Monday, July 24, 2017

Pro-Life

by -
Cute Baby
“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born” - Ronald Reagan

This Wednesday, San Francisco Superior Court dismissed all fourteen charges out of fifteen charges that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had filed against the founder of the Center for Medical Progress and Sandra “Susan” Merritt, his associate, for publicly releasing undercover videos that highlighted employees of Planned Parenthood negotiating the pricing of body parts of aborted fetuses.

It is has been highlighted by sources that that Becerra, a former Democratic member of Congress had accepted a large sum in campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood

The persecution had argued that the video featuring fourteen people, were filmed with their consent and that it was an act of “criminal conspiracy to invade privacy.”

The judge dismissed the charges, as they were not sufficient enough.

However, the state has been given time until the 17th of July to file a revised version of the complaint, that discusses the issue in greater depth.

“Following the defense’s complaint that there are too many surreptitious recordings to know which ones the California Department of Justice is relying on, the Judge requested more specificity in the charging document, specifically to identify the videos that are the basis of the charges. The California Department of Justice has ten days to amend the complaint and will be making the requested changes,” says a spokesperson for the California Department of Justice, as per The Blaze.

Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, an organization representing Merritt, stated, “This is a huge victory to have 14 criminal counts dismissed, we will now turn our attention to dismissing the final count. Sandra Merritt did nothing wrong. The complaint by the California attorney general is unprecedented and frankly will threaten every journalist who provides valuable information to the public. This final count will also fall.”

by -
This but not THAT!

A high school in Pennsylvania is under the spotlight, for banning a pro-life club, since it is supposedly too controversial and political, but continued to allow pro-gay clubs.

Liz Castro, a senior in the high school spoke to Fox News about the school’s decision, “They told me that we couldn’t have our club because it was too controversial and too political at the time.”

“So just anything that other people disagree with is not allowed, do you think you were singled out for that?” Carlson asked.

“I think they were definitely discriminating against us because we were pro-life,” Castro said.

Sources stated that Parkland High School has allowed a gay-straight alliance club, a political science club, a fashion club, a chess club, and other groups necessary.

“That kind of club, an anti-abortion club,” Carlson asked, “is singularly offensive to the kind of people that run the schools isn’t it?”

“Yeah, you would think that public institutions and free speech would be a no-brainer,” said Kristin Hawkins, the president for Students for Life. “These are taxpayer-funded institutions and yet this is what we see time and time again in high schools and colleges across the country.”

“So do you suppose, Liz, if there was a club,” Carlson asked, “I dunno, a feminist club or women’s rights club, women’s empowerment club that supported legal abortion would they be allowed to organize on campus?”

“I feel like they may be able, they may allowed them to have their club,” Castro responded.

“So what are you going to do, have you given up?” he asked.

“No, not at all,” Castro said. “I’m a senior so this is kinda it for me, but my friend Grace who is also trying to start the club with me is definitely not giving up and she’s gonna try to start the club again.”

“We met all the requirements (but) were denied simply because we are pro-life,” Castro said, according to Life Site News. “As a club, our purpose is to create a life-affirming culture at our school, educate our peers on the issue of life, hold diaper drives to support pregnant and parenting students, and become a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

“The school is not only denying my right to start a group but denying the opportunity for others at my school to learn about the greatest human rights social injustice of our time,” Castro concluded.

by -
bill clinton

Could Bill Clinton actually be pro-life?

The President who once said that abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare”—a big departure from the Democratic Party’s current all-abortion, all-the-time programming—doesn’t believe that.

According to newly-released audio recordings from a longtime Clinton friend and presidential biographer, Clinton had plenty to say about abortion. The audio was recorded in the late-1990s, when Clinton was still in the White House.

Decrying the “insensitivity” of the pro-choice lobby, Bill Clinton complained that activists were handing Republicans a winning issue and hurting their own cause.

He was also afraid that pro-choice activists “framed the question selfishly by putting it in terms of a woman’s right to do whatever she wanted,” which he thought made the whole movement seem like it was only about a “selfish woman’s right to crush her baby’s skull.”

But, unlike today’s Democrats who refuse to put a timestamp on when abortion should not be legal, Clinton was firmly against so-called “partial birth abortions.”

Clinton said: “I believe that if you can’t make up your mind in the first six months, you don’t have the right to have an abortion.”

Hillary Clinton is running for President—and intends to make her being a woman one of her strongest qualifications for office.

Part of that—the focus of the Left’s “war on women” rhetoric—is centered around abortion. It remains to be seen whether or not Bill’s comparatively conservative values (at least by the standards of the Democratic Party) will have any impact on her standing with liberal women.

by -
abortion-clinics-closed

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that a controversial piece of pro-life legislation from Texas–which is credited with slashing abortions by 13%, and closing a number of abortion clinics statewide–should be allowed to stand.

House Bill 2, which was signed into law by then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, doesn’t actively target abortion clinics: it just makes sure they’re meeting the same safety standards as other Ambulatory Surgical Centers and requires abortionists to be actual doctors with admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Which makes sense, considering an abortion is a complicated surgical procedure that, if it has to happens at all, should require basic safety standards and a competent doctor, like any surgery.

And, after all, Democrats support abortion because they want what’s best for “women’s health,” right?

Except, no: Democrats predictably had a fit over the law.

Their ludicrous argument was that, by mandating actual safety standards to bring abortion clinics in line with other medical providers, Texas was creating an “undue burden on women.”

Right.

In practice, House Bill 2 did shut down a number of abortion clinics because they didn’t meet safety standards. But the clinics that were shut down were, by the very nature of this law, substandard.

Unfortunately, this case isn’t over yet–it’s expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

That makes the stakes incredibly high: depending on which way the Supreme Court ultimately rules, that could have dramatic impact for the future of abortion in America–and could dramatically change how a state is able to demand safety standards for medical facilities.

TRENDING STORIES

Environmental Disaster

The feds believe that spending $200,000 on a video game that focuses on the importance of clean water can be a total game changer...