Gov. Kasich Signs Bill Banning All Abortions Once Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act this afternoon, enshrining protections for preborn children from 20-weeks gestation.

At the same time, he vetoed the “Heartbeat Bill,” which would have protected children in the womb much earlier, as soon as their heartbeat can be detected.

In a statement, Kasich said he was working hard “to strengthen Ohio’s protections for the sanctity of human life.”

Defending his decision to veto the Heartbeat Bill, Kasich said, “The State of Ohio will be the losing party in a lawsuit and, as the losing party, the State of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists’ lawyers.”

The Heartbeat Bill divided pro-lifers across Ohio because some thought it will lead to a possible Supreme Court re-affirmation of Roe v. Wade. Ohio Right to Life president Mike Gonidakis told Kaiser Health News that he opposes it because, “We believe in an incremental approach to both the legislative side as well as the changing of hearts and minds.” (Read more from “Gov. Kasich Signs Bill Banning All Abortions Once Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas AG: Banning Christmas Poster Violates First Amendment

/0 Comments/in , /by

“She said my poster is an issue of separation of church and state. She said the poster had to come down because it might offend kids from other religions or those who do not have a religion.”

That is how Dedra Shannon, an aide in the school nurse’s office at Patterson Middle School in Killeen, Texas, explained the confrontation she had with the school’s principal concerning the poster she had used to decorate the door to the nurse’s office in the school, depicting a famous scene from the traditional Christmas TV show A Charlie Brown Christmas.

In the scene, a frustrated Charlie Brown asks if anyone knows what Christmas is all about. At that point, his friend Linus quotes the biblical passage about the birth of Christ found in the second chapter of Luke’s gospel, including the words, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior who is Christ the Lord.” Linus then tells Charlie Brown, “That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

Inspired by that scene from the TV program that has run for almost half a century, Shannon used the image of Linus, a scrawny Christmas tree, plus the Bible verse that Linus cited, in a six-foot poster on the door of the nurse’s office . . .

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton weighed in on the controversy, declaring the actions of the school district a violation of both the First Amendment and Texas law. He argued that Shannon’s display is specifically protected by the “Merry Christmas Law,” which was enacted in 2013 by the Texas Legislature. “We passed that law precisely because of this type of discrimination against people of faith,” stated Paxton, adding, “No school official in Texas can silence a biblical reference to Christmas. This is an attack upon religious liberty.” (Read more from “Texas AG: Banning Christmas Poster Violates First Amendment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Pro-Life Law That Raised Abortion Center Standards

/0 Comments/in , /by

An Oklahoma law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals is unconstitutional, according to the state’s highest court. The 2014 law, called SB1848, included protections for the women’s health and safety and required an abortion facility to have a doctor there who could admit patients to a hospital not more than thirty miles away.

Claiming that the requirement was passed “under the guise of the protection of women’s health,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional “because it creates an undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion, violating protected rights under our federal Constitution.”

U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

The Court cited both the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this summer overturning Texas abortion center standards that included abortionist admitting privileges. The U.S. Supreme Court said the Texas law was an “undue burden” on the health of women, in part because the number of abortion centers in the state dropped by about half once it and another law were implemented.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that there are two licensed abortionists in the state. One of them and the plaintiff in the case, Dr. Larry Burns, said he faced possible heavy fines and/or the closure of his center after being unable to get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. According to the court, the risk to his abortion center’s existence meant women would risk not having access to abortion.

The Court also said that Burns’ practice was safe for women who are getting abortions:

In 41 years of private medical practice, Burns has only called an ambulance one time for a patient who was simply observed and released from a local emergency room. We find there is no evidence to support defendants’ position that this legislation protects and advances women’s health.

The court also claimed that the law violated a state constitutional requirement that laws have a “single subject.” The law includes new provisions that “are so unrelated that many of those voting on the law would be faced with an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice.”

“Women are in Danger in Many Abortion Clinics”

Conservative Oklahoma activist and blogger Jamison Faught told The Stream that he was “not surprised that the state Supreme Court once again tossed out a pro-life law. For some reason, Oklahoma has a very liberal state judiciary. One of their favorite strategies in striking down pro-life legislation is their very inconsistent application of the single-subject rule in the state Constitution.”

Governor Mary Fallin said in a statement distributed to the press: “I’m disappointed to see another pro-life law struck down by the courts. Like many bills passed in Oklahoma, this bill was designed to protect the health and welfare of the mother along with the life of the unborn, which always should be among our society’s priorities.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The Oklahoma ruling came hours after Americans United for Life (AUL) released a report, Unsafe Conditions, detailing over 1,400 health and safety violations by 227 abortion centers in 32 states around the nation since 2008. In a National Review Online op-ed, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke wrote that her organization’s report

convincingly demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s claim that abortion clinics are ‘safe’ qualifies as the lie of the year. The report documents that in Texas alone, at least 17 abortion providers have recently been cited by state officials for violations of health and safety standards, including, ironically, five clinics operated by Whole Woman’s Health, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

AUL spokesperson Kristi Hamrick told The Stream that “It is clear that women are in danger in many abortion clinics. We can document that. Any court that refuses to see this is not looking at the facts at hand.”

She added: “When the Supreme Court threw out Texas’ health and safety standards, they said at that time that it could be constitutional to have such standards if they were proven to be necessary. Here’s your proof.” (For more from the author of “Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Pro-Life Law That Raised Abortion Center Standards” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Texas Can Lead the Charge on Education Choice

/0 Comments/in , /by

The debate around school choice has shifted from whether states should enact education choice to how best to accomplish that goal.

In a special report released on Monday—co-published by The Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation—we discuss how this question will be especially important in Texas, which is considering adopting education savings accounts, becoming a leader in the education choice movement.

What will now be critically important for Texas as it works to create education choice is that policymakers avoid adopting a flawed version of accountability.

More Choice, More Accountability

The best way for policymakers in Texas and elsewhere to expand access to a high-quality education for all children is to provide all families with education savings accounts that give them the maximum possible freedom to choose the education providers that work best for their children.

In “Recalibrating Accountability: Education Savings Accounts as Vehicles of Choice and Innovation,” we outline ways in which policymakers can ensure parent-centered accountability is a key feature of education savings accounts in Texas.

Education savings accounts enable families to access a variety of educational options beyond the traditional classroom.

In addition to, or even instead of, enrolling at a private school, students using education savings accounts might learn from tutors, take a course online or at a local college, study from a homeschool curriculum, or use some combination of these. Education savings accounts both empower parents to completely customize their child’s education and provide a platform for innovation.

Education savings accounts expand students’ opportunities and make education providers more directly accountable to parents. But this new model of education will require rethinking the way we hold education providers accountable. And it’s a rethinking that couldn’t come soon enough. For far too long, parents have been deprived of genuine accountability.

That’s because a lack of accountability is a hallmark of monopolies. District schools operate like monopolies because many parents have no viable alternatives. District schools are primarily accountable to politicians and unelected bureaucrats, not parents, and they receive funding regardless of their performance or whether they are meeting the needs of families.

And because district schools are not held directly accountable to parents, some policymakers have attempted to impose accountability through top-down government regulations. Yet decades of attempts to regulate district schools into quality have had little effect.

Without question, parents and taxpayers have a legitimate interest in the accountability debate.

Parents should have robust, contextual information about how their children are performing, and whether their education providers are setting them up to achieve their life goals and aspirations. Taxpayers, meanwhile, deserve transparency about how their dollars are being spent.

Unfortunately, too many policymakers have still come to see centralized government regulations as synonymous with “accountability” rather than an inferior alternative to direct accountability to parents, and have therefore sought to impose similar regulations on choice programs.

At the center of the technocratic approach to “accountability” is the standardized testing mandate. Yet research has demonstrated that over-reliance on standardized math and reading tests has the propensity to narrow the curriculum.

As a result, a uniform, statewide testing mandate can limit the supply of high-quality schools and education providers willing to participate in an education choice option as well as create an incentive for participating providers to teach to the test.

Parents and students can be better served by the numerous other market mechanisms that channel expert knowledge and user experience in order to make an informed decision. The plethora of college ratings providers is a good example of the types of information market eagerly provides.

Reviews such as U.S. News & World Report, Princeton Review, Forbes, Kiplinger’s, and Business Insider are examples of that. Sites like College Times, Students Review, Rate My Professors, and Get Educated provide a platform for students to share information about their actual experiences at the college they attended.

Because the market for K-12 education is still relatively small, there are fewer ratings providers. Nevertheless, websites like GreatSchools.org and Niche.com are already providing parents with vital information as well as platforms for parents and students to share their experiences.

As the market for K–12 education grows, we should expect to see even more expert reviewers and platforms for user reviews to fill the growing demand for such information.

Holding education providers directly accountable to parents through market-based mechanisms creates a feedback loop that does not exist in more centralized, top-down systems like the district schools. This process builds on strengths and corrects errors more effectively than regulatory fiat.

Universal Access

In addition to creating parent-driven accountability, policymakers must also consider the scope of program eligibility.

“Universality”—the policy of allowing all children to be eligible for an education savings account, in addition to ensuring every child can match learning options with their unique education needs—can create broad public support for an education choice initiative to increase its likelihood of long-term viability.

Moreover, universality breaks the link between where children live and what school they attend, creating competition among all schools to catalyze improvements for all children.

A robust education market will also require education providers to have the freedom to innovate and parents to have the freedom to choose the providers that best meet their child’s needs.

States therefore should avoid well-intentioned but misguided regulations such as open admissions requirements, price controls, state testing mandates, and excessive reporting requirements.

Although intended to guarantee access and accountability, these regulations produce consequences that can reduce the effectiveness of education savings accounts and even undermine their goals.

It’s time for America’s education system to catch up to the 21st century. Our institution-centric system of district schools built for the industrial age is not well equipped to educate children in the information age.

What’s needed now is a student-centric system that empowers parents to customize their child’s education. Education savings accounts are the most effective way yet designed to achieve that goal.

Texas should seize the opportunity to lead the way. (For more from the author of “How Texas Can Lead the Charge on Education Choice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Santa Grants Final Wish to Dying Child: ‘I Cried All the Way Home’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Typically, Santa sees wide-eyed children hop into his lap to share their Christmas wishes. But this time, [Eric] Schmitt-Matzen was faced with something he had never encountered before, at least in his role as Kris Kringle: A terminally ill child dying in his arms.

Schmitt-Matzen, 60, had just gotten home from a day at work where he serves as a mechanical engineer and president of Packing Seals & Engineering in Jacksboro when his phone rang. It was a call from a nurse requesting he rush to the hospital to visit a very sick 5-year-old boy desperate to see Santa Claus . . .

Mustering the strength he could, St. Nick walked into the room, hoping to keep from breaking down in front of the small child so thrilled to see him. “Say, what’s this I hear about you’re gonna miss Christmas? There’s no way you can miss Christmas! Why, you’re my No. 1 elf,” Schmitt-Matzen told the boy, according to the paper . . .

“They say I’m gonna die,” Schmitt-Matzen said the boy told him. “How can I tell when I get to where I’m going?”

In response, Santa told the little child to “tell ’em you’re Santa’s No. 1 elf, and I know they’ll let you in.” (Read more from “Santa Grants Final Wish to Dying Child: ‘I Cried All the Way Home'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Liberty Win: Mass. Backs off Gender Identity Law That Could Have Jailed Pastors

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The state of Massachusetts has backed off a regulation that could have landed pastors in jail for operating church functions according to their faith.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the non-profit legal organization representing four churches who sued the state over the controversial regulations announced the victory Monday, after the churches agreed to drop the lawsuit.

“No church should fear government punishment simply for serving its community consistently with its faith,” ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb said in a press release.

As The Stream previously reported, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released in September an updated Gender Identity Guidance that declared, “places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity.”

That meant during certain church events and activities, church leaders would have been forced to allow a biological man to use women’s restrooms or other facilities if he claimed to identify as a woman, regardless of the church’s religious beliefs regarding gender.

Specifically, the Gender Identity Guidance originally stated that “Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the public.”

As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in the Washington Post at the time,

[E]ven church “secular events,” which I take it means events that don’t involve overt worship, are generally viewed by the church as part of its ministry, and certainly as a means of the church modeling what it believes to be religiously sound behavior.

Punishment for violating these regulations included the possibility of a year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Pastors could have even been jailed for refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

But the state backtracked after ADF initiated the legal case Horizon Christian Fellowship v. Williamson by filing a lawsuit on behalf of four churches in early October.

Almost exactly one month later, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Division responded with a letter to ADF, saying that “your lawsuit caused us to focus on these issues and to make this revision.”

The Gender Identity Guidance has now been updated to say that the “law does not apply to a religious organization if subjecting the organization to the law would violate the organization’s First Amendment rights.” “Houses of worship” was also removed from the list of places of public accommodation from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s website.

ADF attorneys filed a notice of voluntary dismissal Monday.

“The government can’t encroach on the internal, religious practices of a church. The language revisions that our lawsuit prompted should ensure that doesn’t happen,” ADF Senior Counsel Steve O’Ban said in Monday’s press release. “The comments of commonwealth officials gave these churches reason for great concern, and so we are pleased wording changes have been made to respect the constitutionally protected freedoms these congregations and pastors have.”

ADF will be holding a press conference to discuss the state of the lawsuit on Wednesday, December 14 in Boston. (For more from the author of “Religious Liberty Win: Mass. Backs off Gender Identity Law That Could Have Jailed Pastors” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Takes Neighboring Pregnancy Center to Court — for Thriving

/0 Comments/in , /by

An Idaho Planned Parenthood (PP) facility has filed a lawsuit against its pro-life pregnancy center neighbor, Stanton Healthcare — for providing women’s health services.

PP’s complaint hinge on the allegations that Stanton is misusing the common areas of the business subdivision they are located in and that Stanton invited people to protest outside the abortion provider’s facility. The lawsuit claims that

[Stanton Healthcare] regularly parks a van/mobile home on the parking area of the Business Center Common Area. … To the best of [PP]’s knowledge, information and belief, the van/mobile home is used for a number of purposes, including ultrasounds, consultations and other activities. The [subdivision’s] Declaration does not permit such activity in the Common Area.

Over the past several months, certain individuals, believed to be invitees of [Stanton Healthcare], have been present on Common Area, not within the limited purposes related to the operation of the Business Center, but rather to protest, harass [PP]’s staff and patients, or to promote services offered by [Stanton Healthcare]’s parked van/mobile home.

Stanton told LifeSiteNews that her lawyers “are reviewing the complaint,” though she also noted that PP has “made false accusations” of harassment. Red State reports Swindell is “confident PP does not have appropriate grounds for the law suit.”

‘A Whole New Level’

Despite the lawsuit’s claims, Stanton’s founder and director Brandi Swindell noted that the timing of PP’s most recent complaints line up remarkably with Stanton’s own plans to build a new “mega-clinic.”

Red State reports, “This — [Swindell] maintains — is the real reason PP suddenly brought suit. The abortion giant feels threatened.” Swindell told Red State, “Planned Parenthood is always fighting for access issues; they’re always accusing the pro-life community of trying to block access and here they are trying to block access!”

After the abortion giant’s many legal advances, such as fighting for taxpayer funding and pursuing lawsuits against pro-life agencies, Swindell says this lawsuit “goes to a whole other level,” saying PP is “now trying to prevent us from doing good.”

It’s a very serious lawsuit…people of faith [and] people of goodwill need to wake up to and say, “does Planned Parenthood really think they have the authority to bully us and prevent us from doing good?” It’s a despicable thing.

Replacing Planned Parenthood

The “Stanton Revolution,” a privately funded women’s healthcare system, has previously made a name for itself with it’s effort to “Replace Planned Parenthood.” Cosmopolitan even featured Swindell in a piece titled, “Meet the Woman Who Wants to Take Down Planned Parenthood.”

Swindell has previously told The Stream, “Part of our idea with Stanton Healthcare is to go where the women are that are facing an unexpected pregnancy and that are trying to determine what they should do in that situation.”

That’s why Stanton’s strategy “is to set up shop and open clinics right next door to Planned Parenthood.” As she explained to The Stream, “We’ve trialed this in Idaho, and then our other affiliate locations, and it works. We have walk-ins every week who are on their way to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion or to have a consultation from Planned Parenthood.”

Women see our signs that say, “Walk-ins Welcome,” “Unexpected Pregnancy Solutions At No Charge,” “Pregnancy Verification At No Cost To Our Clients,” they come in. Because they’re looking for hope, and they’re looking for a professional, confidential setting that will provide them true alternatives. We see walk-ins every week, of women who have said, “‘I’m so glad I found this place, I’m so glad that there’s resources, I’m so glad I’m not alone.”

“God is doing something truly amazing in and through the work of Stanton Healthcare,” Swindell says on the company’s website.

I’m in awe of His goodness and guidance, and humbled that He uses us to accomplish His purposes. His love is fierce and unstoppable, and what an honor it is to share the truth with every woman who comes through our doors: the truth that she is deeply loved…and there is hope.”

(For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Takes Neighboring Pregnancy Center to Court — for Thriving” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Transgender Survey Could Set a Terrible Precedent for Policy Based on Feelings, Not Facts

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent nationwide survey revealed that “60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public restrooms for fear of confrontation, saying they have been harassed and assaulted.” The “landmark” survey cites data based on the responses of 27,715 individuals, or an estimated 2 percent of the adult transgender population (which comprises only 0.6 percent of the entire U.S. population).

Reuters refers to transgender people as a “severely understudied group whose experiences and challenges from medicine to law to economics and family relations are poorly understood.” And the National Center for Transgender Equality, the group that conducted the survey, hopes the new data will serve as a basis for researchers and policymakers for years to come.

A survey like this demonstrates the power of the trans-victim class, and it should be a cause of great concern for any American who respects the rule of law.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Here is the problem with these “findings” … There is no proof that these claims are accurate. The study cites alleged encounters and experiences reported by transgender people, without a shred of documented evidence to back them up.

According to the survey, 32 percent of transgender people said they limited the amount they ate and drank at least once in the past year to avoid having to use a public restroom. Eight percent reported that they developed a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another “kidney-related problem” because they avoided restrooms.

From Reuters:

The findings by the National Center for Transgender Equality on public restrooms counter the message of mainly conservative politicians and religious leaders that transgender people are the antagonists preying on others. It found that 12 percent of transgender people were verbally harassed in public restrooms within the previous year, 1 percent were physically attacked and 1 percent were sexually assaulted. Nine percent said someone denied them access to a bathroom.

Notice the unmistakably ambiguous language used in the study; what constitutes “assault” or “harassment” in these scenarios? The law clearly defines these terms, but the survey does not. The survey doesn’t “counter” the conservative response to transgender people occupying restrooms that don’t correspond with their birth sex, because it doesn’t actually “find” anything.

Transgender people already receive the same level of protection under the law as their fellow citizens. They have the same legal options as any other victim of discrimination, harassment, or assault. But instead of filing a legal claim, they report their experience to a transgender advocacy group who will apply social pressure to advance their interests, without a shred of proof required. How convenient.

He-said, she-said

“Trans people have been in danger in the bathrooms. These numbers are just astronomically high,” Mara Keisling, director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Reuters. “This is what’s really happening in bathrooms. The nonsense of what [North Carolina] Governor [Pat] McCrory was saying is not what’s happening in bathrooms.”

Reuters notes that the survey was conducted before the passage of North Carolina’s House Bill 2, which “prohibits local governments in North Carolina from forcing places of public accommodation to allow people to use restrooms and changing facilities that do not align with their biological sex.” The bill was met with powerful backlash that launched a nationwide civil rights debate over whether transgender people should be considered a protected class.

Here’s the thing about North Carolina’s “nonsense” bathroom bill: There have been not only reports, but documented cases that prove transgender bathrooms pose real threats to public safety. But a group like the National Center for Transgender Equality is able to dismiss actual evidence with anecdotal accounts via “surveys.”

This survey is just the latest example of the Left’s “ends justify the means” approach to public policy. Whether it’s the widely disseminated “1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses” propaganda and falsehood, or the countless hate crime hoaxes and fake trends perpetuated by the agenda-driven mainstream media time and time again, unapologetic liberals are notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts. The Left has had an extremely successful track record of furthering their agenda of victimhood by convincing the public that their claims are above (bigoted) scrutiny.

Sixty percent of transgender people have been “harassed and assaulted” in public restrooms? That’s one heck of a statistic to be throwing around without a shred of proof. And seeing as how literally anything and everything can (and is) deemed an “attack” these days, the onus should be greater than ever for the accusers to provide the unassailable evidence proving such charges.

Strength in victimhood

The trans community will argue that many of these incidents of discrimination, harassment, and assault go unreported due to the fear or shame these victims feel. They have already successfully implemented this argument in the past to carve out special provisions in the workplace and, famously, in public restrooms.

In fact, the National Center for Transgender Equality was behind the LGBT report that was cited as the basis for California’s transgender affirmative action jobs program, which subsidizes restaurants who hire trans employees. These people know what they’re doing.

Consider this excerpt from the new survey’s executive summary:

The findings reveal disturbing patterns of mistreatment and discrimination and startling disparities between transgender people in the survey and the U.S. population when it comes to the most basic elements of life, such as finding a job, having a place to live, accessing medical care, and enjoying the support of family and community.

Replace the word “transgender” in the text above with “black,” “female,” or “Latino,” and you have the Left’s basic argument for identity-driven policies that forcibly “level the playing field” at the expense of true equality, justice, and safety for all. The implied claim is that the legal system doesn’t work for certain groups of people, and the only solution is to overthrow the system and create a new one. In other words, civil rights are great, but special accommodations and government handouts are not only better, but an absolute must. (A right, if you will…)

The conversation surrounding the new transgender survey is not about “equality” or “safety”; it is about subverting the rule of law and creating new policies based on feelings, not facts.

Though small, the trans-victim class is more vocal — via government allies, financial means, and political capital (with a virtual monopoly on all the greatest influencers in mainstream culture these days) — and more armed than ever. It is crucial, then, that public leaders and policymakers recognize the identity-driven agenda of the Left’s “equality” crusaders, and shut down any attempts to bulldoze over the rights of other Americans. (For more from the author of “New Transgender Survey Could Set a Terrible Precedent for Policy Based on Feelings, Not Facts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Just Missed Its Chance to Starve the Planned Parenthood Beast

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m a military guy. I joined because of 9/11 and served two deployments. America is worth fighting for and there are many reasons why.

One of the lessons reinforced by my military service is that life is our first freedom. Without it, no other right has value.
The protection of life — regardless of its circumstance — is therefore a moral and righteous cause, and America’s birth gave us a built-in solution.

Remember, life gives value to all other rights. Before we understand free speech and prosperity from free markets, we must have life. Life gives everything context and meaning. This is the frame all conservatives must adopt. And they must (courageously) adopt it now.

Congress missed the opportunity to value life when it passed the Continuing Resolution (HR 2028) yesterday.

Let facts be submitted to a candid world …

American tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood. The group provides abortions-on-demand on an industrial scale. Abortion — if done as intended — ends life in the womb. Abortion doesn’t just take life, it kills the context of life.

Politicians hide this truth with gamesmanship, legalism, fake statesmanship, and false equivalencies. They use well-developed tactics to obfuscate the truth: that all taxpaying Americans give money to kill babies.

When you hear, “we’ll pass this so we can get other things done,” that’s nothing more than gamesmanship.

And when politicians try this, “the CR specifically says no money for abortions,” that’s legalism.

My favorite is, “this bill has some good and some bad things, but I’m satisfied we have a good deal.” That’s fake statesmanship.

And lastly, “we have to avoid a government shutdown.” That’s a false equivalent.

The power of the purse is America’s built-in solution for defending life. All revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, as only Congress has the power to tax. The federal government can only spend money when Congress authorizes it.

Congress is the first and last body responsible for your taxes paying for abortions. Imagine an abortionist cutting the tiny limbs of a recoiling baby in the womb. Congress could do that to money for Planned Parenthood.

Congress can abort Planned Parenthood.

The Constitution is a weapon for defending life. We must wield it without apology. When Congress funds all of the government in a mega-spend-fund-everything bill — like continuing resolutions — it does not protect life as long as your money funds abortions.

Every politician swears the exact same oath as every military officer. Google it. There are some powerful ideas in it. The reason is that the men and women who represent us in Congress should be held to the same standard as the men and women who fight and die on the battlefield, because they both are in the business of defending life and giving context to all other rights.

The difference is that the military doesn’t make excuses when it comes to matters of life and death.

Politicians do. (For more from the author of “Congress Just Missed Its Chance to Starve the Planned Parenthood Beast” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The GOP House Just Approved Tracking Devices for People with Disabilities

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House passed a bill Thursday morning that empowers the Department of Justice to establish a system whereby people with autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and other mental impairments are equipped with tracking devices, in case they wander off. H.R. 4919 passed 346 to 66 under a suspension of the rules, meaning that no amendments to the bill could be offered.

Better known as Kevin and Avonte’s Law — named after two children with autism who wandered off and drowned — the bill allows for the DOJ to award $2 million in grants to help states in “designing, establishing, and operating locative tracking technology programs” for people with mental disabilities.

“This legislation will assist communities in receiving valuable education on how to prevent individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and children with autism from wandering, and to respond quickly and appropriately in cases in which they do,” said House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. (D, 64%), per the New York Daily News.

The bill has incited passion from autism and Alzheimer’s advocacy groups, as well as those who are concerned about civil liberties and government overreach. Last week, the bill was scheduled for a House Judiciary Committee markup, but was postponed.

As Conservative Review reported at the time, “Multiple sources on the Hill with knowledge of the situation said that the hearing was cancelled after several GOP committee members voiced concerns about how the language dealt with privacy and civil liberty issues.”

After the Judiciary Committee markup was cancelled, the language of Kevin and Avonte’s Law was changed, so that the tracking devices overseen by the DOJ were less permanent and invasive than the ones originally proposed.

The language change “is still not good enough,” Robert Romano, senior editor at Americans for Limited Government, stated in a press release Wednesday: “There shouldn’t be any bill, because there shouldn’t be a program no matter how well-intentioned overseen by the Attorney General electronically tracking people in this manner.”

Nevertheless, the bill was brought up for a quick vote on Thursday, the last day of the House’s lame-duck legislative session before the new year.

A House source told Conservative Review that, as of last week, an informal whip count of the Judiciary Committee found that a majority of members on the committee were opposed to the bill. It is extremely uncommon for a bill to bypass a committee markup in this way and be brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, the source stated. The bill may be brought up in the Senate for a vote in the next 24 hours, where it is expected to pass with ease and head to President Obama’s desk for signature.

Despite its swift passage through the House, concerns abound for this bill. Government-run tracking devices “would violate the Fourth Amendment as an unreasonable search. And it would violate the Fifth Amendment’s deprivation of liberty without due process,” says Romano, of the “human tracking device bill.”

“Autism,” “Alzheimer’s disease,” and “other developmental disabilities” are not defined in the bill, which prompts extra concern for individuals who may lie somewhere on the autism spectrum but are capable of making decisions for themselves.

Further, there are no assurances that a future attorney general couldn’t mandate the sharing of data obtained by DOJ devices between federal agencies and law enforcement, therefore opening the window for unprecedented domestic surveillance.

Rep. Goodlatte made assurances that the program was voluntary and that no data would be collected. But the government simply does not have a good track record and history, to say the least, when it comes to privacy matters.

For parents or caretakers concerned about the safety and location of their loved ones with developmental disabilities, there are non-invasive, private ways to track the whereabouts under medical supervision — when necessary.

The slippery slope of Kevin and Avonte’s Law is frightening, as there is simply no need for the federal government to get involved. (For more from the author of “The GOP House Just Approved Tracking Devices for People with Disabilities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.