Categories
Abortion Intelwars Mass legislature Massachusetts abortion laws pro choice Pro-Life

Massachusetts lowers age of legal consent to obtain abortion without parents’ OK to just 16 years old

The Massachusetts legislature lowered the age to legally obtain an abortion — without parental permission — to age 16.

What are the details?

The state legislature last week overrode Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of the ROE Act, which aimed to, among other things, codify the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Baker vetoed the bill over its provision that lowered the age to get an abortion without a the consent of a parent or guardian to just 16.

In a statement on his veto, Baker said, “I cannot support the sections of this proposal that expand the availability of later term abortions and permit minors age 16 and 17 to get an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian.”

According to Fox News, the state’s Democrat-controlled Senate and House voted 32-8 and 107-46 respectively to override the veto.

What are people saying about this?

On Tuesday, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser issued a scathing statement on the matter.

“This dangerous new law allows for late-term abortion on-demand across Massachusetts, and secret abortions for minor girls as young as 16,” the pro-life organization wrote. “Governor Baker is pro-choice, but this legislation was too much for him to stomach: His veto exemplifies just how extreme it is.”

Dannenfelser added, “The actions taken by Democrats to ram through this legislation are a reflection of just how extreme the party has become on abortion. Led by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ agenda for the entire nation is reflected in this bill: abortion-on-demand, up until the moment of birth.”

Democratic state Sen. Harriette Chandler championed the legislation as well as overriding the governor’s veto.

In a tweet, Chandler wrote, “Pregnant people who once faced near-insurmountable barriers accessing abortion care can now seize the right to control their own bodies. I am so proud of the policies included in the #ROEAct and of the @MA_Senate for our commitment to reproductive freedom.”

Anything else?

According to The Daily Wire, the bill “expands women’s legal authority to get an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy if doctors say the baby will not survive after birth.”

Further, the bill also removed a mandate requiring a 24-hour waiting period prior to an abortion taking place.

Share
Categories
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.”

Share
Categories
Amy coney barrett Attack against pro-lifer Donald Trump Intelwars Physical attack pro choice Students for life Supreme court nomination watch

Pro-life activist punched in face by leftist woman in front of Supreme Court building after Amy Coney Barrett nomination

A female pro-life activist was punched in the face by a pro-choice woman in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on Sunday following President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the high court,
Students for Life reported.


Image source: Facebook video screenshot via Breitbart

What happened?

Autumn Schimmer, 23 — communications and market manager of Students for Life Action and a member of the organization’s “SCOTUS SQUAD” — was holding a sign on a sidewalk directly in front of the Supreme Court building while pro-life and pro-choice groups demonstrated.

“I was approached by a pro-choice woman who wanted to have a conversation about what feminism means to me,” Schimmer noted to Students for Life. “I told her that women are not empowered when they kill their own children, and we need to do better. After that she was getting more aggressive. I took a step back to return to my group. She approached me and punched me in the face and ripped off my face mask.”


Image source: Facebook video screenshot via Breitbart

Schimmer said on video afterward that her attacker “ran away into the crowd to hide like a coward” and that those on the left are “all cowards.”


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @StudentsforLife

SFL said police were called and an arrest was made.

The organization added that Schimmer told officers that other threatening behavior took place — and that the crowd consisted of about 5% pro-life advocates and 95% abortion supporters

Before the attack, Schimmer was holding a sign that read, “I can’t believe these ‘feminists’ are protesting a woman” — presumably a reference to Judge Barrett’s nomination.

Following the attack and arrest, Schimmer remarked to SFL that the incident was “very upsetting. Being attacked by a pro-choicer just shows that the violence of abortion breeds a culture of violence and normalizes it.”

Here’s the clip from Breitbart. Although it doesn’t capture the moment of the punch — the camera was pointing away from the attacker and victim — the clip does show the immediate aftermath as well as Schimmer’s in-the-moment reaction to the assault. The relevant portion begins after the 1:02:30 mark:

Here’s a roundup of the weekend from Students for Life:

Anything else?

Barrett, 48, was
nominated Saturday — just 38 days before Election Day. Her confirmation appears certain since there are enough Republican votes waiting for her in the U.S. Senate.

The Senate
will reportedly begin the confirmation process Oct. 12, and it will reportedly last just four days.

Once confirmed, Barrett would take the SCOTUS seat that had been occupied by the late far-left Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for nearly three decades. Ginsburg died Sept. 18 at the age of 87. Barrett — a conservative judge who’s been on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017 — would give the high court a clear conservative majority.

Barrett is a devout Catholic and mother of seven children, including two adopted children and another with Down syndrome.

Leftists have been attacking Barrett’s faith and family. A staff member on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign
suggested that those with strong faiths perhaps shouldn’t be permitted to serve on the Supreme Court. And progressives attacked Barrett for signing a letter in 2006 that endorsed Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life and called for an end to Roe v. Wade.

(H/T: The Christian Post)

Share
Categories
Abortion abortion clinic Coronavirus Coronavirus america Coronavirus response Coronavirus us Health Care Intelwars pro choice Pro-Life

Groups representing 30,000 physicians sign letter demanding abortions be suspended to conserve medical resources during pandemic

Groups representing 30,000 physicians signed a letter called for the suspension of abortions in order to preserve medical resources critical to fighting the coronavirus pandemic.

The letter was published on Monday as officials reported greater numbers of those infected and the stock market continued to tank.

The letter was signed by five groups representing “physicians who practice according to the Hippocratic Oath,” including:

  • The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG)
  • The American College of Pediatricians
  • Christian Medical & Dental Associations
  • The Catholic Medical Association
  • The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

The letter objected to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classifying elective abortions as “essential healthcare,” and made the case to suspend abortions.

“In such an uncertain and tumultuous time, the entire healthcare profession is being called upon to conserve resources and healthcare professionals to an extent never seen before,” the letter read. “And yet, in the midst of this call, while hospitals are postponing elective procedures and many outpatient clinics are rescheduling non-essential office visits, the abortion industry continues with business as usual.”

On Friday, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost called on abortion clinics to postpone abortions to “immediately stop performing non-essential and elective surgical abortions,” but many indicated that they would defy the order and continue performing abortions despite the global pandemic.

Here’s more about abortion and coronavirus:


McConnell Calls Democrats’ Coronavirus Relief Bill ‘An Ideological Wish List’ | NBC News

www.youtube.com

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 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 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 abortion clinic Intelwars minnesota NARAL Planned Parenthood pro choice Pro-Life

Minnesota city recognizes ‘Abortion Providers Appreciation Day’ to ‘celebrate’ abortionists’ ‘high-quality care’

In St. Paul, Minnesota, Tuesday officially marks “Abortion Providers Appreciation Day” in the city after the city council decided to wade into the national debate on the right to life last week.

According a city council resolution that passed Wednesday, “Abortion Providers Appreciation Day” is meant to “honor the memory” of abortionist David Gunn, killed on March 10, 1993, as well as “to combat the stigma that many abortion providers and clinic staff face, and to celebrate the courage, compassion, and high-quality care they provide.”

As reasons for officially setting aside Tuesday as a day to celebrate people who end unborn babies’ lives, the resolution said that the Supreme Court “now contains a majority of Justices who may not interpret the Constitution to provide protection for the right to end a pregnancy and may overturn or severely limit Roe v. Wade” and claimed that “abortion providers must be accessible in order for people to make real decisions about their bodies, lives, and futures.”

The resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0.

The measure also called abortion “one of the safest medical procedures in the United States” — despite the fact that it must result in the willful termination of a human life in order to be successful.

Of course, last week’s vote didn’t go through without drawing some pro-life pushback.

Minnesota state Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka (R) criticized the decision on Twitter, calling it “bizarre.”

“I believe we should protect human life from conception to natural death,” Gazelka wrote. “But why would the St.Paul city council choose to ‘celebrate’ abortion? Some may think it’s a necessary evil, but to celebrate abortion is bizarre.”

GOP state Sen. Mark Johnson said that he was “saddened” and “disturbed” by the city council’s decision in a prepared statement.

“Movements like this are indicative of the moral decline occurring in Minnesota and across our country,” Johnson stated. “As a father of three, I understand the sanctity of life and the joy that children bring to this world. Instead of celebrating abortion providers and their destructive habits, let’s take a moment to celebrate life and our local organizations who are on the front lines protecting women’s and children’s health.”

But Tuesday’s celebration of abortion providers and the execution of their chosen profession wasn’t limited to the city of St. Paul. Multiple pro-abortion organizations also marked the date on social media, with some sharing a graphic that encouraged others to “join the celebration.”

Last month, the question of whether or not any abortion advocates actually celebrate abortion briefly became a topic of debate, following then-Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s comment that “we have to get back to the point where no one is suggesting that we be celebrating an abortion at any point in the pregnancy.”

A CNN opinion writer tried to counter that “nobody ‘celebrates abortion,'” and his assertion was subsequently met with numerous counter-examples in rebuttal. Now it would appear that such rebuttals have been given even more evidence to back up their case.

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 Florida Intelwars pro choice Pro-Life

Florida legislature passes law to require parental consent for minors’ abortions

A measure that would require girls under the age of 18 to get parental consent before having an abortion is headed to the desk of Florida’s Republican governor, Ron Desantis, after passage in both chambers of the state legislature.

The state’s House of Representatives passed the bill on Thursday by a vote of 75-43, mostly along party lines, according to a report at the Associated Press. The Senate passed it by a vote of 23-17 earlier this month.

As the Tampa Bay Times explained, while Florida law currently requires parents be notified if their child receives an abortion, the recently passed measure requires parental consent for the procedure as well.

“What we are talking about is a child, and here [we] are talking about a child who is carrying a child,” Republican bill sponsor Rep. Erin Grall said, according to the AP. “By including parents in this decision we empower the family. It is the critical backbone of our civilized society.”

Other supporters of the measure have pointed out that parental consent is required for minor-aged children to do other things, and therefore should be to get an abortion.

“In the Sunshine State, a young girl needs a parent or guardian’s approval before she gets a tattoo, but she can undergo an invasive, often dangerous procedure without any input from mom or dad,” Susan B. Anthony List state policy director Sue Liebel said in a statement praising the bill’s house passage. “Parents ought to have the right to protect and support their young daughters.”

“Children can’t go to a movie without a parent, can’t receive medications in school without parental consent, so it is consistent,” GOP House Speaker Jose Oliva said of the measure, according to the Center Square.

However, opponents just see the legislation as yet another effort to erode abortion rights.

“Certain lawmakers insist on claiming that this bill is about protecting minors and ensuring parental involvement or guidance — but that is not the reality,” a statement from ACLU of Florida Legislative Director Kara Gross said. “It is about politicians creating a system where minors will be forced to have children against their will, placed in harm’s way and stripped of their constitutionally protected right to end an unintended pregnancy.”

DeSantis is expected to sign the bill, which would go into effect July 1. He asked lawmakers to send it to his desk last month during his State of the State address.

The big question is what will happen if and when the legislation gets taken to court, since the Florida Supreme Court struck down a parental consent requirement in 1989. Desantis said Thursday that he welcomes a review of the law by the current court, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. Three of the seven members of the current Florida Supreme Court have been appointed by DeSantis.

Twenty-six other states currently require parental consent for a minor to get an abortion.

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