Roe v. Wade is the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jacobs-why-the-u-s-supreme-court-needs-to-recognize-fetal-rights">essence of science denial</a>, and it has been for nearly 50 years. Yet the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates share a vision of America that centers around Roe and its long-debunked scientific notions about human biology.
Ever since the first Democratic presidential debates, the candidates have increasingly asserted their fervent belief in Roe v. Wade — a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">fallacious decision</a> that is based upon and perpetuates erroneous and obsolete ideas that contradict the fundamental, objective scientific facts of the biological science of human embryology. The most egregious, blatant, and disingenuous of all Roe&#8216;s distortions is its central tenet that it remains a mystery when human life begins.
More, in order to completely obscure the biological truth and redefine human reproduction to satisfy their political point of view, the politicians have announced numerous policies to augment Roe, including the promise to codify this toxic source of misinformation about human development.
Roe v. Wade declares: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man&#8217;s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
Since when should those in “medicine, philosophy, and theology” be consulted for such a specifically biological issue when they have no such academic expertise? Most philosophers and theologians have never had a graduate course in biology, much less in human embryology, and most physicians briefly learn about human embryology as part of a broader anatomy course and are not properly considered “scientists.” Human embryology is the study of development of the new individual from beginning to end and is the only science that specializes in when a human life starts; solely the testimonies of those biologists with doctoral degrees in human embryology should, in theory, be consulted. Yet not one human embryologist was allowed to testify during the Roe litigation.
In addition, to help rationalize the decision to reject the concept of “personhood” of the human embryo and fetus until “viability,” cited at the time to be between 24 and 28 weeks, Roe refers to ancient scientific ideas about human reproduction when it claims: “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics.”
The Stoics were a group of Greek philosophers, existing around 300 B.C.E. Are the Democratic presidential candidates endorsing the suggestion that human biology has not advanced for more than 2000 years — and that it will never do so?
Among the scientific experts, there is and has long been an international consensus regarding the beginning of a human life. When a human being — an individual, living member of the human species — begins to exist has been known and documented for more than 100 years and was instituted in 1942 in the Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development. The Carnegie Stages continue to be refined and advanced as the global standard of human embryological research, and <a href="https://www.medicalmuseum.mil/assets/documents/collections/hdac/stage01.pdf">Carnegie Stage 1</a> still documents human sexual reproduction.
Carnegie Stage 1 states that all sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist at the start of the process of fertilization (Carnegie Stage 1a). Human embryologists know that fertilization also initiates the continuum of human life — in other words, after fertilization, the new human being does not become a different kind of thing. He or she continues to grow and develop as the same human organism throughout the rest of the embryonic period, the fetal period, and then after birth, during the subsequent stages of life.
Thus, the term “human embryo” or “human fetus” is simply the scientific name for an already-existing human being during the embryonic or fetal period of human development. Thus, for sexually reproduced human beings, &#8220;personhood&#8221; begins at fertilization, not at “viability,” “first breath,” or some later point that conveniently fits a popular political, social, or economic narrative.
Under the Supreme Court’s current abortion jurisprudence precedent, as established in Roe v. Wade and modified/upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, states are still prohibited from applying the objective scientific facts and banning abortion prior to “viability.” However, as medical technology has improved, Roe’s fetal “viability” threshold has moved back from 28 weeks — not forward to 40 weeks as imagined by the Democratic presidential hopefuls. In the U.S., infants born at 22 weeks gestation have a nearly 25% survival rate and in Japan, the survival rate is over 30%. In Sweden, for infants younger than 22 weeks gestation, the survival rate has improved from 3.6% to 20% over the last decade.
Rather than pledging allegiance to, expanding upon, and imposing their misconceptions and Roe v. Wade’s absurd “scientific” myths on the American people, the Democratic presidential candidates should acknowledge that the immediate product of human sexual reproduction is both a human being and a human person — and renounce public policies and laws that do not reflect this scientific reality.
&nbsp;
Brooke Stanton is the CEO of Contend Projects, a registered 501(c)(3) education organization spreading the basic, accurate scientific facts about when a human life starts and the biological science of human embryology.

Embryo at 7 weeks

STANTON: The Pro-Abortion Democrats And Their Unscientific Roe-volution

Abortion

Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment

March For Life

Supreme Court

It was announced this week that President Donald Trump will speak at the March For Life in DC on Friday. His speech will mark the first time that any president has made an appearance. Through the march’s 47 years of history, none of the Republican presidents who have been in office during that span have seen fit to grace its stage. Not counting Trump, that makes four Republican presidents, serving over 20 cumulative years in office, who all steadfastly refused to be seen consorting with, or speaking to, the hundreds of thousands of pro-life protestors standing practically right outside their door.
<iframe title="A Major Milestone | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 411" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d0mrI5t26YI?start=99&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That isn’t to say that no Republican president addressed the marchers until now. Some of them — Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, specifically — gave brief remarks via phone or satellite. But there was an obvious and conspicuous decision made to maintain a degree of separation from the pro-life crowd. This is exactly the kind of cautious calculation that Democrat presidents would not even consider making if the situation was reversed. It is very hard to imagine that Barack Obama would have hidden away in the White House for eight years as a group of 500 thousand pro-abortion demonstrators descended on Washington for an annual march in support of killing babies. Of course, the pro-abortion side could never achieve that kind of turn out for eight years in a row, much less 47 years in a row, but you get my point. The theme of the last half century or so has been Republicans dancing tepidly around so-called “social issues” while Democrats confront the issues in the open, unabashedly, with bull horns and confetti.
That’s why Trump’s speech matters. Optimistically, this could be viewed as another sign that the political winds have to some degree shifted on abortion. Republican politicians are perhaps beginning to realize that the pro-life position is not one to shrink away from or be ashamed of. We are, after all, making the rather simple and morally unassailable point that babies are innocent human life, and innocent human life should never be intentionally destroyed.
And the March For Life, despite how it has been historically treated by the Republican Party, is far from a politically calamitous display of extremism and lunacy. That would be the Women’s March. What President Trump will see when he stands at the microphone tomorrow morning is a diverse crowd of young and energetic people — most of them women — gathering cheerfully in the frigid cold for the supremely moral task of defending innocent lives. Republicans, rather than hiding under their beds and waiting for the scary pro-lifers to go away, ought to be calling attention to these people and their message. They are a sympathetic and likable bunch. And their message is as noble as it gets. The Trump Administration seems to realize that. Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend.

US-POLITICS-abortion-demonstration

WALSH: President Trump Will Be The First President To Attend The March For Life. Here’s Why That Matters.

Donald Trump

Last evening, on the 47th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/roe-v-wade-ed-whelan/">infamous</a> Roe v. Wade decision, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training who has been a frequent proponent of both the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-what-alyssa-milano-gets-so-very-wrong-about-josh-hammer">immorality of abortion</a> and the need to overturn or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">openly &#8220;defy&#8221;</a> a decision as patently erroneous as Roe, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-HnMAHs3-c">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network to make the straightforward constitutional argument for why Roe was indeed wrongly decided.
Hammer, a <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/josh-hammer">Federalist Society campus speaker</a> who has a forthcoming piece of legal scholarship on the issue of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">judicial supremacy</a>, argued in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-it-past-time-trump-openly-defy-court-order-josh-hammer">Daily Wire op-ed</a> one year ago that President Donald Trump would be on firm legal standing to outright &#8220;defy&#8221; lawless edicts such as Roe. Hammer contrasted the language of the little-known 1958 case of Cooper v. Aaron — in which the Court pronounced its judicial supremacist adherence to &#8220;the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution&#8221; — with the language from Abraham Lincoln’s <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp">First Inaugural Address</a>, in which Lincoln disavowed the legal and moral abomination of Dred Scott v. Sandford as a broader binding political principle:
<blockquote>I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.</blockquote>
For many social conservatives and constitutional originalists, Roe is the direct <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/lincoln-on-judicial-despotism">legal and moral successor</a> to Dred Scott — and <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/01/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it">ought to be treated</a> as such.
But before getting there, Hammer explained to Wheeler the basic 14th Amendment argument as to why Roe is, in fact, a wrongly decided decision whose unprecedented nationalization of abortion policy under thin constitutional guise amounted to a horrific judicial power grab:
<blockquote>Let&#8217;s talk about the actual constitutional law here. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 — it was a very famous constitutional amendment ratified in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War, intended as a civil rights provision largely for free blacks. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment says that &#8220;nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.&#8221; By the Due Process Clause&#8217;s plain text, it refers only to process — it does not refer to what lawyers would call &#8220;substance.&#8221;
Nonetheless, in 1965, in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found that due to the &#8220;penumbras&#8221; and the &#8220;emanations&#8221; that come from the Fourth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments, there is a &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; in the Constitution. That is nonsense: There&#8217;s no such thing as a &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; anywhere whatsoever in the constitutional text. But from there, it was a pretty short step, eight years later after Griswold in 1973, for the Court to say that this &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; that they found means that you have a constitutional right to abort your unborn born child.
And it is a complete distortion and bastardization of the 14th Amendment. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade, Liz, is one of the two most constitutionally unsound and horrific decisions probably probably ever promulgated by the Supreme Court. &#8230; [It&#8217;s] right up there with the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which my hero of all heroes, Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address in 1861, famously said that he would not abide by. He respected it as applied to Dred Scott himself, but would not respect the ruling as it applied to anyone else in the country. And for years now, I&#8217;ve been preaching my [fellow] conservatives to adapt and adopt that principle as it applies to Roe itself.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<iframe title="The Legal Argument to Overturn Roe v. Wade" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lBMCT8peHGE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN 1.22.20

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: The Legal Argument To Overturn Roe

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

President Trump will make history Friday at the 47th annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. by being the first president to ever deliver his message in person at the pro-life event.
&#8220;President Trump will deliver an in-person speech on Friday at the March for Life, an annual rally held in Washington protesting the legalization of abortion,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/trump-to-become-first-president-in-history-to-speak-at-march-for-life">Washington Examiner</a> reports, noting that Trump&#8217;s in-person speech will make him &#8220;the first president in history to appear at the march, one of the highest-profile events of the anti-abortion movement.&#8221;
The president&#8217;s decision to appear in person at the event, which drew some 100,000 marchers last year, was announced on Wednesday, Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion and prompted the founding of the march nearly five decades ago.
In a statement Wednesday, March for Life President Jeanne Mancini thanked Trump for his decision to attend the massive rally.
&#8220;From the appointment of pro-life judges and federal workers, to cutting taxpayer funding for abortions here and abroad, to calling for an end to late-term abortions, President Trump and his administration have been consistent champions for life and their support for the March for Life has been unwavering,&#8221; said Mancini. &#8220;We are grateful for all these pro-life accomplishments and look forward to gaining more victories for life in the future.&#8221;
After Trump expressed his excitement Wednesday about attending the event, Mancini responded, &#8220;We are excited to share the love and energy of the [March for Life] with you in person, thank you for coming!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
See you on Friday&#8230;Big Crowd! <a href="https://t.co/MFyWLG4HFZ">https://t.co/MFyWLG4HFZ</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220105021930426368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We are excited to share the love and energy of the <a href="https://twitter.com/March_for_Life?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@March_for_Life</a> with you in person, thank you for coming! <a href="https://t.co/GVyMuekX1R">https://t.co/GVyMuekX1R</a>
&mdash; Jeanne F. Mancini (@jeannemfl) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeannemfl/status/1220113684346941440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last year, Vice President Mike Pence attended the event in a surprise appearance, while Trump delivered his message remotely through a live video stream from the Rose Garden, as he did in 2018. Trump&#8217;s live-streamed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-trumps-historic-speech-march-life-james-barrett">statement</a> in 2018 was the first time a sitting U.S. president addressed the march.
&#8220;This is a movement founded on love and grounded in the nobility and dignity of every human life,&#8221; Trump told the tens of thousands in attendance last year (full statement below). &#8220;When we look into the eyes of a newborn child, we see the beauty and the human soul and the majesty of God’s creation. We know that every life has meaning and that every life is worth protecting. As president, I will always defend the first right in our Declaration of Independence — the right to life.&#8221;
Below is the full <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/18/president_trump_speech_to_march_for_life.html">transcript</a> of President Trump&#8217;s remarks given remotely last year to the 46th March for Life:
I am very proud to welcome tens of thousands of families, students, and people of all faiths and backgrounds to our nation&#8217;s capital for the 46th annual March For Life.
This is a movement founded on love and grounded in the nobility and dignity of every human life. When we look into the eyes of a newborn child, we see the beauty and the human soul and the majesty of God’s creation. We know that every life has meaning and that every life is worth protecting.
As president, I will always defend the first right in our Declaration of Independence — the right to life.
During my first week in office, I reinstated the Mexico City Policy. We have taken bold action to protect the religious freedoms for doctors, nurses, and charities, like the Little Sisters Of The Poor.
We issued a new proposal to prohibit Title Ten taxpayer funding from going to any clinic that performs abortions.
We are supporting the loving choice of adoption and foster care, including through the support of faith-based adoption services. And I am supporting the U.S. Senate&#8217;s effort to make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion in spending bills.
Today, I have signed a letter to Congress to make clear that if they send any legislation to my desk that weakens the protection of human life, I will issue a veto — and we have the support to uphold those vetoes.
Every child is a sacred gift from God. As this year&#8217;s March For Life theme says, each person is &#8220;unique from day one.&#8221; That is a very important phrase, &#8220;Unique from Day One,&#8221; and so true.
I want to thank Americans who traveled all across the country to march for life, and I especially want to thank so many young people who give us hope for the future. Together, we will work to save the lives of unborn children, so they have a chance to live and to love, to thrive and to dream, and to bless our nation and reach their full and glorious potential.
Thank you. God bless you and your families, and God bless America.

Trump To Make History At March For Life

pro-life

On January 22, 1973, Americans woke up to a different republic. At the will of seven unelected justices, Roe v. Wade made dramatically expanded abortion access both the policy and the law for our entire country. The opinion was an alarm bell, a warning that the moral dimension of our country had been irrevocably altered and would continue to change unless something stopped it. Speaking conservatively, 61 million babies have since been killed under this regime.
Every year since, pro-life Americans have come to Washington to express their hope and defiance at the March for Life. Two generations of pro-lifers have bent the arc of their lives toward undoing the injustice of abortion. I’m proud to be among them and to work for the most pro-life president in history. As pro-lifers gather in Washington once again in the fourth year of the president’s first term, it is worth taking stock of how President Trump has advanced the cause of life.
By any fair reckoning, we are in a golden chapter for our movement. President Trump has pushed the boundaries of the art of the possible further than ever. His appointment of constitutionally faithful jurists — 187 federal judges, including two associate justices of the Supreme Court, for overall over a fifth of all federal judgeships — will arrest the Left’s hold on the courts. One in four federal circuit court judges today have been appointed by President Trump.
Within weeks of taking office, President Trump did not just reinstate the Mexico City Policy to stop foreign aid from subsidizing organizations that perform abortions; he went even further, applying the policy to more funding streams and more foreign aid activities than has any other president. Last September, at the opening of the 74th United Nations General Assembly, he announced, “Global bureaucrats have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life,” making it clear to the world that our support for the sanctity of life doesn’t stop at the water’s edge.
President Trump prohibited Title X grantees from referring patients for elective abortions and prevented their physical co-location with abortion providers. As a result, Planned Parenthood quit the program, cutting off its access to hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding. He issued a robust conscience rule in order to ensure, among other things, that those who care for us when we are ill are not forced to perform or encourage abortion. Moreover, the president has just finalized a rule to stop insurers from quietly billing taxpayers for abortion services, ending an Obamacare loophole that left pro-life taxpayers unwitting accomplices to the violation of their conscience. He has also restricted the use of fetal tissue from elective abortions in government-funded medical research.
But the battle is not over. Policies like the Hyde Amendment, a bipartisan provision that has prevented federal funds from paying for abortion for more than four decades, are now suddenly under unprecedented attack. In the yearly funding process, we fought off attempts to overturn our administrative successes, and it was only through the president’s staunch opposition and the unwavering work of the life movement that we prevailed.
The urgency of our labors is often informed by the texture of our own lives. My daughter, Porter, suffers from cystic fibrosis, a genetic disorder that shortens lives and requires expensive care. According to a Kaiser Permanente report, 87% of babies diagnosed with cystic fibrosis before birth are tragically aborted. These children are robbed of their lives and their parents miss out on the daily joy of loving their children, as we gratefully experience every day with Porter. Her life is a battle, but it is a glorious one, just like any other child growing up. So it is with our movement.
There is much work to be done to protect these gains and pursue others. President Trump will keep fighting in the months and years ahead for the cause of life and freedom for all Americans. And I am heartened to know that the president’s efforts will be joined by the hundreds of thousands of Americans from all walks of life who come each year in the cold to stand up and fight for our nation’s most vulnerable individuals, the unborn.
&nbsp;
Russ Vought is acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Follow him on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/russvought45">@RussVought45</a>.

U.S. President Donald Trump&#8217;s Third Year In The Oval Office

VOUGHT: The Most Pro-Life President In History

Planned Parenthood

On Thursday night, Daily Wire Senior Editor Ashe Schow joined The Heritage Foundation’s Charmaine Yoest on EWTN’s “Pro-Life Weekly” with host Catherine Hadro to discuss Planned Parenthood’s annual report regarding its services and organization.
Hadro opened the segment by explaining that Planned Parenthood performed 13,000 more abortions in 2019 than in 2018, for a total of 345,672 abortions, for an increase of 3.88% over 2018. These staggering numbers caused Yoest to refer to Planned Parenthood as “Abortion, Inc.” Schow noted that while the organization increased the number of abortions it performed, all other major services actually declined.
“As abortions go up for Planned Parenthood, all of their other services that they like to saying, ‘no we’re not just [about] abortion,’ have gone down,” Schow said, citing numbers from the report <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2020/01/06/planned-parenthood-annual-report-shows-it-killed-345672-babies-in-abortions-more-than-ever-before/">and LifeNews</a>. “You’ve got contraception down 2%, pap smears and tests down 7%, breast exams down 11%, cancer screenings down 8%. Prenatal care? Down 68% since 2010, and to put that in perspective, for last year, Planned Parenthood killed 35 babies for every one woman it helped with prenatal care. Adoption referrals down year over year and again, killed 80 babies for every one adoption referral.”
Many of the services listed by Schow had dropped, but were still provided at a higher rate than abortions. Contraception services, for example, dropped 2% to 2,556,413 in 2018, but far outpaced the nearly 350,000 abortions provided by the organization.
Schow also discussed the fact that Planned Parenthood’s annual report completely glossed over the fact that it underwent a leadership crisis in 2019 after firing Dr. Leana Wen because she tried to get the organization to focus on more than just abortion.
“She was trying to get the organization to actually focus on women’s health and other things. She tried talking to pro-life groups and people who weren’t necessarily for abortion but didn’t like medical intrusion in medical health,” Schow said. “She wanted more services for maybe mental health and addiction but within Planned Parenthood it was just, ‘no, abortion’s our thing [and] we’re sticking to it.’”
Schow also bemoaned the constant messaging surrounding abortions, suggesting women can only succeed if they abort their child.
“People know: ‘If I need an abortion, I can go to Planned Parenthood.’ And it says a whole lot about the culture. You’ve got Democrats and progressives just constantly – just recently at the Golden Globes, you had a pregnant Michelle Williams saying the only reason she was able to accept this award was because she aborted a child,” Schow said. “You’ve got this constant messaging to women that if they have a child, their life is over and they can never succeed. And it’s working, it’s clearly working. Abortions are going up even though polls show Americans don’t agree with abortion. By and large, Americans want it at least limited to just the first trimester, and yet you have all this messaging that you should have an abortion in order to succeed in life.
You can watch the full video below:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PFtQN39CRE0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Ashe

WATCH: Schow On ‘Pro-Life Weekly’: As Abortions Rose At Planned Parenthood, All Other Major Services Declined

&#8220;Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.&#8221; – Leftist Journalism 101
Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is, you see, a conservative man. In what was still a relatively rare move, at the time, Senate Democrats filibustered the judicial nomination of the then-Alabama attorney general due to their belief that Pryor was a devil-may-care extremist. In 2004, President George W. Bush first installed Pryor on the bench via <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/bush.pryor/">recess appointment</a>. During an at-times heated eventual Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, the avowedly pro-life Pryor had these <a href="https://www.congress.gov/108/chrg/CHRG-108shrg91200/CHRG-108shrg91200.htm">remarkable exchanges</a> with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Arlen Specter (R-PA):
<blockquote>Schumer: Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is &#8220;the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.&#8221; Do you believe that as of right now?
Pryor: I do.
Schumer: I appreciate your candor, I really do. &#8230;
Specter: &#8220;In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law [Roe] in our history.&#8221; Is that an accurate quotation of yours?
Pryor: Yes.
Specter: Is that [comment] one which would fall into the category that Senator [Orrin] Hatch has commented on, you wish you had not made?
Pryor: No, I stand by that comment.
Specter: Why do you consider it an abomination, Attorney General Pryor?
Pryor: Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That&#8217;s my personal belief.</blockquote>
Since joining the federal judiciary, Pryor — on issues ranging from criminal sentencing to habeas corpus to due process to the role of religion in public life — has indeed been a consistent voice for an originalist, conservative jurisprudence. He was publicly floated as a leading contender for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, which was ultimately filled by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. Alas, that was a botched opportunity for those of us <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">staunchly pro-life</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-a-political-wish-for-2020-less-socialism-more-law-and-order">traditional law-and-order</a> conservatives with no small degree of skepticism for the genre of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-three-things-conservatives-must-look-future-josh-hammer">libertarian-infused</a> originalism sometimes <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/">peddled by Gorsuch</a>.
Regardless, the Left has never forgiven Pryor for his steadfast refusal to bend the knee at the altar of the progressive golden calf. He has repeatedly found himself, over the years, in the crosshairs of what Andrew Breitbart famously called the &#8220;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574451703003340362">Democrat-Media Complex</a>.&#8221; Which brings us to the recent 11th Circuit case of <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715470.pdf">U.S. v. Brown</a>.
If you believe the findings of the trial court, former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida is about as corrupt as an elected Democrat can come. Brown, who served in Congress for 24 years, was ultimately convicted in May 2017 on 20 federal corruption charges, ranging from mail fraud to filing false tax return documentation. In December 2017, she was sentenced to five years in federal penitentiary and ordered to pay restitution.
And now, just last week, her federal appeal in the 11th Circuit was denied — over the dissent, perhaps curiously at first blush, of Judge Pryor. For having the temerity to opine that an allegedly deeply venal Democrat is rightfully &#8220;entitle[d] to a new trial,&#8221; Pryor was <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-supreme-court-shortlister-william-pryor-god-juries.html">excoriated at Slate yesterday</a> by longstanding leftist legal blogger Andrew Cohen.
It is important to understand why Cohen&#8217;s risible smear does not even pass the smell test.
Brown&#8217;s trial featured a peculiar twist. One prospective juror, to whom the dueling 11th Circuit opinions only refer as &#8220;Juror 13,&#8221; appears to have been a devout Christian. For the trial court, this was problematic. Here is how Matthew Franck <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-case-of-the-florida-politico-and-the-praying-juror/">accurately summarizes</a> the crux of the legally relevant issue at National Review&#8217;s &#8220;Bench Memos&#8221; blog:
<blockquote>After an eight-day trial, the jury was given its instructions by the court; at the end of the second day of its deliberations one juror (Juror 8) relayed her concern to the judge that another juror (Juror 13) had spoken of being guided by a “higher being” in reaching the conclusion that Brown should be acquitted on all counts.
Summoned to meet with the judge and counsel in the case, Juror 13 was questioned about what he had said, and about his ability to participate in deciding the case according to the evidence and testimony. After two probing — but often somewhat opaque — interviews, the judge decided to excuse the juror (and seat an alternate in his place), ruling that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he could not be trusted to abide by his juror’s oath to do impartial justice according to the evidence.</blockquote>
Specifically, Juror 13&#8217;s purportedly disqualifying sin was saying, at some point during juror deliberations, &#8220;something to the effect of &#8216;the Holy Spirit told me that Corrine Brown was not guilty on all charges.'&#8221;
Cohen, mocking Pryor&#8217;s &#8220;long, rambling dissent,&#8221; cavalierly asserts that &#8220;[t]he problem with Juror 13 wasn’t just that he believed he was being directed by God to render a decidedly secular verdict. The problem also was that he evidently did not understand that to say so, to believe so, would undermine his ability to abide by the judge’s instructions and evaluate Brown’s guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence in court.&#8221;
This is a disingenuous and willful distortion of the record in this case.
Pryor&#8217;s dissent, spanning 65 pages, painstakingly produces large chunks of the trial court record in order to demonstrate that Juror 13 did not do precisely what Cohen accuses him of having done. The 11th Circuit&#8217;s legal standard for dismissing a deliberating juror is the high threshold of &#8220;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8221; and as Pryor writes, &#8220;[i]f this devout juror’s religious language alone proved his misconduct &#8216;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8217; &#8230; then the phrase &#8216;reasonable doubt&#8217; has changed its meaning.&#8221;
Pryor&#8217;s dissent is a tour de force, devoting pages to citations of religious texts from manifold faiths in order to demonstrate that &#8220;every prayer implies a hope that the prayer be answered.&#8221; Every juror takes a solemn oath, after all, and it is undisputed that the taking of such an oath — &#8220;an ancient tradition of ensuring honesty by invoking supernatural sanction on those who swear a false oath&#8221; — necessarily means that jurors are allowed to pray for guidance that they reach the correct outcome. And &#8220;if religious jurors may pray for God’s guidance, it follows that they must be entitled to receive God’s guidance, or at least to believe that they have received it.&#8221;
As with so many others facets of our legal and constitutional order that leftists routinely obfuscate and bastardize, the legal principles in play here are really not that complicated. In fact, Pryor expressly and unambiguously disavows the very line of argumentation that Cohen recklessly imputes to him (some internal citations omitted and emphasis bolded):
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
[A] juror who refuses or is unable to apply the law to the evidence for a spiritual reason is no less subject to dismissal than a juror who does the same thing for a secular reason. When it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that “‘religious inspiration’ prevent[s] [a] juror from considering the evidence at all,” United States v. Salvador, 740 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1984), that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who refuses to deliberate for any other reason. And when it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that a juror has “abandon[ed] his or her judgment [about the evidence] to what he or she perceives to be oracular signs,” that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who decides to base her vote on any other nonevidential event, like the weather or the outcome of a coin flip.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
On the other hand, &#8220;[a]s long as the object of [a religious juror&#8217;s] prayers is an honest attempt to discern the facts from the evidence and to apply the law to those facts, the prayerful meditations of such a juror are no less valid a form of deliberation than any other.&#8221;
The Founders would have been positively aghast at the notion that this could somehow be controversial. That it is deemed controversial, in the year 2020, says everything one needs to know about the insidious secularization of contemporary society.
In short, there was nothing in a careful review of the trial court record to demonstrate that Juror 13 was incapable of assessing the evidence presented at trial. On the contrary, Juror 13 &#8220;told the district court time and time again that he was basing his decision on the evidence,&#8221; and only believed that the Holy Spirit spoke to him in the context of answering his prayers for guidance in reaching the right outcome after adducing the evidence. Those would be the same prayers for guidance that must be viewed in the context of Juror 13&#8217;s having sworn an oath, just like all his fellow jurors, to &#8220;truly try the case now before this court and render a true verdict, according to the law, evidence, and instructions of this court, so help [him] God.&#8221;
Secularists may not care for such niceties, but the reality is that, as constitutional law scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen has been fond of noting over the years, the Founding generation viewed the solemnity of oaths quite seriously. In fact, as I note in my <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/josh-hammer">current Federalist Society</a> lecture on the constitutionality (or <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf">lack thereof</a>) of stare decisis in constitutional interpretation, the gravity of the judicial oath helped undergird Chief Justice John Marshall&#8217;s iconic ruling in the landmark 1803 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137#writing-USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO">Marbury v. Madison</a> decision:
<blockquote>Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! &#8230;
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
</blockquote>
The reality is that those like Cohen — those who would fearmonger and alienate by putting &#8220;religious freedom&#8221; in scare-quotes — reek with dripping condescension for religious Americans. Cohen, a lawyer himself, is part of the &#8220;culture of legal discourse&#8221; that Pryor rightly describes as one that &#8220;often struggles to understand religious practice or to take religious perspectives seriously.&#8221; Cohen and his ilk, part of our most supercilious bicoastal ruling class clerisy, simply despise the rubes and yokels of flyover country. They despise the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">forgotten Americans</a> of the heartland. And they despise those members of &#8220;our credentialed judicial elite,&#8221; such as Pryor himself, who adamantly stand for those same forgotten Americans.
This is the narrative that motivates Andrew Cohen. And he will not allow such stubborn things as facts to get in the way of his preferred narrative.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Hand of witness on Bible in courtroom

HAMMER: Judge William Pryor Is Yet Again A Victim Of The Left’s War On Truth

Christianity

First Amendment

Lawsuit

Religion

Slate

A podcast listener recently alerted me to a particularly hideous post on a Reddit forum for the so-called “Child Free” community. Those familiar with this camp, whether on Reddit or other social media sites, will not be overly surprised to learn that one of its members had something rotten and loathsome to say. This is what the “Child Free” folks do. They sit around all day heaping scorn on parents and children, hoping that their contempt will mask the overwhelming loneliness and despair they feel. Everything you read on a &#8220;Child Free&#8221; forum will be some degree of repugnant. But even by those standards, this one is pretty bad.
A woman who goes by the username 4amcurfew <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/ei7qi4/on_my_way_to_planned_parenthood/?utm_medium=android_app&amp;utm_source=share">posted</a> the following while on the way to kill her children:
<blockquote>
“I am on my way to Planned Parenthood to purge the two parasites that somehow implanted into my uterus despite me being on the pill.
I can&#8217;t f***ing wait to stop being nauseous and throwing up and being unable to keep water down. I can&#8217;t wait to be rid of this hyperemesis gravidarum that destroyed my Christmas and ruined my [New Year&#8217;s Eve] and is ruining my life.
I can&#8217;t f***ing wait to be done with the anxiety of knowing these things are in my uterus and knowing that I will not have to birth dribbling horror goblins, will not have disgusting leaking [breasts], will not go home from the hospital in a nappy and with a sitched [sic] up vagina, I will not have post-partum depression or be left disfigured with stretch-marks. My relationship with my [significant other] will not be ruined.
I am dedicating this double fetus purge to the anti-choice movement because no matter how hard you try, you will not force us to be your handmaids. HAPPY 2020!”
</blockquote>
Hundreds of comments follow, and all are rapturous in their applause and encouragement. Many use the same degrading nicknames for babies — “goblin” seems to be a favorite — and they assure this mother that murdering her own children will earn her a life of luxury and joy. Of course, if any of them were living joyful lives, they wouldn’t be on Reddit authoring lengthy screeds against babies. The truth is that they are all crushingly miserable. And it is a misery made worse by the fact that they know they deserve it and have earned it over a lifetime of obsessive self-centeredness.
<iframe title="When The Pro Abortion Movement Takes Off The Mask | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 406" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/du6Qd2mTeXA?start=248&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
When confronted with this ghoulishness, it is tempting to dismiss it as &#8220;just the internet&#8221; and &#8220;not real life.&#8221; But that is only a lie we tell ourselves because we don&#8217;t like what the internet tells us about ourselves. These are actual human beings writing these things, thinking these things, doing these things. If we heard them in a Starbucks bragging about killing their &#8220;goblin&#8221; children, we wouldn&#8217;t think of waving it off as &#8220;just Starbucks&#8221; and &#8220;not real life.&#8221; The things people say in Starbucks are obviously a part of real life. Just as the things people say on Reddit, and Twitter, and YouTube, etc., are all a part of real life.
This woman&#8217;s post, and the reactions to it, are indicative of more than just the culture on Reddit. They are indicative of our culture — and more specifically, are indicative of the pro-abortion movement at large. It may be true that most women who get abortions aren&#8217;t quite as cavalier about it, but the abortion industry does encourage women to feel exactly this way about their children.
Through abortion and for the sake of abortion, children are literally dehumanized in this country and treated as parasites who &#8220;somehow&#8221; implant themselves into the uteruses of unsuspecting women. The entire pro-abortion movement is built squarely on this premise. There is nothing on that Reddit thread with which any pro-abortion person would or could fundamentally disagree. It&#8217;s just that usually they aren&#8217;t so explicit in their motivations or so openly bloodthirsty in expressing them. But the internet has provided them a forum to safely take off the mask and reveal the monster underneath. We should look, and learn, and remember.

third month fetus

WALSH: Woman Brags About Aborting Twins, Calls Them ‘Goblins.’ This Is The Dark Heart Of The Pro-Abortion Movement.

Reddit

A stirring new friend-of-the-court (&#8220;amicus&#8221;) <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/127140/20191231111040123_Prolife%20African%20American%20Organizations%20Amicus%20Brief%20TO%20FILE.pdf">brief</a> in a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court abortion case, filed on behalf of numerous &#8220;African American pro-life organizations,&#8221; powerfully argues that there is a &#8220;a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women.&#8221;
The case, which has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/legal-argument-louisiana-could-have-huge-josh-hammer">previously been covered</a> by The Daily Wire, is <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee-3/">June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Gee</a>, and emanates out of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The case involves a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law was upheld by a divided Fifth Circuit panel. As described by <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee-3/">SCOTUSblog</a>, Gee presents the legal question of whether the statute &#8220;conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt">Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</a>.&#8221; In the 2016 Hellerstedt case, a divided Supreme Court deemed a similar statute in Texas to be unconstitutional.
Prominent black pro-life leaders who signed on to the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/127140/20191231111040123_Prolife%20African%20American%20Organizations%20Amicus%20Brief%20TO%20FILE.pdf">amicus brief</a> include Ryan Bomberger, Alveda King (the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), Dean Nelson, Catherine Davis, Stacy Washington, and numerous others. The brief&#8217;s argument summary opens with a bang:
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 15">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The struggle for racial equality is not over. The black community experiences a disproportionate share of abortions, often from doctors that do not have the same credentials as those who perform other forms of surgery. Until Act 620, Louisiana’s abortion clinics were exempt from the admitting privileges requirement that applies to other outpatient and ambulatory surgical centers in the state. This disparity is significant to black women, who make up the majority of abortion clinic patients and thus bear most of the known risks of abortion in Louisiana. These known risks are life-threatening to mothers.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 15">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The brief continues to tear at the heartstrings by recalling the tragic stories of many black women who have died from abortion complications when they visited Kermit Gosnell-esque shoddy, un-credentialed, largely unregulated abortion clinics. &#8220;These gruesome deaths are part of a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women,&#8221; the brief continued. &#8220;By requiring admitting privileges, [Louisiana] also created a means for reports about individual doctors to be checked against a national database — for the benefit of all patients, of all races, equally.&#8221;
As has been frequently noted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/eugenicists-abortion-group-director-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-to-new-york-times-reporters">The Daily Wire</a>, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed eugenicist and racist. Sanger “was an out and proud eugenicist who described the poor and immigrants as ‘human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders’ and ‘spawning … human beings who never should have been born’ in her book ‘Pivot of Civilization,&#8217;” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-removes-poster-racist-margaret-sanger-paul-bois">The Daily Wire</a> has reported.
Sanger also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-removes-poster-racist-margaret-sanger-paul-bois">wrote</a>: “The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”
In a thunderous recent separate writing in the Fifth Circuit case of <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-60868-CV0.pdf">Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization v. Dobbs</a>, Judge James C. Ho (for whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I previously served as a law clerk) <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-60868-CV0.pdf">wrote at length</a> on the racist history of abortion advocacy in the United States (footnotes omitted):
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 29">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Eugenics—the concept of improving the human race through control of the reproductive process—has frequently been associated with explicitly racist viewpoints. “Many eugenicists believed that the distinction between the fit and the unfit could be drawn along racial lines.” Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. &amp; Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780, 1785 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (providing examples). Many eugenics programs, such as sterilization, explicitly targeted minorities—as the district court rightly acknowledged. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 349 F. Supp. 3d at 541 n.22 (noting that “Mississippi . . . sterilized six out of ten black women in Sunflower County at the local hospital—against their will”).
<div class="page" title="Page 29">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.” Box, 139 S. Ct. at 1787 (Thomas, J., concurring). See also id. (“[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”); id. at 1788 (discussing Margaret Sanger’s view that birth control would help control the African American population); id. at 1789 (“Support for abortion can . . . be found throughout the literature on eugenics.”); DAVID T. BEITO &amp; LINDA ROYSTER BEITO, BLACK MAVERICK: T.R.M. HOWARD’S FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC POWER 215 (2009) (noting that some African American civil rights leaders “fretted about the racist implications of abortion”). Indeed, among past abortion advocates were “some eugenicists [who] believed that abortion should be legal for the very purpose of promoting eugenics.” Box, 139 S. Ct. at 1789 (Thomas, J., concurring).
<div class="page" title="Page 30">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Advocates of eugenics might well celebrate, then, that abortion “has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.” Id. at 1790–91 (Thomas, J., concurring) (providing examples). See also id. at 1791 (noting that the current “abortion ratio . . . among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women”); William McGurn, White Supremacy and Abortion, WALL ST. J. (Sept. 24, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-supremacy-and-abortion-11567460392 (discussing “why so many African-Americans, especially African-American women, have been leaders in the pro-life cause”); id. (“Catherine Davis of the Restoration Project . . . notes that the estimated 20 million black abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973 are more than the entire African-American population in 1960.”).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>

U.S. Supreme Court

Black Pro-Life Leaders To SCOTUS: ‘Long History’ Of ‘Uncredentialed Abortion Providers Disproportionately Harming Black Women’

Blacks

Gosnell

Louisiana

Racism

Planned Parenthood is now reporting record-high numbers of abortions nationwide.
&#8220;Planned Parenthood reported a record-high number of abortions and government funding for 2018-2019, despite encountering a wave of Republican-led measures designed to restrict resources and access to the controversial procedure,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/planned-parenthood-record-abortions-government-funding">Fox News</a>.
The organization&#8217;s <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/2e/da/2eda3f50-82aa-4ddb-acce-c2854c4ea80b/2018-2019_annual_report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">annual report</a> released on Monday showed that Planned Parenthood received a whopping $617 million in taxpayer funds for the fiscal year ending in June 2018 — a full 9% increase from the previous year and representing 37% of its overall organizational funding. Those funds could decline with the next fiscal year, given the Trump administration&#8217;s efforts to strip Planned Parenthood with &#8220;executive-level funding for clinics that refer clients for abortion.&#8221;
Acting Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in the report that the organization has been forced out of government-funded programs due to &#8220;unethical&#8221; gag rules on referring women for abortions.
&#8220;We stand at an inflection point for reproductive health and rights,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;Our opponents moved to dismantle our nation’s program for affordable birth control this year, forcing providers like Planned Parenthood out of the program with an unethical gag rule.&#8221;
Pro-life groups were largely frustrated with Planned Parenthood&#8217;s reported figures. Alison Centofante, director of external affairs for Live Action, said the record-high numbers only proves that Planned Parenthood needs to be stripped of its governmental funds.
&#8220;This abortion machine, which is responsible for the taking of more than 345,000 preborn lives this year — a number consistently on the rise — should be defunded immediately and shut down,&#8221; said Centofante.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/planned-parenthood-record-abortions-government-funding">provided further background</a> on Planned Parenthood&#8217;s source of government funding, which goes beyond the federal and into state and local governments:
<blockquote>Other than through Congress, the group receives state and local grants in addition to money through Medicaid reimbursements. It also stands to receive a massive influx of cash if Democrats take the presidency and repeal the Hyde Amendment, a historically bipartisan measure that blocked federal funding for most abortions. A large sum of its money – $591.3 million – came from private contributions and bequests.
While some states have tried severing funding to the organization, they&#8217;ve faced legal challenges along the way. Over the past few years, Planned Parenthood has joined with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge a veritable onslaught of pro-life measures throughout the U.S.</blockquote>
Speaking with Fox News, famed Planned Parenthood defector Abby Johnson, who has repeatedly accused the organization of treating abortion as a for-profit enterprise, said that Planned Parenthood has only ramped up its efforts.
&#8220;Planned Parenthood is laser-focused on promoting abortion over any other service,&#8221; Johnson told the outlet. &#8220;They now run abortion-only clinics in several cities and have given up any semblance of trying to hide behind &#8216;family planning.&#8217; They fired Dr. Wen because she wanted to provide more services to women than just abortion. Planned Parenthood is the nation&#8217;s largest abortion vendor and their annual report only solidifies that fact.&#8221;
Planned Parenthood has always maintained that abortion constitutes just 4% of the organization&#8217;s services. Pro-life advocates have countered that assertion, arguing that Planned Parenthood manipulates the statistics to conceal its profitability. As Lila Rose stated <a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/what-you-need-to-know-about-planned-parenthood/">in a video with PragerU</a>:
<blockquote>They count every “discrete clinical interaction” as its own service. What is a “discrete clinical interaction”? Pretty much anything you do from the moment you walk into one of their clinics.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say a woman comes into Planned Parenthood for one service—an abortion. Before providing an abortion, Planned Parenthood has to confirm that the woman is pregnant, right? So, they administer another service—a pregnancy test. That’s two services! Then, after the abortion, on your way out the door, they hand you a prescription. That’s three services!
And there are many other services provided during the abortion process that Planned Parenthood claims as “discrete clinical interactions.”</blockquote>

US-POLITICS-HEALTHCARE-PROTEST

Business Is Booming: Planned Parenthood Reports Record-High Abortions

Ricky Gervais gave some excellent and useful advice at the end of his brilliant monologue to open the Golden Globes last night.
&#8220;So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech, right?” Gervais said, speaking directly to the assembly of narcissists in front of him. “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god, and f*** off. No one cares about your views on politics or culture.”
Predictably, none of the assembled narcissists were willing — or perhaps even physically able — to heed this warning. Least of all Michelle Williams, who wasted no time in turning her acceptance speech into a satanic homily. After winning an award for her dazzling role in something or other, Williams pivoted directly to abortion: Her own abortion, to be precise.
&#8220;I’m grateful for the acknowledgment of the choices I’m made, and I’m also grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists, because, as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice,” Williams sermonized. &#8220;I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose, to choose when to have my children and with whom.&#8221;
We should note that Williams was visibly pregnant while she bragged about killing a previous child. She then ended her speech with a rousing defense of selfishness.
&#8220;So, women, 18 to 118, when it is time to vote, please do so in your own self interest. It’s what men have been doing for years,&#8221; she proclaimed, as the camera cut to actresses in the audience literally weeping tears of joy at the very mention of self-interest. Ricky Gervais couldn&#8217;t have scripted it any better.
Now, first of all, I very much doubt that the people at the awards ceremony last night needed encouragement to act in their own self-interest. I doubt that anyone anywhere in the world needs that sort of encouragement. But if such a person does exist, you won&#8217;t find her at the Beverly Hills Hilton.
<iframe title="Hollywood Gets The Treatment It Deserves | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 398" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JsTJr7ZzXRE?start=948&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Second, I feel once again compelled to make the obvious point that Michelle Williams and her progressive pals in Hollywood really can&#8217;t do this girl power schtick anymore. References to a woman&#8217;s body and a woman&#8217;s voting habits make absolutely no sense in light of the gender theory that people like Michelle Williams routinely espouse. What the hell is a woman&#8217;s body? I mean, I know what it is. But Michelle Williams doesn&#8217;t. No member of the American Left does. Yet, when it suits them, they still pretend they do. They obliterate all distinctions between the sexes one minute, and then hope nobody notices when they redraw those distinctions the next minute.
Third, Williams packs about a half-dozen non-sequiturs, falsehoods, and delusions into the two sentences she spends talking about her abortion. Let&#8217;s take a look at just a few of them. She says that pregnancy is something that can &#8220;happen to our bodies that [is] not our choice.&#8221; In cases of rape, this is true. But <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/">rape accounts for</a> only 1% of all abortions. The other 99% occur because a woman chose to participate in the reproductive act. She chose to do the thing that, by its nature, can, and in billions and billions of cases does, result in the conception of a human life. To say that conception, in these cases, happens against the will of the woman is like saying that my elevated heart rate happens against my will when I use the treadmill. It may be true that I am not specifically willing my heart to beat faster, and it may even be true that I don&#8217;t want my heart to beat faster, but I am the one who is making it happen because I am the one who chose to get on the treadmill.
Likewise with Williams&#8217; insistence that a woman should be able to choose the person with whom she has children. Every contemporary person on Earth who is not a fundamentalist Islamist agrees. But the word &#8220;have&#8221; has two pertinent definitions here. Have can mean &#8220;to possess, own, or hold,&#8221; or it can mean &#8220;to experience or undergo.&#8221; Another possibly relevant definition is &#8220;to be the recipient of.&#8221; Whichever definition you choose, it&#8217;s clear that you &#8220;have&#8221; children from the moment they exist as distinct physical entities. That moment occurs when they are conceived, and not when they are born. So you choose who you are going to have children with when you choose who you are going to participate in the reproductive act with. Abortion does not protect that right or, indeed, have anything at all to do with that right.
But the most striking and disturbing part of Williams&#8217; abortion apologetic was more subtle. Note that she says &#8220;my children.&#8221; She claims that abortion enabled her to &#8220;choose when to have my children.&#8221; Currently, she has two children: One from a previous relationship and the other in the womb (notice how she identifies herself as &#8220;having&#8221; two children, apparently agreeing that women have children at conception, not birth). When she says that abortion enabled her to &#8220;have my children&#8221; later on in life, she seems to be almost suggesting that the child she eventually birthed was the same one she aborted years before.
Obviously, on an intellectual level, she knows that isn&#8217;t the case. But the rhetoric from the abortion lobby and abortion clinics is meant to give this perverse impression. Women are told that they can &#8220;put off&#8221; being a mother. They can place motherhood on hold for awhile. No need to have a baby now, they&#8217;re assured. They can just have it later, when everything is easier and it&#8217;s the &#8220;right time.&#8221;
Of course, in reality, motherhood occurs at conception. She is only at the abortion clinic because her attempts to &#8220;put off&#8221; parenting and babies failed. It is now too late for putting off. It is too late for waiting for a better time. It is too late to &#8220;have children&#8221; in a more convenient season of life. She is a mother now. That child exists now. If she goes through with the abortion, the child will be killed and he will be dead forever thereafter. And she will not go back to being a woman waiting for the right time. She will now be the mother of a dead child, living in grief or denial.
That is the horrible truth. Michelle Williams has three children, not two. One dead and two alive. She has found ways to talk about it and think about it that make her feel a little better about what she&#8217;s done. But she knows the truth, deep down. Otherwise she wouldn&#8217;t be on that stage, begging for applause.

Michelle Williams at Golden Globes

WALSH: Michelle Williams Shouted Her Abortion At The Golden Globes. Here’s The Most Disturbing Part Of What She Said.

Golden Globes

Hollywood

Leftism

Political Correctness

Progressivism

Actress Michelle Williams picked up a Golden Globe Sunday night for her role as Gwen Verdon in the short-running FX series, Fosse/Verdon and she had a very important factor in her life to thank for her illustrious career in Hollywood &#8212; abortion.
Williams, visibly pregnant and clad in a melon-colored Louis Vuitton gown &#8212; she and her fiance, Thomas Kail, announced they were expecting late last year &#8212; gave an &#8220;impassioned&#8221; speech, <a href="https://deadline.com/2020/01/michelle-williams-wins-limited-series-actress-golden-globe-1202822133/">Deadline reports</a>, crediting the death of an unborn baby with the success she now enjoys.
“I’m grateful for the acknowledgment of the choices I’m made, and I’m also grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists, because, as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice,&#8221; Williams said, clutching her award.
“I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose, to choose when to have my children and with whom,” Williams added, announcing that she had an abortion early in her career, presumably as she was an up-and-coming actress (though she never actually said the word, &#8220;abortion&#8221;).
“Now, I know my choices might look different than yours, but thank God, or whomever you pray to, that we live in a country founded on the principle that I am free to live by my faith and you are free to live by yours,” she continued. “So, women, 18 to 118, when it is time to vote, please do so in your own self interest. It’s what men have been doing for years.&#8221;
&#8216;Don&#8217;t forget, we are the largest voting body in this country,&#8221; Williams concluded, referencing women as a bloc. &#8220;Let&#8217;s make it look more like us.&#8221;
The audience in the theater, of course, applauded Williams for her &#8220;courage&#8221; in admitting that she earned her freedom from an unwanted child and left-leaning media (and, in particular, entertainment and women&#8217;s media) heaped praise on the actress for, essentially, saying that she would not have won her precious Golden Globe had she not ended a previous pregnancy &#8212; a decidedly anti-feminist message that, essentially, tells women they must choose between having a family and seeking success.
The audience on social media was less laudatory, pointing out that while an abortion may have given Williams the time and energy to pursue her career of choice, that same procedure deprived another human being of ever pursuing his or her hopes and dreams.
Many also pointed out that, while Williams may believe women are a united front when voting &#8212; and that their &#8220;self-interest&#8221; includes the right to end the life of an unborn baby &#8212; the statistics don&#8217;t support her assertion. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx">Nearly 50% of women consider themselves &#8220;pro-life</a>,&#8221; according to the polling firm, Gallup &#8212; a statistic that hasn&#8217;t changed much, if at all, over time.
Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais, as the Daily Wire noted last night, roasted his celebrity audience early on in the broadcast, cautioning them not to incorporate politics into their speeches because &#8220;spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.&#8221; Williams is no exception, having left school at 15 to pursue an acting career.

Michelle Williams

Pregnant Michelle Williams Thanks Abortion For Her Golden Globe Win

An Indiana abortion doctor whose family discovered thousands of fetal remains after he had died apparently kept some of those remains “inside molding boxes and old Styrofoam coolers” while others were kept “intermingled with bits of garbage and rodent droppings.”
Townhall’s Katie Yoder <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/katieyoder/2020/01/02/media-silent-indiana-abortionist-report-says-babies-stored-with-rodent-dropping-n2558802">reported</a> that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill published his preliminary findings on abortionist Ulrich “George” Klopfer, who died in September. After Klopfer’s death, his family discovered 2,246 “medically-preserved fetal remains and thousands of medical records” in his garage at this home in Illinois. Authorities were called in to investigate and found more records and 165 more unborn remains in the trunk of Klopfer’s car. More from Yoder:
<blockquote>The remains found appeared to be dated from 2000 to 2003, when Klopfer was practicing solely in Indiana. He performed tens of thousands of abortions in the state until his medical license, which he received in 1979, was permanently revoked in 2016 for “poor record keeping, failure to provide appropriate anesthesia to patients, and performing abortions on thirteen year old patients without proper reporting.”
Because of this, the unborn baby remains were transferred to Indiana. The report detailed the attorney general’s “initial findings and progress.”</blockquote>
Hill wrote in his report that “few matters are more important to me than preserving the dignity of human life.” Hill added that he planned “to provide for a dignified burial” so that the unborn babies “may finally rest in peace.”
The report found that due to the “poor condition of the fetal remains and unreliable nature of the accompanying records, it is not possible to make an independent verification of the identities of the individual fetal remains.”
Unborn baby remains were found “among boxes of personal items, rusting cars, multitudes of soda cans, and other random garbage stacked high to the ceiling,” Hill’s report said.
“The fetal remains were in various states of decay,” report added, saying the remains “were mostly found inside molding boxes and old Styrofoam coolers containing large red medical waste bags.”
“It appeared as though each remain had been placed in a small clear plastic specimen bag for purposes of being medically preserved in a chemical suspected to be formalin,” the report said. “However, many of the bags had degraded over time and/or suffered damage, resulting in leakage from the individual bags into the outer bag, box, or cooler.”
Klopfer also failed to properly record information about the remains, the report added.
During a press conference in September, a woman who had received an abortion from Klopfer said she felt like she had been “violated all over again” after learning what the abortionist had done with the remains of babies he had aborted.
“Even after much healing and attending a post-abortive retreat, hearing the news of over 2,000 baby remains on George Klopfer’s property stirred up so many emotions, not only for me but for many women reaching out to me,” she said at the time. “I feel like I have been violated all over again.”
The woman said that she had been speaking to attorneys in an effort to sue Klopfer’s estate and get DNA testing done to determine if the baby girl she aborted was among the remains kept on the abortionist’s property.

Pro-Life Rally

Indiana Abortionist Kept Unborn Remains With ‘Rodent Droppings,’ Report Says

As we end another year, our popular culture still revolves around President Donald Trump, and our news and entertainment conglomerates continue to be outraged that conservative Christians stick with him, so much so they are summarily ignored. Support him as, say, Franklin Graham and a vast majority of evangelicals have done and &#8230; crickets. But what happens when evangelicals don&#8217;t?
Happy days are here again. The left has lunged to promote an editorial by Christianity Today magazine that insists Trump must be removed from office. What the left understands — and some on the right still ignore — is that the cultural is far more powerful than the political. Thus, whenever a force on the cultural left flaps its wings, it is saluted. In the rare occasion that the entity advances the cultural right, it&#8217;s slammed, or ignored.
But that&#8217;s not necessarily how America sees it, thanks to social media that has done an end run around the press and told the truth. The left still dominates in the cultural space, but it no longer enjoys a monopoly.
Let&#8217;s look at the cultural winners and losers of 2019:
Loser: Jussie Smollett, the &#8220;Empire&#8221; actor and Hollywood race hoaxer who cost the taxpayers of Chicago more than $130,000 for all the time it took police to look for a nonexistent hate crime. Nothing says viral like a black gay celebrity claiming he was beaten by red-hatted Trumpster thugs. For two weeks, the left went nuts. Celebrities, politicians and the &#8220;news&#8221; media convicted Trump World for what it had allegedly caused. And it never happened. And now all of America knows it.
Winners: the students of Covington Catholic High School. Speaking of viral sensations of &#8220;fake news&#8221; around Trump hats, these high school kids were smeared relentlessly for several days for allegedly making evil smirks at a Native American activist. But the Diocese of Covington launched an investigation and found &#8220;no evidence of offensive or racist statements.&#8221; Again it was social media that spread the word to tens of millions across the country about the wrong done to the students. They were vindicated in the court of public opinion.
Winner: &#8220;Unplanned,&#8221; the movie about Abby Johnson, who converted from Planned Parenthood clinic director to conservative Catholic activist. Major music labels refused to license songs for it. Cable-news channels refused to run ads for it. Newspaper film critics refused to review it. And yet the little film became the talk of social media. What Pure Flix delivered has done more to advance the pro-life cause than the National Right to Life Committee has accomplished in the past three decades.
Loser: the abortion industry. In September, the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Guttmacher Institute estimated that there were about 862,000 abortions in 2017, nearly 200,000 fewer than in 2011. The abortion rate — the number of abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 — dropped to 13.5 in 2017, the lowest rate since Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.
Loser: Gillette. In January, NPR touted a Gillette ad that attacked its own consumers. &#8220;The first half of the ad portrays males as boorish, sexually harassing women, mansplaining and bullying,&#8221; NPR reported. It probably saw the ad as an anti-Trump message. The second half of the ad insisted men must change. The ad went viral. Then, Gillette dug in deeper. Shortly before Father&#8217;s Day, the company launched an ad about a dad teaching his &#8220;son&#8221; — a biological girl — how to shave. Sales tanked. But the company claimed it wasn&#8217;t the ads. It blamed &#8220;lower shaving frequency.&#8221;
Loser: The Walt Disney Studios. It dominated the top-grossing movies, but superhero flicks like &#8220;Avengers: Endgame&#8221; and &#8220;Captain Marvel&#8221; pandered aerobically to feminists. And for all that energy, leftist sites like Slate still bashed the movies for being &#8220;too patronizing, too late.&#8221; Why bother messing with superheroes?
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Captain Marvel.

BOZELL & GRAHAM: Cultural Winners And Losers Of 2019

Covington Catholic High School

Disney

Gillette

Jussie Smollett

Marvel

On Thursday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about the notorious abortion joke included in Michelle Wolf’s Netflix special, and how it speaks to the problem that afflicts radical egalitarian democracies. Video and partial transcript below: 
Another tough feature about radical democracy, another really unfortunate feature, is that it breaks all constraints on society. It’s obviously broken our Constitutional constraints — this happens time and time again. It’s broken our legal constraints, when people feel like they can just impose their will regardless of what the framework of our country says, but it also breaks the constraints of the moral order. 
Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the recent special of the alleged comedian Michelle Wolf. You’ll remember her, she was at the White House Correspondents Dinner a few years ago and she made fun of Sarah Sanders, and this was something of a controversy. 
So Michelle Wolf&#8217;s got a new special on Netflix, and she decided to do a whole bit, a whole joke, about how killing her child made her feel like God. Here she is:
<blockquote>WOLF: You feel like you should have this sense of shame after you get an abortion. Well you can feel any way you want after you get an abortion. Get one! See how ya feel! 
You know how my abortion made me feel? Very powerful. You know how people say you can&#8217;t play God? I walked out of there being like, “Move over, Morgan Freeman, I am God.”</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y2cxzLDxPZU" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
That&#8217;s pretty ghastly. I think it&#8217;s pretty repugnant. Most people are so shocked by that joke because it&#8217;s so real, it&#8217;s so true. 
It&#8217;s actually why it&#8217;s a pretty good joke, if not for all the suffering, if not for all the dead babies, if not for the reality of it — cause she actually killed her child — it would be a very funny joke if not for the victims. 
Why would it be a funny joke? Because it&#8217;s so true. She&#8217;s right, I&#8217;m sure she did feel very powerful. The ability to snuff out innocent life makes one feel powerful, it makes one take on the — presumed to have the authority of God. Yeah, that she&#8217;s right. That&#8217;s not a good thing. That&#8217;s a very bad thing.
The impulse of radical egalitarian democracy is to make each man a god. That&#8217;s the trouble. 
What is the result of that? Is the result of that a good, thriving, wonderful society where we all love each other and we&#8217;re all very nice to each other? No, the result of that is a society that is coarse, and capricious, and miserable, and murderous. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes.</a> 

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

Michelle Wolf

KNOWLES: The Truth Inside Michelle Wolf’s Ghastly, Repugnant Abortion Joke

Michael Knowles

The Green Bay Packers Foundation (GBPF) is now defending its donations to the abortion conglomerate Planned Parenthood in the face of criticism from conservative groups.
Earlier this week, LifeNews reported that the GBPF annual <a href="https://www.packers.com/news/packers-foundation-awards-a-record-1-million-in-annual-grants?fbclid=IwAR0x8HW2M48qzTV3alWEIN9JuC0XVDIZnyp-xdwHXX6fjvyfRIsBMWiubsE&amp;utm_source=Monday+Update&amp;utm_campaign=ebf9f173c6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_22_COPY_01&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_2ff3be8489-ebf9f173c6-69521241">grant fund recipients</a> list included Planned Parenthood among its 192 grantees — Planned Parenthood Of Wisconsin Inc., Milwaukee, to be exact. The news did not sit well with the foundation&#8217;s pro-life supporters.
Dan Miller, executive director of <a class="" href="https://www.prolifewi.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-track-label="inline|intext|n/a">Pro-Life Wisconsin</a>, said his organization opposes money going to the abortion giant &#8220;ever, at any time.&#8221;
&#8220;(The Packers) have stood for wonderful things, but this is not something that’s wonderful. Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider,&#8221; Miller said on Wednesday. &#8220;We&#8217;re outraged. We’d like an explanation. Whatever dollar amount they gave to Planned Parenthood, why would you possibly alienate half of your fan base?&#8221;
According to the <a href="https://www.htrnews.com/story/news/2019/12/19/green-bay-packers-foundation-criticized-planned-parenthood-donation/2691402001/">Herald Times Reporter</a>, a representative for the famed football franchise defended the donation, arguing it was for a specific program called Cuidándonos Creceremos más Sanos (CCmáS), which reaches out to &#8220;Latino families in southeastern Wisconsin, an underserved population, with language- and culturally-specific health education they would not normally receive.&#8221;
Aaron Popkey, Packers director of public affairs, said the organization understands certain objections to the donation while maintaining it was never meant as an endorsement of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s business.
“The Packers and the foundation certainly understand there are individuals who disagree with some aspect of one or more of the 2,800 organizations that have been supported since 1986,” said Popkey. “The organization respects those views. Grant applications are considered specific to their initiatives and do not necessarily imply endorsement of other actions by the organizations.”
Tanya Atkinson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, touted the program&#8217;s benefits for the Latino community.
“This is an innovative Spanish-language education program that empowers people to take charge of their health,” said Atkinson. “The Medical College of Wisconsin is predicting cancer rates among Hispanic women will double in the next 10 years. Programs like CCmáS serve as a critical connector between patients and the health care they need.”
As noted by <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2019/12/20/green-bay-packers-defend-donation-to-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/">LifeNews</a>, the foundation was established in 1986 by Judge Robert J. Parins with a mission to “support charities possessing one or more of the following goals: perpetuates a community environment that promotes families and the competitive value of athletics; contributes to player and fan welfare; ensures the safety and education of children; and/or prevents cruelty to animals.” Donations to a business that inarguably profits off abortions does not seem to fit under that rubric. Here are just some statistics that LifeNews provided:
<blockquote><a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/80/d7/80d7d7c7-977c-4036-9c61-b3801741b441/190118-annualreport18-p01.pdf">Its 2018 annual report</a>, released this week, shows it aborted 332,757 unborn babies and reaped in a record $1.66 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood provided less contraception, sterilizations, cancer screenings, adoption referrals and other women’s health services than the previous year.
Planned Parenthood aborted more unborn babies in 2018 than it did in the past five years. According to its report, it performed a total of 332,757 abortions — 11,373 more than the previous year. According to Students for Life’s analysis, abortions increased more than 3 percent while adoption referrals dropped by more than 25 percent. Planned Parenthood did one adoption referral for every 117 abortions.
Planned Parenthood’s provision of contraception decreased by 80,000, cancer screenings by 45,000, and other “women’s health services” such as well-woman exams and prenatal services decreased by 13,000.</blockquote>
Pro-Life Wisconsin told LifeNews that any donation to Planned Parenthood, regardless of the reasoning, supports the organization&#8217;s total business.
“If the foundation truly wanted to promote families and ensure the safety of children, they would not be financially investing in an organization that violently destroys children’s lives each and every day,” the organization said. “Any perceived benefit Planned Parenthood provides to society is wiped out every time they kill a baby, which in their case is 4,639 times a year in Wisconsin alone. In just one day, they wipe out the approximate equivalent of an entire football team.”

Chicago Bears v Green Bay Packers

Green Bay Packers Foundation Defends Donations To Abortion Biz Planned Parenthood

Football

President Trump received accolades earlier this week from the pro-life group Hosea Initiative for advocating pro-life values throughout his presidency.
&#8220;The Hosea Initiative officially awarded President Trump their first Bernard N. Nathanson, MD &#8216;Courageous Witness for Life&#8217; Award at their gala in Washington, D.C. on Sunday,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-life-group-gives-trump-courageous-witness-for-life-award.html">The Christian Post</a>. &#8220;The award was named after a medical professional who founded the National Abortion Rights Action League in 1969, but later became an outspoken pro-life activist.&#8221;
Dr. Ben Carson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, accepted the award on Trump&#8217;s behalf, praising those present at the ceremony for their courage.
“This is obviously something that is very near and dear to my heart as a physician spending so much time working on little babies,” said Carson.
The physician then shared a story about a woman with whom his wife had worked who almost aborted her child. “Now she’s a beautiful, articulate, completely independent young person, and that’s why no one will ever convince me that what is in a mother’s womb is a meaningless bunch of cells,&#8221; said Carson.
LifeNews highlighted some of the anti-abortion measures President Trump has enacted while in office:
<blockquote>In one of his first acts as president, he <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/23/president-donald-trump-signs-executive-order-to-defund-international-planned-parenthood/">reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy</a>, which prohibits taxpayer funding to international groups that promote or provide abortions overseas. The change <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2018/06/06/president-trumps-decision-to-defund-international-planned-parenthood-cost-it-100-million/">defunded Planned Parenthood’s international arm</a> of about $100 million in U.S. tax dollars.
Trump and his administration have made a number of changes to protect those who morally object to abortions, expanding <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2019/04/18/trump-admin-steps-up-defense-of-pro-life-doctors-nurses-who-dont-want-to-be-involved-in-abortion/">conscience protections</a> for pro-life medical workers and <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2018/10/17/new-video-highlights-president-trumps-top-10-pro-life-accomplishments/">increasing religious exemptions for Obamacare</a>.
His administration also intervened to stop the United Nations from supporting abortion in a resolution about sexual violence. In 2018, under his leadership, <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2018/02/22/trump-admin-removes-obamas-abortion-advocacy-from-key-report-on-human-rights/">the State Department removed references</a> to the so-called “right” to abort an unborn baby from a global human rights report as well.</blockquote>
On July 4 of this year, the largest pro-life group in the United States, the National Right to Life Committee, endorsed Trump for president come 2020.
“From his first day in office, President Trump and his Administration have been dedicated to advancing policies that protect the fundamental right to life for the unborn, the elderly, and the medically dependent and disabled,&#8221; said NRLC President Carol Tobias<a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/largest-pro-life-group-u-s-endorses-president-trump-2020-election.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"> in a statement at the time.</a>
Trump also made history by becoming the first president to ever address the March for Life, and he claimed to be &#8220;proud” of having done so.
&#8220;Today, tens of thousands of families, students, and patriots, and really just great citizens, gather here in our nation&#8217;s capital,&#8221; <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/donald-trump-becomes-first-president-to-address-march-for-life-we-are-with-you-all-the-way-214431/">Trump said</a> in the 2018 Rose Garden speech.  &#8220;You come from many backgrounds, many places, but you all come for one beautiful cause: to build a society where life is celebrated, protected, and cherished. The March for Life is a movement born out of love. You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God.”

President Trump Speaks At The &#8220;Campaign for Life&#8221; Gala Hosted By The Susan B. Anthony List

Pro-Life Group Awards Trump For Being A ‘Courageous Witness For Life’

Abortion rights group, Texas Equal Access (or TEA) Fund, has the perfect gift for all those hard-to-buy-for radical feminists on your holiday gift list this year: a series of candles with a very Christmas-y message, &#8220;Abortion is Magical.&#8221;
The &#8220;Abortion is Magical&#8221; candles come in four super-hip colors &#8212; hot pink, purple, sparkly gold, and gender-neutral teal &#8212; and bear a striking resemblance to Catholic prayer candles, though that&#8217;s probably not intentional.
Probably.
&#8220;Getting our holiday party favors ready! Every year we honor our volunteers and make sure they get a token of appreciation at our annual holiday party,&#8221; read an excited post on the group&#8217;s Facebook page.
<div id="fb-root"></div>
<script async="1" defer="1" crossorigin="anonymous" src="https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&amp;version=v5.0"></script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/photos/a.392855076576/10156445895121577/?type=3&amp;theater" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/posts/10156445895121577:0" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
Getting our holiday party favors ready! Every year we honor our volunteers and make sure they get a token of appreciation at our annual holiday party.
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/">Texas Equal Access Fund &#8211; TEA Fund</a> on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/posts/10156445895121577:0">Wednesday, December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
If you volunteer for TEA, which raises money to help women afford abortions in Texas, apparently, you can earn yours for free. It&#8217;s not clear whether TEA will also be offering the candles for sale, but the comments note that there are several supporters interested in purchasing them.
Not every fan of TEA was a fan of the candles or their message, however. First and foremost, Christmas, at its core, is about a very special unplanned pregnancy, so it seems odd to celebrate terminating unplanned pregnancies as part of the holiday season. But even some abortion rights supporters called TEA out on its claim that abortions are &#8220;magical.&#8221;
TEA, in a separate post, says they stand by their adjective.
&#8220;Abortions are magical for most people who have them,&#8221; TEA claims. &#8220;[R]efuting that just increases stigma around abortion. They are health care, self care, and community care.”
Although abortion rights advocates are always quick to claim that women who have terminated a pregnancy aren&#8217;t more likely to develop depression than women who have not, there&#8217;s no question that abortion is a difficult procedure, and that ending the life of a child can have physical, mental, emotional , and spiritual consequences. Many women regret their abortions. Many more mourn the end of the life in their womb. Women aren&#8217;t ignorant or stupid; despite the abortion rights rhetoric, it&#8217;s abundantly clear that abortion ends not just a physical condition, but a human life.
TEA, however, wants to ignore the seriousness of the procedure. Abortions, they say, “provide new beginnings for people trying to create a future for themselves that may have been unimaginable without their abortion” and “help people prioritize their own physical and mental health.”
Christmas is a bizarrely popular time for abortion rights groups who often release special &#8220;gifts&#8221; just for holiday giving. Planned Parenthood, for example, released a &#8220;<a href="https://marketplace.plannedparenthood.org/collections/i-stand-with-pp">Planned Parenthood Action&#8221; line</a> just in time for Christmas and Hanukkah. Last year, Teen Vogue <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/teen-vogue-abortion-gifts-women/">released an abortion gift list</a> that included a Ruth Bader Ginsberg coloring book and an &#8220;angry uterus&#8221; plush, and, several years ago, national Planned Parenthood had an entire Christmas campaign called &#8220;Choice on Earth.&#8221;
Planned Parenthood has been celebrating the holidays with special offers since at least 2008 when various Planned Parenthood clinics <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98259033">began offering holiday gift cards,</a> good for all of the clinic chain&#8217;s services, including abortion. Last year, The Daily Wire reported, the group asked for special <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/planned-parenthood-asks-christmas-donations-mike-paul-bois">Christmas donations</a>.

Christmas gift

Abortion Rights Group Offers ‘Abortion Is Magical’ Candles As Holiday Gifts

Christmas

On November 24, 2019, Michael Rubens Bloomberg announced his formal entrance into the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 presidential primary. To date, he is the latest candidate to enter the primary field.
Michael Bloomberg served three full terms as mayor of New York City, from 2002 through the end of 2013. He was New York City&#8217;s mayoral successor of the failed 2008 Republican presidential candidate and current private attorney for President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani. Bloomberg is also the co-founder, CEO, and majority owner of financial services conglomerate Bloomberg L.P., which is perhaps best known for its flagship Bloomberg Terminal hardware. As of November 2019, Bloomberg&#8217;s net worth was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg">estimated</a> at $58 billion dollars, which makes him one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. He has been a prolific donator to various charitable and political causes.
Born in Boston in 1942, Bloomberg has degrees from Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School. A registered Democrat earlier in his career, Bloomberg actually ran for and successfully sought the New York City mayoralty office as a registered Republican before re-registering as an independent in the midst of his second mayoral term. He re-registered as a Democrat in 2018. Since joining the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary field, Bloomberg News — an international news outlet operating as a legal subsidiary of Bloomberg L.P. — has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bloomberg-news-wont-investigate-bloomberg-democrats-its-journalists-go-to-work-on-bloombergs-campaign">announced</a> that it will not journalistically investigate Bloomberg or his fellow 2020 Democratic Party primary campaign rivals.
Electoral History: Bloomberg&#8217;s only experience in elected office is his three terms as New York City mayor. In 2001, shortly following the 9/11 jihadist attacks, Bloomberg sought to replace outgoing Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a fellow Republican and defeated his Democratic opponent, Mark Green, by a 50.3%–47.9% margin. In 2005, Bloomberg once again ran as a Republican and was re-elected by a nearly 20-point margin over his opponent, Fernando Ferrer. In 2009, after having successfully lobbied the New York City Council to change its mayoral two-term limit to a three-term limit, Bloomberg was narrowly elected to a third mayoral term while running as a Republican Party-endorsed registered independent.
On The Issues: Bloomberg&#8217;s general political profile is that of a fiscal and national security centrist, although he positions himself far to the left on social issues — with his <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/bloomberg-unveils-expansive-gun-control-plan-076376">anti-gun advocacy</a> perhaps emerging as the political issue with which he has become most closely identified. The latter stages of Bloomberg&#8217;s mayoral tenure were marked by odd flirtations with nanny state-style progressive governance, with the infamous <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/11/the-new-york-city-soda-ban-explained/">&#8220;soda ban&#8221;</a> as the most prominent example. Furthermore, in terms of hot-button leftist issues, Bloomberg&#8217;s current 2020 presidential campaign is aggressively <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/international-climate-priorities">advertising</a> his commitment to combatting global warming. But on bread-and-butter issues pertaining to fiscal prudence and foreign policy — perhaps especially with respect to Israel and the Middle East — Bloomberg is generally <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-michael-bloomberg-would-have-no-chance-at-the-democratic-presidential-nomination">far more centrist</a> than most of his other primary opponents.
Constitution: Bloomberg&#8217;s career in the financial services industry and his tenure as New York City mayor provide little in the way of concrete guidance as to what he may believe about constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy. However, following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Bloomberg expressed support for &#8220;chang[ing]&#8221; prevailing constitutional jurisprudence so as to allow for easier mass domestic surveillance. His far-left stances on most cultural issues might also portend a belief in leftist &#8220;living constitutionalism.&#8221; Similarly, his nanny state governing proclivities likely augur in favor of an expansive view of the Constitution&#8217;s Commerce Clause — a provision that has justified decades of progressive economic regulatory overreach, going back to the New Deal.
Economy: Bloomberg has self-described as a fiscal conservative, pointing to his balancing New York City&#8217;s budget as his most supportive data point. Bloomberg may indeed be fiscally conservative to the extent fiscal conservatism means cutting deficits and balancing budgets, but his mayoral tenure and public statements also evince a willingness to raise various taxes toward achieving those ends. Bloomberg is also a firm proponent of free trade and opponent of protectionist policies. Out of all the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, it is possible that no one better personifies the decades-long post-Reagan/Clinton bipartisan neoliberal economic consensus than Bloomberg.
Health Care: Bloomberg&#8217;s nanny state governing tendencies, as best seen with the now-infamous &#8220;soda ban,&#8221; are perhaps most evident in the health care context. Despite his self-identification as a fiscal conservative, then, Bloomberg has long demonstrated a willingness to extend the reach of government to regulate both health care and the health of those citizens under his governing watch. His 2020 presidential campaign now <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-stuff-done">emphasizes</a> the pursuit of universal health care, and how &#8220;expanding Obamacare and Medicare is the best way to achieve universal coverage.&#8221;
Immigration: Bloomberg has previously been very critical of border hawks who call for deportations of illegal aliens, suggesting a personal view that mass amnesty is proper. To that end, he was supportive of the U.S. Senate&#8217;s failed 2007 &#8220;comprehensive immigration reform&#8221; push, which included amnesty for millions of illegal aliens as one of its underlying goals. As mayor of New York City, Bloomberg was fairly lax on immigration enforcement and largely shirked meaningful steps to crack down on illegal immigration plaguing the city. His current campaign <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-stuff-done">website</a> hails Bloomberg&#8217;s erstwhile formation of &#8220;pro-immigration organization New American Economy,&#8221; and he is generally seen as a staunch advocate of large-scale legal immigration.
Foreign Policy: Bloomberg assumed the New York City mayoralty in the near-term aftermath of the 9/11 jihadist attacks, and he is generally considered to be more hawkish on foreign policy and national security matters than most of his 2020 Democratic presidential rivals. He previously supported the PATRIOT Act, was an initial supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and publicly endorsed President George W. Bush&#8217;s re-election campaign at the New York City-hosted Republican National Convention in 2004. Bloomberg is much more pro-Israel than most of his 2020 Democratic rivals: In 2014, when President Barack Obama oversaw a temporary <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/213288-obama-defends-israel-flight-ban">U.S. flight ban</a> to Israel amidst the jihadist rocket fire that rained down on the Jewish state that summer from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-israel-must-destroy-hamas-once-and-all-josh-hammer">Hamas</a>-controlled Gaza Strip, Bloomberg personally <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-07-23/why-i-flew-to-israel">flew to Israel</a> solely to demonstrate to his fellow Americans that it was safe to do so. In September 2019, Bloomberg conducted an odd interview on the issue of China, in which he <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/michael-bloomberg-china-pbs-climate-xi-dictator.html">defended</a> Chinese Communist Party strongman Xi Jinping against charges that he is a &#8220;dictator.&#8221;
Abortion: Bloomberg is emphatically pro-abortion.
Guns: Bloomberg&#8217;s anti-gun advocacy is perhaps the single most defining issue of his recent private citizen activism — and perhaps the single most defining issue of his 2020 presidential bid. He is very closely affiliated with and has <a href="https://everytown.org/press/new-gun-violence-prevention-group-everytown-for-gun-safety-unites-mayors-moms-and-millions-of-americans-on-new-paths-to-victory-state-capitols-corporate-responsibility-voter-activation/">helped</a> <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/bloomberg-gun-violence-moms-demand-action-volunteers">fund</a> Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, which are both groups deeply hostile to Second Amendment rights. He also co-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns while he was mayor of New York City. Bloomberg supports <a href="https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/gun-safety">“universal” background checks</a>, which often serve as a rhetorical euphemism for the government serving as an intermediary in all private firearms transfers. Bloomberg believes that every gun owner should need a permit before making a gun purchase. He <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cory-booker-wants-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-yes-it-means-putting-gun-owners-in-jail" data-reader-unique-id="49">supports a ban</a> on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42837/hammer-kamala-harriss-flirtation-banning-all-semi-josh-hammer" data-reader-unique-id="50">lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America</a>.

Michael Bloomberg

Where Does Michael Bloomberg Stand On The Issues? Here’s Everything You Need To Know.

2020 Election

Bloomberg News

Democratic Party

Economy

Foreign Policy

Gun Buybacks

Gun Control

Gun Laws

<div class="el__leafmedia el__leafmedia--sourced-paragraph">
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a 2017 pro-life law in the Kentucky requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and play the sound of the baby&#8217;s heartbeat to women seeking abortion.
&#8220;The Supreme Court has allowed Kentucky&#8217;s ultrasound requirement law to go into effect!&#8221; posted Live Action founder and prominent pro-life advocate Lila Rose. &#8220;When women have the chance to see the humanity of their child &amp; hear their heartbeat, many reject the violence of abortion.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a great win for Kentucky &amp; our nation,&#8221; she added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING:
The Supreme Court has allowed Kentucky&#39;s ultrasound requirement law to go into effect!
When women have the chance to see the humanity of their child &amp; hear their heartbeat, many reject the violence of abortion.
This is a great win for Kentucky &amp; our nation.
&mdash; Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilaGraceRose/status/1204072911910264832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
&#8220;Kentucky argued the law is &#8216;simple and straightforward,&#8217; calling it part of an &#8216;informed-consent process.&#8217; The law, Kentucky said, &#8216;does nothing more than require that women who are considering an abortion be provided with information that is truthful, non-misleading and relevant to their decision of whether to have an abortion,'&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/abortion-supreme-court-kentucky-ultrasound/index.html">CNN</a> reported.
CNN noted that the court &#8220;rejected the case without comment or noted dissent by any of the justices.&#8221;
Pro-life advocates praised the Supreme Court for their decision to uphold the Kentucky law.
“March for Life applauds the U.S. Supreme Court decision today upholding a Kentucky ultrasound law,&#8221; March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement sent to The Daily Wire. &#8220;Women facing an unexpected pregnancy deserve to have as much medically and technically accurate information as possible when they are making what could be the most important decision of their life.”
President and CEO of American United for Life (AUL) Catherine Glenn Foster said the decision &#8220;confirms that women deserve the truth.&#8221;
“Americans United for Life hails the final legal victory today of Kentucky’s common-sense informed consent provision simply ensuring that abortion facilities offer women who are thinking about abortion visual, ultrasound confirmation of the humanity of the life in their womb,&#8221; Glenn Foster said in a statement sent to The Daily Wire. 
&#8220;Consistent with the Supreme Court’s direction that mothers considering abortion may be given accurate, nonmisleading information about abortion and the nature of human life, today’s decision confirms that women deserve the truth, and cannot give real informed consent to an abortion unless facilities are transparent and honest about what abortion really is,&#8221; the AUL president added. &#8220;That’s a right that was denied to me when I was 19 years old and making a difficult, life-changing decision, and I am so relieved that going forward, the women of Kentucky will have the opportunity I never did.”
&#8220;The fact that there were no recorded dissents from any of the justices is notable,&#8221; added Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a former federal law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. &#8220;That ought to help demonstrate the common-sense, straightforward nature of Kentucky&#8217;s law.&#8221;
Pro-abortion advocates had claimed Kentucky&#8217;s pro-life law violates the First Amendment by mandating abortion-seeking women see their child and hear their heartbeat before going through with the life-ending procedure.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that this was nonsense.
&#8220;As a First Amendment matter, there is nothing suspect with a State&#8217;s requiring a doctor, before performing an abortion, to make truthful, non-misleading factual disclosures, relevant to informed consent, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion,&#8221; the three-judge Sixth Circuit panel said in its ruling, CNN noted.

Portrait of sceptical baby girl in front of yellow background

Pro-Lifers Land Major Win With Latest Supreme Court Ruling

Kentucky

Menu