Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition

Many years ago, while participating in an Operation Rescue sit-in at an abortion clinic near Washington, D.C., I was struck by the make-up of the pro-abortion protesters. They were largely a mix of atheists, Satanists and gays, and they proudly identified as such. What a coalition!

I remember asking myself, “Why would homosexuals be so adamant about this — adamant enough to show up early in the morning to protest our event — when, for the most part, it’s not relevant to their lives, since they’re not having babies?”

To this day, colleagues of mine who share the gospel outside abortion clinics and offer pro-life alternatives are accosted by this same unholy coalition, often led by aggressive LGBT protesters. Why?

Just this week, after I posted some pro-life tweets in the aftermath of the final presidential debate, the two men who immediately challenged my views were a gay pastor and a Satanist.

Was this just a coincidence? I think not.

I had tweeted, “I urge every Hillary supporter to take time to study late term abortion. She aggressively supports this barbarism. Don’t be partner to it.”

The gay pastor argued that, while not being pro-abortion himself, late-term abortions were only done for the life and health of the mother.

The problem with that, of course, is twofold; First, it does not reduce the barbarity of the procedure; second, “the life and health of the mother” can be twisted to mean almost anything, allowing late-term abortions for things like alleged “mental duress.”

So, this gay pastor’s defense of this horrific procedure was baseless. But it was not surprising, given the moral compromise he already lives in as a practicing homosexual who pastors a “gay-affirming” church.

In similar fashion, Harry Knox, a prominent gay activist, moved from leading the religion branch of the Human Rights Campaign to heading up the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice. No surprise!

As for the Satanist, he was more direct in his tweets, using mild profanity in attacking me before affirming a woman’s right to choose. This too was no surprise.

Now, I’m fully aware that many women agonize over their decisions to abort and that some of the decisions are gut wrenching and heartbreaking, perhaps even more so with late-term abortions.

Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered by a demented pro-life activist, actually performed baptisms on some of the aborted babies, dressing them up and joining together with the families in what must surely have been one of the most perverted and macabre religious scenes imaginable. He even gave the babies funerals.

Kill the baby, baptize the baby, bury the baby. How sick!

But this leads me back to the question of why, undoubtedly, the vast majority of Satanists, atheists and gays are pro-abortion.

I’m sure that there are, in fact, pro-life atheists and gays, although they must be a small minority in their communities. And I seriously doubt that there are many (or even any?) pro-life Satanists.

So, the question again is: Why?

The Anti-Life

I believe the answer is primarily twofold: First, these people reject biblical morality; second, these people reject the God of life.

As for the first point, it’s obvious that most of these pro-abortionists would not be moved by a scriptural presentation of the pro-life position. It would either be rejected with scorn, as in, “Who cares what your dumb book says?” Or, in the case of those who profess some kind of biblical faith (like the aforementioned gay pastor), it would be met with a reinterpretation of the clear biblical witness, just as other passages must be reinterpreted in order to justify the sinful practices in their lives.

As for the second point, just ask yourself, on average, who has bigger families, Bible-affirming Christians (and Jews who affirm the Hebrew Scriptures), or atheists, Satanists and gays? Who puts more emphasis on babies and children? Who opposes euthanasia more vigorously?

You see, the battle over abortion is not merely a social and political battle. It is also a spiritual battle, which is why I will flatly and unashamedly rebuke professing Christians — especially fellow-leaders — who are strongly “pro-choice.” In reality, they are anti-life.

By all means, let us address holistically the many problems surrounding abortion — including problems of poverty, education, childcare, adoption, family structure, sexual abuse and more — and let us truly be pro-life, from conception until old age and death.

But let us not join together with the forces of darkness that promote abortion on demand until the last day of pregnancy. To do so is to join forces with a coalition from hell. And you can quote me on that. (For more from the author of “Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.

Only minutes into Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace broached one of the most controversial issues splitting Republicans and Democrats: abortion — and specifically, partial-birth abortion. While Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton quickly dismissed Republican nominee Donald Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion as “scare rhetoric,” the facts are against her.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Where do Trump and Clinton Stand?

After asking each candidate their stance on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationally in 1973, Wallace turned to Clinton. “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late term partial birth abortions. Why?”

Clinton’s answer was couched with claims that the government shouldn’t make such “personal” decisions for mothers. She also said that Roe v. Wade allows regulations on partial-birth abortion, though she admitted to opposing a ban on the practice as a senator. Here’s her full answer:

Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.

Trump responded that he thinks the practice of partial-birth abortions is “terrible.”

If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

Clinton and Supporters Deny Realities of Partial-Birth Abortion

Clinton immediately attempted to discount Trump’s description of partial-birth abortion. “Well that is not what happens in these cases,” She said. “And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.”

Viewers’ reactions on Twitter reveal that many people bought Clinton’s “scare rhetoric” narrative, believing was Trump was either lying or grossly misinformed when saying that abortions could still take place at nine months.

The social media-driven news outlet @nowthisnews tweeted, “No, Trump, you can’t rip the baby out of the womb.’” User @LoriSums alleged that “No one is taking full-term babies out of womb and sacrificing them.”

Others on Twitter like @shondarimes and @JillFilipovic claimed that Trump had “accidentally” described a C-section.

These people who are denying the reality of partial-birth abortion are either misinformed themselves or actively trying hide the reality.

Abortion Doctor Describes Partial-Birth Abortions

Inconveniently for them, a Dr. Amna Dermish of Texas, an abortion provider, was caught on tape almost exactly one year ago describing the process of pulling a baby out of the womb and harvesting its organs up to 22 weeks into the pregnancy — and her clinic only stops there “because of the ban” Texas has in place. The process she describes is identical to partial-birth abortion.

Here’s what she said to the investigator from the Center for Medical Progress, who posed as an organ buyer. The video itself is below.

Dermish assures the potential organ buyer, “My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact.” She uses laminaria sticks to slowly dilate the cervix and prompt labor.

Then, in an uncut sequence, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Dermish walks the organ buyer through the method she uses for infants older than 18 weeks.

She uses ultrasound guidance to convert a second-trimester fetus to a feet-first breech presentation.

“With a further gestation, I will sometimes do that [deliver breech] if it’s a cephalic [head-first] presentation, just cause it’s easier to get … convert to breech, grab the spine.”

This is a textbook description of partial-birth abortion, which is illegal. The baby is alive and mostly outside of the mother’s body when it is killed.

For an even more detailed and medically verified explanation of this exact procedure, click here. As a side note, the “20-weekers” that Dermish describes aborting in the video below — the “specimens” that are more difficult to keep “intact” — are capable of feeling pain even more acutely than adults.

Democrats’ Extreme Positions on Abortion

Here are a few other facts Clinton supporters should look into before denying the reality of nine-month or partial-birth abortions, courtesy of The Federalist on Thursday:

The Democratic Party is on record as supporting abortions up to nine months

The Democratic Party has fought to protect the right to have an abortion based on gender, race and disability discrimination

Though partial-birth abortion is currently illegal, Democrats have previously advocated for its legalization.

So, it is Hillary Clinton and her supporters who are incorrect on the facts. To summarize:

Yes, you can rip a baby out of the womb. At the time of the undercover video above, Dermish said her Austin, Texas clinic alone did it 25 times a day. No, dismembering a baby with a sopher clamp as its heart beats inside the womb is not the same as a C-section. Yes, abortion up to nine months is federally legal because of Roe v. Wade. And yes, partial-birth abortions are real. They are technically illegal. And they happen — not as rarely as Democrats would like us to believe. (For more from the author of “Partial-Birth Abortions Are Not ‘Scare Rhetoric.’ They Are Real.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


These Abortion Parties Are the Most Disgusting Thing You Will Read About This Week

Over 30 parties celebrating abortion were held all over the country Saturday night in tandem with a concert in Cleveland. Hosted by “All Access,” a coalition of groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the parties gathered attendees in Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even remote places like Sioux Falls, S.D.

The Cleveland event was headlined by Sia, a Grammy-nominated singer whose song “Cheap Thrills” dominated the Billboard Hot 100 this summer. Leslie Jones, a comedian who starred in this year’s “Ghostbusters” revival, and Jessica Williams, a former correspondent on “The Daily Show,” also performed at the event. Despite the big names, however, the venue wasn’t packed:

The photo above was posted 40 minutes before the start of the concert. And while the venue filled out more by the start of the concert, it was by no means packed:

All Access tries hard to portray abortion as a matter of routine health care, as well as a social and religious good. On the All Access website, a rabbi argues that denying abortion rights “rob us of our religious dignity” and restrict women’s “full agency over their own bodies.” Some of the smaller parties around the country got creative in celebrating abortion: The All Access party in South Bend, Ind., featured 200 flags citing reasons why abortion is a social good.

Supporters used the hashtag #Access4All, along with #BeBoldEndHyde, referencing the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds being used by Medicaid to pay for abortions (in most cases). For the first time this year, the Democratic Party platform included language to repeal the Hyde Amendment, further deepening the political divide over abortion.

Ignoring the obvious, one supporter maintained, per the South Bend Tribune, “Abortion shouldn’t be politicized and separated out as a controversial issue.” (For more from the author of “These Abortion Parties Are the Most Disgusting Thing You Will Read About This Week” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Planned Parenthood Abortionist: ‘I Provide Abortions Because I’m a Christian’

October 16, 2016 marks the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood’s founding by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Her self-described goal was to exterminate blacks and sterilize “idiots,” “morons” and the “feeble-minded.” In one revealing letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Sanger described how to handle the issue of black extermination:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

One of her more famous quotes makes the stomach churn:

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Perhaps there are those who still feel that way. Is it possible that there are abortionists who feel that they perform an act of mercy when they kill babies? The following story concerns an abortionist who believes just that.

Dr. Sarah Wallett

There are times in life when, as a Christian, we read or hear something sinful so couched in a mist of Christian ideology that our knee-jerk reaction is one of revulsion. The juxtaposition of faith and sin causes a gut-wrenching and heartsick effect and we want to correct the misunderstanding of Christian faith immediately. Such is my reaction to the story of Dr. Sarah Wallett, a self-proclaimed Christian who performs abortions because she believes “it is the most important thing that I will ever do.”

In early August, Dr. Wallett wrote in her jarring column at Refinery29 that her Christian faith is precisely why she kills unborn children. For an abortion provider to claim that ripping an unborn baby limb from limb is Christ-like is repulsive and couldn’t be further from the truth.

She described her childhood in a Christian home where her family attended church regularly, said prayers before meals and where she was taught “that it was my duty to help people in need and leave the world a better place than I found it,” and added, “The patients I see every day are so clearly people in need — and the medical care I provide them is both life-changing and, in many circumstances, life-saving.”

It calls into question the Christian teaching she actually received — where did she learn that murder was a Christ-like attribute?

She then offered up a list of complaints about the stigma she faces as an abortion provider (“there are no positive images of abortion providers or the value in the work that we do”), legislators who work to revise abortion laws (their “sole goal is clearly to make this work more difficult … create laws that interfere with the medical care I provide, because they do not like the work that I do”) and her concern about abortion laws in other states (“similar to the horrific one in Texas”).

She blasted the laws in her state of Tennessee that “do nothing to keep my patients safe,” such as OB-GYNs like Dr. Wallett having admitting privileges in a local hospital, working in an ambulatory center or providing patients with information about abortion and requiring them to have two visits to the health center prior to having an abortion. Dr. Wallett wrote that “many of these laws, in fact, harm the same women they’re supposedly intended to help,” although it isn’t clear how having access to a hospital or receiving medical information harms the patients.

The abortion provider claimed over and over again that she implements her faith throughout her work of taking tiny human lives — providing compassion and empathy to her patients who have chosen to have an abortion and feel the need to justify it to her, “a task no one should ever have to do.” “My faith teaches me to withhold judgment and to extend acceptance to all,” Dr. Wallett said as she described patients who suffered through the experience of having friends and family beg them not to have an abortion.

One can only imagine the scene of loved ones imploring a pregnant woman to choose life, that they would adopt her baby. But she ended up in the office of a compassionate and accepting killer.

Her patients also have strong faith, she said, and “[g]ood, moral women have abortions every day,” adding that it’s her duty to provide a positive “counterpoint” to the shame and misinformation pregnant women experience and hear that causes pain.

What kind of upbringing was this? How can anyone look at Scripture and believe that God would have us murder the most innocent and vulnerable among us?

The closest analogy from Scripture regarding killing one’s young is the child sacrifice to the pagan deity Molech, which was practiced by the Ammonites and later, the Israelites (1 Kings 11:1-8). God called this practice an “abomination,” and forbid the Israelites to observe the barbaric ritual. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:21). Any Israelite who practiced the child sacrifice was to be put to death (Lev. 20:2).

On the contrary, the Bible is replete with scriptures telling us how much he loved and wanted us before we were born. God called us and named us when we were still in our mother’s womb (Is. 49:1). He formed us with purpose (Ps. 139:13). The Lord says children are an inheritance and a reward (Ps. 127:3). He also tells us that while a mother may not have compassion on the baby in her womb, He will never forget him or her (Is. 49:15).

Slaughtering innocent unborn children has nothing to do with Christianity. It goes against all biblical teaching of protecting human life and the most vulnerable among us. It directly violates the sixth Commandment: “You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13).

If Dr. Wallett takes pleasure in her work of taking innocent lives, she will answer to God for that. But she cannot tie abortion to the Christian faith in any logical or truthful way. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Abortionist: ‘I Provide Abortions Because I’m a Christian'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Where Abortion Stands Legally Today

As giant abortion provider Planned Parenthood celebrates its 100th anniversary this week, pro-lifers led by The Stream are commemorating #100forlife to remember all who have died due to abortion.

It comes forty-three years after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade — permitting abortions during the three trimesters of pregnancy, and allowing greater regulatory power by states during the second and third trimesters. To come up with this odd, three-tier ruling, the court relied upon a tortured interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, finding in the “penumbras” of the Constitution a right to privacy fundamental to the concept of liberty.

While abortion remains legal in the U.S., the laws governing it have changed significantly in recent years. Some of those modifications are state laws that impose additional requirements before having an abortion, or restrictions on when or how an abortion may be procured. Most of the laws came as the focus of the pro-life movement expanded from abortion center protests and sidewalk counseling to include passing state and federal legislation.

The movement was emboldened to take this route by Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, in which the Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on partial-birth abortions.

These laws, which added new requirements and regulations for abortions, have successfully resulted in the shutdown of abortion centers. Five states now have only one abortion facility. According to the abortion rights research organization Guttmacher Institute, in the late 1980s, there was a high of 705 centers nationwide. By 2011, that number had dropped to 583, and others have closed since.

The laws may also be contributing to a decrease in the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Institute reported a high of 1,590,750 abortions in 1988. That number has declined almost every year since then, to 1,058,490 in 2011, equivalent to the level in the mid-1970s shortly after abortion was legalized.

Significant Supreme Court Victories That Reversed the Abortion Trend
Since Roe v. Wade, there have been several Supreme Court decisions that struck down or upheld state laws regulating abortion — overall, in balance favorable to the pro-life movement. In the 1980 decision Harris v. McRae, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life.

Nine years later, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court upheld Missouri’s ban on the use of public facilities and employees for abortions, and the state’s requirement that doctors test for fetal viability at 24 weeks.

A Supreme Court case in 1992 dealt the biggest blow to Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court backed off from the convoluted, messy Roe precedent prohibiting states from regulating abortion during the first trimester. It permitted states to implement laws requiring such things as pre-abortion counseling, waiting limits and parental consent, so long as the requirements did not impose an “undue burden” on women.

A Legal Setback in 2016

Despite years of strides, the pro-life movement suffered a significant defeat in June when the high court struck down two abortion center regulations in Texas. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the court invalidated laws that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and held abortion facilities to the standards of outpatient surgical centers. The court held that the onerousness of the regulations outweighed the state’s interest in regulating health.

Will the Generally Pro-life Trend Continue?

The Supreme Court ultimately has the final say, rightly or wrongly, on abortion laws. Whether pro-life advocates will be able to continue the trend of stripping away parts of Roe v. Wade depends on the future makeup of the Court. If Democrat Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will appoint left-leaning justices who will make up a majority of the court and strike down pro-life laws. If Republican Donald Trump wins the election, he has promised to appoint mostly right-leaning justices who will have the opposite effect. (For more from the author of “Where Abortion Stands Legally Today” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Firms Charged in California for Profiting off of Baby Part Sales

Orange County, California District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has filed charges against two companies he says illegally profited off of the sale of fetal tissue.

In a press conference held on Wednesday, Rackauckas laid out what he called a “profit-making … scheme” conducted by DaVinci Biosciences and sister company DV Biologics. According to Rackauckas, employees used discounts “to close a sale,” and prices changed to match market value of fetal tissue.

“This is not about politics,” Rackauckas told The Orange County Register before the press event. “This is about a clear violation of the law.”

According to The Register, the lawsuit highlights an employee writing in an email that “…it costs us roughly $25 per unit to manufacture, and we are selling from $170.” Additionally:

From 2009 to 2015, the companies collected $56,678 in “packing and handling” fees marked up by roughly 50 percent over the actual cost of packaging and handling, according to the suit. Employees were paid a commission on profits they earned from the packing and handling charges, the lawsuit says.

In a press statement, Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden said that Planned Parenthood also acted illegally. “The wheels of justice are beginning to turn against Planned Parenthood and their corrupt business partners in the illicit trade in aborted baby body parts.”

According to Daleiden, “For eight years, Planned Parenthood supplied aborted baby hearts, lungs, brains, and intestines to DV Biologics, which DV Biologics then resold for profit. In exchange for merely providing access to aborted baby body parts, Planned Parenthood received kickback contributions from DaVinci Biosciences over the course of their eight-year contract.”

Rackauckas disagreed, telling a reporter at the press conference that Planned Parenthood donated bodies. Another reporter asked whether the donations were legal, to which the DA replied that not only are donations for research allowed, but “our evidence indicates that, no, no money was exchanged between these companies and Planned Parenthood.”

“We’re not indicating Planned Parenthood did anything unlawful,” Rackauckas clarified. His office is seeking a $1.6 million fine against the companies.

House Select Panel on Infant Lives Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a statement, “Based on the evidence uncovered during our Panel’s investigation, we have been deeply troubled about the relationship between DaVinci and PPOSBC, which appears to have created a market for the donation of human fetal tissue.”

Blackburn continued: “As a result, our Panel is continuing to look at connections between Planned Parenthood and tissue procurement companies. The lawsuit filed by the Orange County DA shows that there is also broad support at the state and local level to uncover the truth about what is going on in the abortion and fetal tissue industries.”

Earlier this year, Daleiden’s group released an undercover video highlighting activity that led to Rackauckas’ investigation. In that video, a Center for Medical Progress investigator was told by the medical director of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties that the abortion giant attempts to use ultrasound to create circumstances where a baby’s parts can be harvested.

Lila Rose of Live Action also commended the Orange County DA. “I hope this sets a precedent for prosecutors and law enforcement across the nation.” she said in a statement, “Abortion is a barbaric and cruel practice, and it should come as no surprise that those callous enough to profit off killing defenseless children in the womb would allegedly profit off selling their organs piecemeal.”

A phone call requesting comment from Da Vinci Biosciences was not immediately returned. (For more from the author of “Firms Charged in California for Profiting off of Baby Part Sales” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Opinion: Time to Address Alaska’s Corrupt Judiciary

When the Alaska Supreme Court recently overturned the law that returned to parents the right to be involved when their minor daughter was seeking an abortion, many people were deflated and irate wondering what they could do to counter such an egregious act of judicial overreach. This blatantly partial ruling thwarted the will of more than 90,000 Alaskans who had voted back in 2010, in overwhelming fashion, to make it law through a statewide initiative.

Now is your chance to do something.

When you vote November 8th, you will have a constitutional given opportunity to retain or non-retain Alaska Supreme Court Justices Joel Bolger and Peter Maassen – two members of the Court who took away the God-given authority parents have to look out for the safety and welfare of their very own children.

In the Bible, the essential role of judges was to rule according to a law external to themselves. God told Ezekiel that the priests would act as judges saying “In a dispute they shall take their stand to judge; they shall judge it according to My laws and My statutes.” Ezekiel 44:24. Judges do not act above the law. They are under the law of a Holy God.

Many will claim that Justices Bolger and Maassen are fine Alaskans with wonderful “judicial temperaments” but that is not what Alaskans are voting on. Just as U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito are far apart when it comes to judicial philosophies and most often differ in their opinions, so do Justices Bolger and Maassen differ from the 90,000 Alaskans who knew in 2010 and still know that the law should protect the right of parents to be involved when their minor children are making major medical decisions.

Your voice matters and should be counted.

In the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling in 2007 that overthrew a parental consent law, the Court had the audacity to tell to the people that a parental notice law would be constitutionally permissible. It was basically an invite to pass a parental notice law. That is what was done. When it got back into the Court’s hands, they flip flopped ruling that the parental notice law was unconstitutional.

Here are just a few of their corrupt statements from their parental consent ruling –

“And contrary to the arguments of Planned Parenthood, we determine that the constitution permits a statutory scheme which ensures that parents are notified so that they can be engaged in their daughters’ important decisions in these matters.”

“There exists a less burdensome and widely used means of actively involving parents in their minor children’s abortion decisions: parental notification. The United States Supreme Court has recognized, in a different context, that ‘notice statutes are not equivalent to consent statutes because they do not give anyone a veto power over a minor’s abortion decision.’ And many states currently employ this less restrictive approach.”

“As we have recognized in the past, the State has a special, indeed compelling, interest in the health, safety and welfare of its minor citizens and may take affirmative steps to safeguard minors from their own immaturity.”

“Currently, fifteen states have notification statutes in place. Although the precise details of these statutes vary, they all prohibit minors from terminating a pregnancy until their parents have been notified and have been afforded an appropriate period of time to actively involve themselves in their minor children’s decision-making process. Stated another way, these statutes seek to involve parents, not by giving them ‘veto power’, but by giving them notice and time to consult with and guide their daughters through this important decision. As such, although parental notification statutes undoubtedly burden the privacy rights of minors, they do not go so far as to shift a portion of those rights to parents.”

Although Justices Bolger and Maassen were not part of that 2007 ruling, their agreement to throw out the parental notice law shows that the Constitution and democratic decisions of the people mean nothing to them. This latest decision that threw out parental notice is incredibly dishonest and is the product of an intellectually and morally corrupt judiciary.

But have hope. You have the authority and opportunity to right a wrong. To, in their words, “veto” these two from ever making such a ruling again.

On November 8th, please VOTE NO on Alaska Supreme Court Justices Joel Bolger and Peter Maassen.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Eight Months After Abortion Flap, Lands’ End CEO Out

Almost eight months after angering activists on both sides of the abortion fight and losing at least two religious schools as customers, Lands’ End CEO Federica Marchionni is stepping down.

In a press release, the clothing retailer’s Board Chairman Josephine Linden said that Marchionni’s “creative vision has helped Lands’ End begin its transformation as a global lifestyle brand with a broader merchandise offering that is more relevant in today’s marketplace. Federica is stepping down at this time, leaving Lands’ End well positioned to continue its evolution and capture the growth opportunities that exist for our iconic brand in this dynamic retail environment.”

According to Marchionni, “I am honored to have led this extraordinary company and proud to have succeeded in providing a vision to expand its positioning in the industry with a multi-dimensional strategy.”

Marchionni was hired in early 2015 to revamp Lands’ End’s struggling brand; the company’s valuation dropped from $1.9 billion in 2002 to $780 million last year. Market Watch shows that the company’s stock has dropped precipitously in the last two years, from over $55 per share in late 2014 to less than $16 per share today, and as low as $14.03 in the last year.

This spring Lands’ End ignited an uproar in the pro-life community when it promoted abortion feminist icon Gloria Steinem in its Easter catalog. The decision cost the company business from at least two schools, and pro-life outrage convinced its executives to apologize and pull Marchionni’s interview with Steinem off of its website.

The reversal made things worse, from the company’s perspective — abortion supporters slammed Lands’ End on social media and traditional news outlets, leading several branding and public relations experts to call the controversy an unforced error.

The stock price dropped in late April, and hasn’t recovered. Over the summer, Marchionni told the abortion-backing fashion magazine Marie Claire that she didn’t regret bringing “women’s equality” into the public eye, though she did say abortion promotion was not intended with the Easter catalog. (For more from the author of “Eight Months After Abortion Flap, Lands’ End CEO Out” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


House Debates Protections for Babies Born Alive After Attempted Abortions

An abortion survivor urged Americans to “wake up” to the reality that some babies born alive after an attempted abortion are left to die, the survivor testified at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

“Many Americans have no idea that babies can even live through abortions and are often left to die, but this does happen,” Gianna Jessen, 39, said at the hearing. “I know this, because I was born alive in an abortion clinic after being burned in my mother’s womb for 18 hours.”

Jessen, who has cerebral palsy due to her attempted abortion, added at a House Judiciary Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee hearing on Sept. 23:

My medical records clearly state the following: Born during saline abortion … Apart from Jesus himself, the only reason I am alive is the fact that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work that morning. Had he been there, he would have ended my life by strangulation, suffocation, or simply leaving me there to die.

“Often when I’m in the midst of abortion advocates, they never can answer this one question and it is this: If abortion is merely about women’s rights, then what were mine?” Jessen said.

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, making it illegal to kill any babies born alive.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born-alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law [was passed] and into the present,” Arina Grossu, director for the Center of Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, testified at the hearing. Grossu’s written testimony says:

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell operated his dirty and dangerous Philadelphia abortion business and committed horrendous crimes in Philadelphia for over three decades. … His heinous and murderous practices of snipping the spines of born-alive children were only discovered by accident when federal and state authorities raided his facility in 2010, not because he was illegally killing born-alive infants, but because of his illegal prescription drug activity.

Grossu says Gosnell is “not an outlier.”

“Not one person to date has been charged or convicted under the current federal [Born-Alive Infants Protection Act] law,” Grossu testified.

The House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., in September 2015. An identical bill in the Senate, introduced by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

“The abortion industry has labored for all of these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection,” Franks, chairman of the subcommittee, said at the hearing.

Franks’ legislation would protect the rights of infants born alive after an abortion and leave criminal consequences for health care professionals who violate the law. The legislation would also require proper medical care be given by the health care practitioner present when an infant is born alive.

The legislation “explicitly requires health care practitioners to treat born-alive abortion survivors with the same care they would treat any other born-alive baby and admit such babies immediately to a hospital.” The law would also hold abortionists accountable for killing born-alive infants, Grossu testified.

President Barack Obama’s administration “strongly opposes” the passage of this bill, according to a statement from September 2015.

“The White House has promised that it would veto the born-alive legislation, citing it would have a ‘chilling’ effect,” Grossu testified. “I cannot think of a more chilling effect than continuing to let U.S. abortionists commit infanticide.”

Grossu urged support for the legislation to stop infanticide, or intentionally killing an infant child, in the United States.

The Hyde Amendment, also under examination at the hearing, prohibits the use of certain taxpayer dollars in abortion cases, except in rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.

“Today we will hear testimony on existing statutory language prohibiting taxpayer funding from paying for the taking of the lives of preborn children through abortion,” Franks said. “There is concern that the Obama administration or a potential Clinton administration may intend to reinterpret the plain and longstanding meaning of the Hyde Amendment.”

The Hyde Amendment, an appropriations policy rider that has been passed each year since 1976, has its 40th anniversary this week.

“As a black woman, I am outraged that the morally bankrupt Hyde Amendment has been permitted to persist for so long,” Kierra Johnson, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, testified. “It is a source of pain for many women and should be a source of shame for those who support it.”

“The Hyde Amendment prevents women from even being able to make a decision about their health care,” Johnson said.

While Genevieve Plaster, a senior policy analyst at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life nonprofit organization, testified that the Hyde Amendment has saved over 2 million lives since 1976, or approximately 60,000 lives per year.

“America was founded on the concept that our rights come from God,” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said at the hearing. “When our rights come from God, how would it be possible that those rights would confer a right to kill a baby?” (For more from the author of “House Debates Protections for Babies Born Alive After Attempted Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Congressional Panel Recommends the House Hold StemExpress in Contempt

Former Planned Parenthood fetal harvesting partner StemExpress should be held in contempt of Congress, according to Republicans on a panel investigating the fetal harvesting industry.

The House Select Panel on Infant Lives’ vote was based upon a report Republicans say outlines cause to hold StemExpress and its CEO Cate Dyer in contempt for not responding to the Panel’s subpoenas and other requests and demands for information, including accounting records. The recommendation for contempt was successful, 8-0, after the Panel’s six Democrats staged a walk-out.

“Nearly one year ago our Panel was established and given the important task of investigating very disturbing allegations that some abortion clinics and middleman procurement organizations, including StemExpresss, were violating federal law by profiting from the sale of human fetal tissue,” said Panel Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in a statement after the vote. “In order to determine if these entities were in violation of federal law or if the relevant statute needs to be updated, our Panel must review all accounting and banking records.”

The Panel issued requests, then subpoenas, to StemExpress, starting in December 2015. Subpoenas were issued starting in early 2016, according to a timeline provided to the press by the Panel. A final attempt to contact StemExpress’ lawyer was made in early September.

“Nine months is enough time for an entity to produce accounting documents,” said Blackburn. “A subpoena is not a suggestion. It is a lawful order that must be complied with. If StemExpress continues to obstruct, then we will work with House leadership to determine the necessary next steps.”

For its part, StemExpress said in a statement that it has complied with the Panel’s investigation. “StemExpress offered to testify before the Select Panel, but this offer was ignored. Several House and Senate Committees have reviewed our accounting records and closed their investigations. We have provided hundreds of documents to the Select Panel, including accounting records, both voluntarily and in response to subpoenas.”

A spokesperson for StemExpress did not answer The Stream’s follow-up question about whether the company had explicitly provided the accounting information demanded by the Panel. The harvesting company’s former bank, Five Star Bancorp, likewise did not respond to a request for comment.

Press staff for the House Panel did not answer The Stream’s follow-up question about StemExpress’ claim about testifying before the Panel.

StemExpress has been in Republicans’ sights since the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos showed the company possibly engaging in illegal harvesting of fetal organs and other body parts. While Planned Parenthood and StemExpress parted ways shortly after the videos were made public, the Panel’s investigations show that StemExpress was providing Planned Parenthood clinics with profit in exchange for fetal parts.

It is the profit that concerns the Panel, since it violates a 1993 federal law authored by former Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of Massachusetts. However, StemExpress said it could not cooperate with the Panel, claiming it was “gravely concerned about the safety and security risks of identifying StemExpress personnel involved in the procurement of fetal tissue.”

Blackburn and Panel staff say StemExpress’ concerns are unnecessary. “The Panel staff and the Chairman have represented publicly and to StemExpress counsel that the Panel’s policy was to keep the names of lower-level staff and researchers redacted from any public documents or reports. Indeed, the directions to such subpoena recipients provide a methodology to protect the identities of persons in functional positions.”

All of the Panel’s Democrats walked out before yesterday’s vote. In a press release, top Panel Democrat Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said, “Chair Blackburn has manufactured a controversy over information that she does not need,” accusing Blackburn of making a “McCarthyesque threat. …” (For more from the author of “Congressional Panel Recommends the House Hold StemExpress in Contempt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.