Big Nanny Republicans? West Virginia Proposes GOP-Backed Soda Tax

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are basically two schools of thought on the purpose of the tax code. One is to raise revenue to fund the essential functions of government, whatever those may be. The other is to use taxes as a carrot and a stick, rewarding behaviors the government finds desirable and punishing those that it doesn’t. America’s founders, the architects of the original tax code, would have found this second function, in which taxes are used for social engineering, unthinkable and against the very nature of the limited-government power structure they proposed. And yet controlling people’s behavior has become an increasingly important function of tax policy, despite its implications for individual freedom and independence.

This is the rationale behind the soda tax. It is asserted that America is undergoing an obesity “epidemic,” an insulting use of the term that falsely analogizes personal lifestyle choice to disease. It is therefore assumed that it is the responsibility of the government to “cure” the disease of people consuming too much sugar and fat.

This used to be an idea that was only proposed by meddling Democrats who think their mission in life is to tell other people what to do. Sadly, that appears to be the case no longer, as a soda tax proposal taking hold in West Virginia is being pushed by Republican lawmakers.

The proposed tax would charge five cents for every 16.9 fluid ounces of soda sold, a tax that would be split between consumers and retailers depending on how strong the demand. Five cents may not sound like much extra to pay, but consider that it represents a 400 percent increase on the rate at which soda is currently taxed. Additionally, two other bills have been introduced in the West Virginia legislature that would increase soda taxes a further one and two cents respectively.

One could argue that these incremental increases in price won’t actually have an effect on consumer choices, but both logic and empirical evidence contradict that claim. At any price, there are presumably some people who are already paying as much as they are willing to pay for soda. Increase that price, even a little bit, and they will substitute a more affordable beverage. It is these marginal consumers who account for the changes in the quantity of goods demanded when prices change. Evidence in cities where soda taxes have been specifically levied has shown us that higher prices do result in less soda sold.

For example, in Philadelphia, where the government imposed a 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sodas, distributors reported a drop in sales of between 30 and 50 percent that would potentially force layoffs. If this sales shock seems disproportionate to the amount of tax levied, it’s important to remember that there is a psychological component to consumer behavior as well as a financial one. Where I live, in Washington, D.C., the government levies a five-cent tax on plastic bags used at grocery stores. Almost everyone can afford an extra nickel added to their grocery bill, but many people have changed their behavior anyway, not because of the money, but because they don’t like the idea of being taxed any more than they already are. The same phenomenon is no doubt in effect in Philadelphia and would be evident in West Virginia as well.

There are lots of reasons to oppose a soda tax. Personally, I object to a central authority trying to modify citizen behavior, as if we are rats in a laboratory cage. But for those more pragmatic than I, another objection is the cost to the economy of making consumption — or, to be more accurate, the production that drives consumption — more difficult. Even without changes in consumption, the proposed tax would suck $75 million out of the economy each year, according to the Tax Foundation. Combine that with the layoffs and general decline in economic activity, and you’re looking at some serious harm to West Virginia, a state that already struggles economically.

Finally, there’s the fairness argument. Soda taxes have repeatedly been found to be regressive, meaning that they fall hardest on those Americans with the lowest incomes. “Tax the rich” may be a persuasive populist sentiment, but since when is “tax the poor” an equally good substitute? How about instead, we live within our means and don’t try to use the tax code for social engineering? Republicans in West Virginia need to get back to their roots and remember that conservatism is all about personal autonomy, limited government, and a nation in which individuals are free to choose. (For more from the author of “Big Nanny Republicans? West Virginia Proposes GOP-Backed Soda Tax” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Women’s Rights Activist Slam UN Agency’s Support of China’s Forced Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .One of [WRWF Founder and President, Reggie Littlejohn,] recommendations regarding how the UN can help the women and babies of China is by investigating UNFPA’s activities in China, demanding transparency, and in the case of a lack of cooperation, defunding UNFPA. Littlejohn states: “The United States Secretary of State should investigate and evaluate UNFPA’s activities in China, and the President should de-fund them under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which ‘prohibits funding for any organization or program that, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.’”

“UNFPA has been found to be complicit with coercive population control in China in the past, and I have no doubt that any unbiased investigation would find them complicit again. I have long advocated for the defunding of UNFPA. The U.S. cut off funding to UNFPA in 2002 because an investigation, headed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell, found that UNFPA was complicit with the Chinese Family Planning officials in coercive implementation of China’s one-child policy. The Obama administration restored this funding. The UNCSW – as the advocate for women’s rights within the United Nations – should press relentlessly on the UNFPA to be fully transparent and accountable regarding its ‘family planning’ activities in China. I believe that any independent, unbiased investigation into UNFPA’s activities in China will lead to the inescapable conclusion that they are complicit with China’s population control practices, which include forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. To the extent that the global community is funding the UNFPA, the blood of Chinese women and babies is on our hands.” (Read more from “Women’s Rights Activist Slam UN Agency’s Support of China’s Forced Abortions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Undermining Parents, School Secretly Recruits Children for Gay-Straight Alliance Meetings

/0 Comments/in , /by

“We’re keeping it kind of on the down low because this is North Idaho,” school principal Mary Jensen said. In a recording obtained by Liberty Counsel, she admitted, “Kids who wanted to participate in the club did not necessarily want their parents to know.”

Faculty at Forrest M. Bird Charter School in Sandpoint, Idaho, secretly recruited students to join the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. They started the group with help from local LGBT activists. Some of the secret meetings weren’t even held at the school.

Legal Violations

Two parents learned about the meetings when their child forgot lunch. The mother took lunch to the school and found her child at the meeting. They objected. Their child, “Student Doe,” has high-functioning autism and gender dysphoria. The school ignored their request.

In response, Liberty Counsel sent the school a letter, listing several ways the school had violated the law. The school refused to back down, so the parents withdrew their child from the school.

“It is outrageous that this school would intentionally undermine parental rights in this manner,” said Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver. “Parents have the fundamental right to know about and direct the activities and associations of their minor children.”

The school had no right to start the club, he said. It was “inappropriate” for school employees to lead and recruit for the GSA in their official roles. He argued that the school violated the state’s Code of Ethics for teachers. The code prohibits “using institutional privileges … for the promotion of political activities.”

The school posted statement on its website claiming it did not violate the law. According to a Liberty Counsel lawyer, the school defiantly asserted in a letter responding to the legal aid group. The school said it “will not comply with [the] demand” for its teachers to be present in a supervisory, rather than activist, capacity.” The school did say it will refrain from recruiting more students. However, it refuses to divulge the names of current student members to their parents. Liberty Counsel and its clients are looking at legal action.

The school believes it is helping kids by teaching them that identifying as transgender has no harmful effects. But according to the National Institutes of Health, as many as 94 percent of students questioning their gender identify with their biological gender by 18.

Liberty Counsel urges parents to contact the school’s board of directors. Parents should demand that the school board respect parental rights. The school staff who violated the Idaho Teacher Code of Ethics should be reprimanded. Parents have a fundamental right to direct the activities of their minor children.

The school’s parent/student handbook requires a permission slip for field trips. Anyone other than a parent who picks up a child must have a note. But the school does not require a note for a child to get LGBT propaganda

Jensen admitted on the recording that the faculty started the club. “The adults … we spent months trying to do this thing.”

Jensen was recorded admitting, “We decided not to do activism at first, because that’s a big step.” She went on, “Once they get the club going, the next step is to start community events —probably next year.” (For more from the author of “Undermining Parents, School Secretly Recruits Children for Gay-Straight Alliance Meetings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Study: Only 4 Percent of Millennials Hold a ‘Biblical Worldview’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Four percent of millennials hold a biblical worldview, according to a recent study.

The American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI) published results of a survey earlier this month. The survey measured the core beliefs of millennials compared to older generations.

The study shows that millennials hold more liberal views of things like socialism and same-sex marriage than older generations. But there’s another big difference. Millennials are much less likely to become conservative in the future.

While it’s normal for younger generations to hold liberal views, they drift to the right over time. Not so for millennials.

“Millennials are so far to the left-of-center” that “even a typical amount of repositioning” will leave them very liberal, says George Barna. It’s unlikely that even 10 percent will ever hold a biblical worldview, he says. Barna is the Executive Director of the ACFI and is cited in the study.

Millennials vs. Older Generations: Major Differences

ACFI conducted the study in February 2017. It measured responses from 1,000 millennials, that is, those under age 30.

Notable findings include:

Only 59 percent of millennials identify as Christian. This compares to 72 percent of adults from older generations.

Only 33 percent of millennials (one in three) are born again Christians.

Only twelve percent of millennials identify as conservative. Twenty-six percent are liberal. For adults
older than 30, conservatives outnumber liberals two to one.

Almost have (44 percent) of millennials prefer socialism over capitalism.

As many as 15 percent of millennials identify as LGBT. Only six percent of those over 30 identify as LGBT.

The only question more millennials than older adults held a biblical worldview on? Whether all people are good. Millennials are less likely to believe this than adults over 30. This lines up with the biblical concept of original sin and man’s fallen nature.

Worldview Development: Christians, Get Busy

What exactly is a worldview, anyway? “A comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.” That’s according to Merriam-Webster.

Dictionary.com defines the the original German word, weltanschauung. “A comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity’s relation to it.”

So how do people develop their worldviews? Barna says that parents are the most powerful influencers of worldview. And most often, a person’s worldview develops between 18 months and 13-years-old.

There will of course be exceptions to this rule. But in general, “the worldview a person possesses at age 13 is … the worldview they will die with.”

What does this mean for future Americans? “Millennials entering their prime childbearing years,” Barna notes. They will likely pass their current worldview to their children. Christians must take action if they want future generations to embrace a biblical worldview.

Christians will need to “step in and impact the spiritual well-being of our future adults,” he says.

Growing Trends

ACFI’s study on millennials’ worldview isn’t the first to reach these conclusions. Recently The Atlantic noted that people are leaving the church in large numbers. The Pew Research Center also noted the trend among millennials. (For more from the author of “Study: Only 4 Percent of Millennials Hold a ‘Biblical Worldview'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

So It’s Come to This: A Feminist Is Calling for Female Slavery

/0 Comments/in , /by

For as long as I’ve been politically aware, the word “feminism” has evoked feelings of divisiveness, nastiness, and misandry. It’s at the extreme end of politically loaded words, producing strong reactions in anyone who hears it. For some, it is a rallying cry of justice and equality; for others, it is hatred made flesh. Why should this be?

My mother, who grew up in the 1960s, feminism’s heyday, remains a self-described feminist and insists that the term means only that women should have the same rights as men. Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word thus: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.”

What’s so objectionable about that? By this definition, everyone I know is a feminist, myself included. What sort of backward chauvinist would argue that women shouldn’t have the same rights as men?

The answer, apparently, is Sarrah Le Marquand, an Australian feminist and the editor-in-chief of “Stellar” magazine. In a piece penned for Sydney’s “Daily Telegraph,” Le Marquand argues that female parents of school-aged children should be legally required to enter the workforce and get a job.

That’s right: a philosophy that once demanded more rights for women now demands more restrictions. Men are free to work or to choose to stay home with their children. Women should be denied that choice, for the good of womankind. The ultimate goal of feminism is for women to have no choices except for those permitted them by society’s elites.

Le Marquand has a snappy retort to these objections. She parries accusations that she is against female choice by… openly admitting that she doesn’t care about female choice. Clever. She writes:

“Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that ‘feminism is about choice’ is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

This position is so staggeringly self-contradictory and antithetical to the stated aims of traditional feminism that it practically leaves one at a loss for words. Fortunately, we already have a word for legally compelling someone to work against her will. At the risk of triggering you, here it is: Slavery. One cannot help but be reminded of George Orwell’s chilling slogan of totalitarianism: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why feminism has become so toxic a term in modern discourse. This is why it’s hard to take feminism seriously at all, along with those intellectual women who gather in seminars to giggle about whether men, as a gender, are obsolete, in decline, and just plain unnecessary.

To the extent that there remains a philosophy that stresses equal rights as one of its primary tenets, that is blind to gender, as well as to color or creed, and that does not gin up its followers by engaging in identity politics, it has a different, perhaps less familiar name: libertarianism.

To the libertarian, women as well as men should be free to live and prosper as they choose, without interference from aggressors of either gender. The law should give no preference to one group of people over another, for we were all born with the same rights, rights inherent to our humanity. To the libertarian, you should be able to live the life you choose. And we would never dream of making you work rather than take care of your kids. (For more from the author of “So It’s Come to This: A Feminist Is Calling for Female Slavery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arizona Passes Law Requiring Abortionists to Save Babies Born Alive During Botched Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

It could hardly come at a better time.

On Wednesday, the Arizona state legislature passed a law requiring late-term abortionists to try to save the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions. The same day, a late-term abortionist from Arizona got caught implying that she committed infanticide.

“You have to pay attention to who’s in the room” if a baby is born alive, Dr. DeShawn Taylor told investigators with the Center for Medical Progress. “Because the law states you are not supposed to do any maneuvers after the fact to try to cause fetal demise.”

“Arizona is so conservative,” the former medical director for Planned Parenthood Arizona said. She implies that she commits infanticide against babies born alive. Even as late as 24 weeks.

“Why does it matter who’s in the room if you’re following the law?” asked State Rep. Maria Syms.

She joined the majority that passed the “Delivered Alive Infant Clarification Act” (S.B. 1367) through both chambers on Wednesday. (34-22 and 18-11, respectively.)

But first this commonsense measure had to face down a scorched-earth PR campaign. It presented abortion as “compassionate” and treated medical treatment to newborns as “torture.”

Saving Lives, Not Violating Decision

Sen. Steve Smith sponsored the bill. It requires that anyone who performs abortions from 20 weeks “promote, preserve and maintain the life” of children born alive. Signs of life include “breathing, a heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation [or] definite movement of voluntary muscles.” The legislation exempts severely handicapped babies certified to survive three months or less.

Abortion facilities must have lifesaving equipment on hand. Abortionists must have an emergency treatment plan. Those who do not comply can get fined or lose their medical license.

Democratic Rep. Ken Clark said trying to save infants’ lives is a “horrendous process.” He said that “it deprives the family and the doctors of the ability to decide.”

But at that point, it is no longer an abortion. It’s a birth. And anything that “continues” the abortion process is murder by anyone’s definition.

“It’s striking how Dr. Taylor describes the law as prohibiting her from finishing the abortion once the baby is outside the womb,” said Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod. “This is precisely why we need S.B. 1367.”

More Babies Surviving at 22 Weeks

The most infamous case of a “post-birth abortionist” is Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell snipped babies’ spines with scissors in his West Philadelphia abortion facility. He was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder and is serving life in prison without parole.

Abortion supporters called the bill — which would cut into abortionists’ bottom line — unnecessary. “Fetuses born at 20 and 21 weeks gestation have a zero percent chance of survival.” So testified Neonatologist Peter Stevenson.

But a study in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that nearly one-in-four babies born at 22 weeks could survive with treatment. That prompted University of Iowa pediatrics professor Dr. Edward Bell to tell the New York Times that 22 weeks is a new standard of viability.

Democrats’ Inconsistency

The abortion lobby tried to present medical care as sadistic. Stevenson said that since the babies were unlikely to survive, caring for them prolonged their suffering. He called that “unethical.” Arizona State University professor Dr. Kristy King called the measure “ghastly.” The feminist activist also called it a “fetus torture bill.” Planned Parenthood derided it as “cruel legislation that attempts to stigmatize [and] shame.”

But Planned Parenthood also opposed Arizona’s “Mother’s Health and Safety Act,” signed by then-Governor Jan Brewer in 2012. It prohibited all abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that those unborn babies can feel pain. (It was later struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.)

So, which is it? How can trying to save babies at 20 weeks inflict unspeakable pain if dismemberment abortion is a painless procedure?

The only thing Democratic lawmakers consistently maintained was a positive view of abortion. For instance, Rep. John Allen told the chamber about his daughter, who survived being born with only one hemisphere of her brain. Democrat Lela Alston countered by saying that aborting her handicapped daughter was an act of “great compassion and love.”

Some of them wore pink on the floor to support Planned Parenthood.

Will Gov. Ducey Sign the Bill to Save Babies?

Republicans maintained the hope that one day science will learn to save children at ever-younger ages. “Someone had to be the first to be born at 30 weeks,” said State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth. Over time doctors perfected the technology to preserve life at that stage. “There will be a child at 20 weeks who is viable.”

Babies as premature as 21 weeks have survived.

Jewels Green, a former abortion facility worker who is now pro-life, said a relative was one of the early ones to beat the odds.

“My cousin weighed about two pounds when he was born at six months’ gestation — in 1971!” Green told me. “He is now a strong man.” The military veteran is “proud to have served in Iraq.”

“If doctors could save such tiny babies in 1971, think what we can do now,” she said. (For more from the author of “Arizona Passes Law Requiring Abortionists to Save Babies Born Alive During Botched Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ladies, Would You Rather Be Married to Mike Pence, or Anthony Weiner?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The latest batch of manufactured outrage on the left has been produced by the Mike and Karen Pence profile that revealed some tools Mike uses to live out his marital vow of faithfulness. As Anika Smith wrote here at The Stream:

Mike and Karen Pence abide by a version of the Billy Graham Rule. In a 2002 interview, then- congressman Pence said he doesn’t drink without his wife present, nor does he dine alone with other women.

This common-sense rule stands out in a town like DC, where many, many marriages have fallen apart because of affairs.

As Smith’s piece pointed out, feminists on social media looked for ways to cast the Pences’ mutually agreed upon rule for their marriage as dehumanizing for women. Or something.

It amazes me that the same secular relativists who will defend any sexual fetish will presume to remark on the details of a marriage. Aren’t both of the Pences “consenting adults”? If fidelity is their kink, who are we to judge?

And wasn’t it just five minutes ago that the same feminists were outraged that Donald Trump did not take steps to be faithful to his pre-Melania wives? That he acted and talked like a “player”? Morality changes so quickly on the left that it’s difficult to keep up.

Take the Survey, Girls

In fact, it’s really hard to believe that any woman who has ever been in love with a man genuinely objects to the Pence Plan. To test that out, I created a little Twitter poll, which appears below:

Women want men to be more like:

Mike Pence
Anthony Weiner
Bill Clinton
Bruce Jenner
— John Zmirak (@JZmirak) March 30, 2017

Any woman who actually felt “triggered” when she read about the Pences owes the rest of us her answer.

Of course, the response I expect instead is the typical feminist “audible eyeroll.” Then a lengthy and testy insistence that those aren’t the only options. Who am I to say that women need to pick among those four alternatives? “There you go again, limiting women’s options and depriving them of agency … just like you want to limit their reproductive health care options!”

The proper response to that, of course, is the line I’ve used before on college campuses: “Oh, I’m not really pro-life. I’m anti-choice. Life is cheap, and they’re only babies. I just want to restrict women’s reproductive health care options.” That ends the conversation, every time.

If I worked at a godless or a Jesuit college, or a big, timid corporation, I might expect to be summoned to Human Resources with a complaint from a nameless female co-worker that my Twitter poll made her feel “unsafe.”

There is No Fifth Option

The truth is that those four choices are exhaustive. You have to pick one. Just so, each man must pick which road he will travel down. In the moral life nothing is fixed. You are always in motion toward goodness and health or sin and sickness, till your last dying breath.

Mike Pence has clearly taken the measure of himself, and determined what he needs to do to keep his sexuality within the bonds of a loving marriage. For a handsome fellow in a position of power, his rules seem sane and sensible. They bespeak a man who knows the reality of temptation, who loves his wife and their marriage enough to take the simplest steps to protect them.

Male sexuality is a real thing, with a genuine shape that differs from the feminine variety. (Though both sexes clearly cheat, and women must stay on guard as well, as Chelen Vicari sagely notes.) The male sex drive is a force of nature, made strong for good biological reasons, and tainted (like everything else) by the Fall. Like anger, ambition, acquisitiveness, or any other drive it must be controlled. Or it controls us.

Or You Could Marry Bill Clinton

Which brings us to Option B, Bill Clinton. Are the women who mock the Pences for their marital plan ready to talk about Bill and Hillary’s arrangement? You know, where Bill cheats with weaker, poorer women, then bullies and blackmails them into silence with his wife’s sullen consent and active support?

I bring this up not solely to mock and humiliate the Clintons on a deeply personal issue. Bill Clinton could be the picture in the dictionary next to “Piggish Male Behavior.”

If a powerful man (like the governor of a state, or a vice president) wants to treat women this way, he will not be short of takers. But lesser men can get away with it too — as the tens of millions of single moms in America could testify. The generation of fatherless kids who are growing up today would back them up.

As grateful as they were that Bill was solidly pro-abortion, I don’t think most feminists would choose the Clinton option.

Carlos Danger Signals

Am I saying that if a man doesn’t take steps like Mike Pence, he will end up acting like Bill Clinton? No.

He could act like Anthony Weiner — humiliating a young and beautiful wife by dragging his sex drive through the bottomless online sewers of pornography and “sexting.”

There is plenty a man can get away with and get addicted to online without ever meeting a stranger in the flesh. I don’t think I need to spell this out, or to point out how damaging that can be to a healthy marriage. Skeptics can ask poor Huma.

So feminists won’t pick Weiner.

Pray for Bruce Jenner. Don’t Imitate Him, Even a Little

If they’re true to their theories, feminists would surely choose Bruce Jenner. Set aside the mental illness which drives the poor man to such gross extremes as dosing himself with dangerous drugs, humiliating his children and camping around in drag.

What feminists really claim to want from men is a milder version of Jenner: Someone who suppresses, beats down, and denies what it means to be a man. Who internalizes the guilt that feminism sprays men with like a firehose. And yet who (like Jenner) is somehow still attracted to women. A tame man, a damaged man, a man who is no threat at all.

At least that’s what feminists think they want. In fact, they’re probably secretly more attracted to Clinton. They’d be better off with Pence. What they’ll end up with is Weiner.

Who said that there’s no justice in the world? (For more from the author of “Ladies, Would You Rather Be Married to Mike Pence, or Anthony Weiner?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Right to Affirm That States Can Defund Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

It isn’t often that Congress moves a heavy burden off the backs of the states and allows them the freedom to be actual “laboratories of democracy.” Yet the Senate did just that Thursday in voting 51-50 (with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie) to invoke the Congressional Review Act to rescind an Obama administration rule that prohibited the states from defunding Planned Parenthood.

The rule blocked states from redirecting public health funding to other health care providers that better serve women’s health. But now the Senate has joined the House of Representatives, which passed the resolution earlier this year, and the measure heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, where his signature is expected.

Fifteen states have acted to defund Planned Parenthood and others who perform elective abortions in the last couple of years, reasoning that America’s largest purveyor of abortions (the organization is responsible for over one-third of a million abortions annually in recent years) doesn’t need taxpayer dollars to offer an elective procedure that most people recognize as the destruction of human life.

Public opposition notwithstanding, the Obama administration passed a “midnight rule” in December 2016 through the Department of Health and Human Services that interpreted Title X, the federal family planning program, to prohibit states from redirecting health care dollars away from groups like Planned Parenthood and toward public health agencies that outnumber the abortion behemoth 20-to-1 and (unlike Planned Parenthood) offer a wide range of preventive and holistic health care services.

Alliance Defending Freedom, Susan B. Anthony List, and Charlotte Lozier Institute had filed comments with HHS urging it not to enact the rule. The midnight rule had stopped states that had passed these public health care funding laws—including Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Ohio—from fully implementing them. Now, with the president’s approval, taxpayer dollars can again flow to where they are needed most.

The timing of the Senate vote comes a day after new undercover video evidence surfaced to remind us why Planned Parenthood doesn’t deserve public funding. In the new Center for Medical Progress video, Dr. DeShawn Taylor, former medical director of Planned Parenthood of Arizona and longtime abortionist at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, describes how to deliver intact babies in late-term abortions to harvest high-quality body parts.

Taylor displays an eager willingness to ignore Arizona and federal law, which requires that babies who are born alive during an abortion receive medical care in an effort to keep them from dying. When undercover investigators asked Taylor what measures were in place to assess whether the baby was alive, she responded, “[Y]ou need to pay attention to who’s in the room, right?”

This callous and utter disregard for the value of human life is reason enough to ensure that Planned Parenthood never gets another dime of taxpayer funding. But the latest video is not alone, of course.

In addition to the numerous other videos that the Center for Medical Progress released previously (videos confirmed to be unmanipulated and authentic by a respected forensic analysis and cybersecurity company), federal and state audits have revealed waste, abuse, and potential fraud that add ample additional reasons for states to keep money away from Planned Parenthood.

The Obama administration never took any of that information seriously, but clearly both the House and Senate have. Trump can rest assured that his signature on the new measure that the Senate just passed will be more than justified. It’s simply common sense that states should be allowed to prioritize taxpayer money in ways that best serve women, and with the president’s signature, that’s exactly what states will once again be free to do. (For more from the author of “Congress Right to Affirm That States Can Defund Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Charges Against Pro-Life Investigators Show Government’s Double Standard on Investigative Journalists

/0 Comments/in , /by

The undercover Planned Parenthood videos published in 2015 made one thing abundantly clear: Big Abortion skirts the law for its own gain, going to great lengths to hide its illicit activities not only from the public, but even from its own employees.

After such revelations, it seems like common sense that the government would defund Planned Parenthood. After all, taxpayer money should not go to fund abortions or the illegal practices going on behind the organization’s closed doors.

But abortion cronies seem to be on a different page entirely: Punish the journalists and protect the abortion giant that is lining their pockets.

First, they tried—and failed—to convict Center for Medical Progress investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt in Texas. But now, California wants a shot at it. This week, the state attorney general charged Daleiden and Merritt with 15 felonies.

Now Planned Parenthood said in a statement on the charges, “Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong.” But if that’s true, the organization has nothing to fear from the Center for Medical Progress’ work.

In response to the charges, the Center for Medical Progress released a new undercover video featuring the former medical director of Planned Parenthood Arizona, DeShawn Taylor.

Taylor is shown on camera discussing what appears to be an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure and the illegal sale of baby body parts.

She also talks about intentionally avoiding an Arizona state law that requires abortionists to transport babies who show signs of life after an abortion to a hospital.

Then, she laughs.

“Well, the thing is, I mean the key is, you need to pay attention to who’s in the room,” she says.

Who is in the room also determines whether or not she can pull out intact “specimens” to sell to fetal tissue procurement agencies. She says she must be sensitive to her staff who might be uncomfortable if the aborted child comes out looking too much like a baby.

And by the way, don’t call it a “baby,” she says. “It’s creepy.”

It’s obvious that Planned Parenthood will stop at nothing to protect its abortion gold mine, even keeping secrets from their own employees. They wouldn’t want to make anyone in the room feel uncomfortable.

But what about the baby in the room?

Investigative journalists like Daleiden have been instrumental in casting light on deceptive practices in big government, big business, and now, big abortion.

In the past, investigative journalists have been lauded for their work.

They were applauded when they uncovered the Watergate scandal. No one has batted an eye at the many undercover investigations run by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

In fact, animal rights organizations in California have uncovered animal abuse by becoming employed and secretly filming conditions at farms and slaughterhouses.

But the state hasn’t charged them with 15 felonies.

Daleiden and Merritt’s investigative work, just like these other examples, brought to light illegal practices and abuse of power that would have otherwise remained hidden from the public.

Isn’t that the purpose of journalism—to reveal the truth? It should concern all Americans that California’s attorney general is trying to strip journalists of the freedom to do their jobs and report the truth.

Big abortion has effectively used its network of abortion cronies to attempt to bring swift punishment against Daleiden, but the reaction to Planned Parenthood’s illegal practices has come much slower.

A handful of states have rightly defunded the abortion giant. And while the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives released a report recommending that Planned Parenthood no longer receive federal funding and that those who have illegally profited off of the sale of baby body parts be prosecuted, little action has been taken thus far.

When our government acts more quickly to strip journalists of their freedoms than to act against an organization breaking state and federal law, then something is wrong. That is what’s truly “creepy.” (For more from the author of “Charges Against Pro-Life Investigators Show Government’s Double Standard on Investigative Journalists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Murkowski Votes to Force States to Continue Planned Parenthood Funding, VP Pence Breaks Tie Vote

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Vice President Mike Pence voted to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood Thursday. His vote tipped a divided Senate.

Passed in the House last month, the bill overturns part of the Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandate. The former rule prevented states from defunding abortion clinics.

States are now free to opt out of funding services of Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X focuses only on family planning.

Republicans are using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the HHS rule. It allows a new Congress to overturn last-minute actions of the previous administration. The Obama administration passed the HHS rule in December 2016. As The Atlantic reported, it was a “last-ditch attempt to protect Planned Parenthood.”

The Senate needed Pence’s vote since two republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, voted to keep the rule. Two independents and every Democratic senator also voted to keep the rule.

The Associated Press reported that a final vote could happen later Thursday. Pence will likely have to break the tie again.

Editor’s Note: A second vote was held. An ailing Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) obtained permission from his doctor to return to Washington for one day. Isakson cast his vote to deny federal funding to abortion providers. The legislation was sent to President Trump, who is expected to sign it.

(For more from the author of “Pence Breaks Tie in Vote Allowing States to Defund Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.