charles sneered. “What could have inspired such a stark reversal?”

But while mocking responses such as these may get some retweets and fill abortion advocates with a certain sense of satisfaction that comes from having their worldview validated, they — as well as the bill that precipitated this discussion — failed to address the crux of the pro-life argument: That abortion unjustly takes the life of an unborn child.

Pro-lifers hold that, from the point of conception, every unborn child — regardless of the terms of conception or the child’s stage of development — is a unique, living member of the human race with the inherent right to life. The central pro-life argument against abortion is that the willful taking of that life via chemical or surgical means is a grave violation of that right. It has nothing to do with an alleged desire to merely control the functions people’s reproductive organs or arbitrarily limit their choices in that regard.

This writer’s perspective

In a case like this one, abortion boosters can allege sex-based hypocrisy all they wish. But at the end of the day, a vasectomy may prevent an unborn life from being created but it doesn’t take them away once they’re created.

In contrast, an abortion does that every single time by its very nature.

If “pro-choice” advocates ever want to change any pro-life minds on the subject — or even argue about the points that their opponents are actually making — that’s the reality that has to be addressed.

Share