Late Tuesday, the Alabama State Senate passed what would be the nation’s strictest abortion laws should it be signed by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey.
House Bill 314 passed the Senate by a 25-6 vote, and it does not include exceptions for rape or incest. Earlier in the day, the Senate had rejected an amendment that would have added such exceptions by a 21-11 vote margin. . .
“We aimed for language that addresses the language of Roe v. Wade,” the bill’s sponsor Rep. Terri Collins (R-Decatur) said at a public event last week. “The decision was based on someone in utero, someone pregnant so we don’t get into conception. We don’t get into birth control. We don’t get into the morning-after pill, but in utero, which is the language they used that when a woman is pregnant. This bill criminalizes abortion through the doctor. And not the woman, but the doctor.
“The reasoning is the same reasoning, Roe v. Wade was decided that the baby in the womb was not a person,” she continued. “So this bill bases its reasoning that the baby in the womb is a person. And we based it on the fact that in Alabama law, we currently consider the baby in the womb a person. If you were a drunk driver and you killed a pregnant woman, you have a double homicide on your hands. We voted as a state to be a pro-life state.” . . .
The debate over the bill received national attention during the State House’s deliberations after State Rep. John Rogers (D-Birmingham) made some impolitic remarks regarding the issue of abortion. (Read more from “State Senate Passes Nation’s Strictest Abortion Ban” HERE)
The media have been working overtime to frame Georgia’s new pro-life legislation, known commonly as the “heartbeat bill,” as harmful to women, instead of what it actually is: protection for unborn children with beating hearts.
The law, signed by Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) last week, bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected, which happens around six weeks gestation. It does not punish mothers. . .
French provides more in-depth coverage of the legalese surrounding the law’s implications. “The heartbeat bill did not repeal a number of Georgia criminal statutes that explicitly apply to abortions and unborn children, and it does not overrule controlling legal authority holding that these statutes bar prosecution of a woman for terminating her own pregnancy,” the conservative columnist explained. He also went through explicit statutes:
First, there is a specific code section that applies to unlawful abortions. Georgia Code Section 16-12-140 states:
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal abortion when, in violation of Code Section 16-12-141 , he or she administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he or she uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.
(Read more from “Here’s the Truth About Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/sleeping-baby-1540295803SPT-2.jpg410615Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-14 16:49:502019-05-14 16:48:02Here’s the Truth About Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill
Video has recently surfaced depicting a violent assault on the campus of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill last month. The video shows a female student attacking a young man after she apparently became angry over anti-abortion signage, according to a report by Campus Reform.
The young man, Austin Beigel, is an intern with the pro-life group Created Equal. Biegel said in a Facebook post that he was attacked while “peacefully talking to students about abortion,” adding that “violence from abortion supporters is becoming more common.” . . .
[Video contains explicit language:]
Created Equal was reportedly on the UNC campus in order to display “large signs depicting the gruesome reality of abortion” and engage in conversations with students on April 2, a Tuesday press release from the group said. The appearance was part of a bigger tour across 14 college campuses, located in three different states.
“Footage of the outburst begins with a woman asking our team, ‘Did you put these [signs] up?’” the press release stated, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “When they respond affirmatively, she proceeds to repeatedly punch and kick a member of our staff.” . . .
Created Equal President Mark Harrington reportedly said Tuesday that the university had still not reached out to the group, but that police had charged the assailant with non-aggravated assault. Campus Reform was not able to independently confirm those charges with the UNC police. (Read more from “WATCH: Violent Assault on Pro-Lifer at Chapel Hill” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/ABORTION_Fetus__Moron-1.jpg699742Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-10 20:47:122019-05-10 20:44:10WATCH: Violent Assault on Pro-Lifer at U.S. College
Remember when judges had to take the abortion issue away from the legislatures so that women wouldn’t receive abortions performed with hangers in back alleys? Now, judges have to take the health care standards away from legislatures so that non-doctors can perform back alley-type abortions. The common denominator is that abortion is a religion where typical rules of law don’t apply, and judges are gods who can contradict law, the Constitution, and their own precedents at will.
On Monday, Virginia federal district Judge Henry E. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that suddenly the commonwealth’s commonsense law dating back to 1975 requiring abortions to be performed only by licensed physicians is unconstitutional. You see, states and even the federal government can regulate every aspect of health care and even every aspect of medical insurance. But life-and-death procedures like abortions must be free from the most basic health care standards, including the requirement to have a doctor perform the procedure. Imagine a judge declaring that because gun ownership is a real right (unlike abortion), anyone could sell firearms without a license.
Once again, we see vividly how once the other branches of government have ceded every issue to the federal courts, everything goes when it comes to their preferred policy outcomes. Judges don’t even follow their own precedents. Once we grant judges the right to unilaterally make law, set morals, and remake culture, what is to stop them from changing the rules midway? In the landmark Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey ruling affirming the individual “right” to an abortion, the court made clear that states could still regulate the health care standards for performing abortions. “The Constitution gives the States broad latitude to decide that particular functions may be performed only by licensed professionals, even if an objective assessment might suggest that those same tasks could be performed by others,” wrote Justice O’Connor in the 1992 abortion case upholding a state’s ability to require that licensed physicians provide all relevant information in counseling on abortions.
Indeed, states regulate the standards for licensed professionals all the time – everything from lemonade stands to mowing grass – even when “an objective assessment might suggest that those same tasks could be performed by others.” But when it comes to the sacred ideals of abortion, all rules must be broken.
Hudson even quotes from physician testimony noting how “serious complications” could come up during surgical abortions, yet he still orders that all non-physician clinicians be allowed to perform even dilation and evacuation procedures during the first three months of pregnancy. Moreover, Hudson himself conceded that “potential complications in performing second trimester abortions may arise that may warrant the judgment and skills that a physician can best provide.”
When it comes to abortion, everything goes. Take, for example, an authentic right, such as donating to a political campaign or owning a gun. A legal immigrant has no such rights and is indeed barred from donating to political campaigns (First Amendment) or owning a gun (Second Amendment) in most circumstances. Yet in October 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. ruled that even illegal aliens have a right to demand direct access to an abortion. Additionally, courts are increasingly throwing out all safety and health care regulations governing abortions and clinics, ignoring standards for every other aspect of health care.
Everything goes when it comes to the religion of abortion. (For more from the author of “Bush Judge Creates Fake Right for Non-Doctors to Perform Abortions” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/abortion-2-1.jpg8001200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-09 21:03:462019-05-09 20:58:46Bush Judge Creates Fake Right for Non-Doctors to Perform Abortions
Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Sims spends his free time harassing elderly women and teenagers who try and help women who are wanting to go through with an abortion. Instead of allowing these pro-life advocates to stand outside Planned Parenthood and talk with women entering the facility, Sims decided to film himself harassing and shaming them.
WATCH: Pennsylvania State Representative @BrianSimsPA harasses an elderly woman who is peacefully advocating for the lives of preborn human beings and women who are considering abortion.
Even though it appears things couldn’t get any worse than when he follows an elderly woman and encourages viewers to donate a $100 to Planned Parenthood for every hour she stood out there, he turned the notch up a bit. He was despicable and decided to offer $100 to anyone who could provide the names and addresses of the three teenagers who were outside the Planned Parenthood facility.
UPDATE: Watch PA Rep @BrianSimsPA offer up $100 for the identities & addresses of 3 TEENAGERS who are fighting for the lives of preborn children.
Conservative writer Matt Walsh asked other pro-lifers to organize a giant rally at this location:
This coward is accosting women and children at this clinic in Center City. Let’s organize a huge pro life rally at this location. I’d be happy to drive up there. Who’s game? Let’s see if Brian is man enough to show up when there’s more than just kids and elderly women there https://t.co/Ok0BLqAK3o
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/27328806763_03ae90ae9b_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-06 19:29:302019-05-06 19:27:02WATCH: Lawmaker Offers to Pay $100 to Anyone Who Can Help Him Dox Pro-Life Teens
More babies died from abortion at 21 weeks’ gestation or over in 2015 than there were people killed by homicide in New York City, new figures reveal. . .
Data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and published by the New York Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reveal that the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicides was 352.
CNS News observed that while there were approximately 0.96 people per day victimised by “murder and non-negligent manslaughter” in New York City in 2015, there were approximately 4.1 babies at 21 weeks’ gestational age or older who were aborted per day in the same city. . .
And these numbers are only likely to get higher, as New York recently passed some of the most extreme abortion legislation in the world, removing abortion from the penal lawand allowing it up to birth in some cases. The legislation also removes babies over 24 weeks from the state’s definition of homicide. . .
The figures come in the context of fierce debate and media controversy around late-term abortion and infanticide in the last few months. Days after New York politicians cheered the passing of the extreme abortion bill, a video went viral of a Virginia House Delegate defending proposed legislation that would allow abortions up until the moment of birth. (Read more from “TERRIFYING: New Yorkers More Likely to Die From Late-Term Abortion Than Homicide” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/17178926219_27840468b0_b-2.jpg5651024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-05 21:13:272019-05-05 21:11:54TERRIFYING: New Yorkers More Likely to Die From Late-Term Abortion Than Homicide
On Saturday, May 4, Focus on the Family [held] an event it’s calling “Alive from New York,” featuring speakers, live music, and a “live 4D ultrasound of a baby in the third trimester of pregnancy and broadcast on the jumbotrons in the middle of Manhattan.” New York became a focal point of the abortion debate in January, when the state enacted a law effectively permitting abortion-on-demand up until birth, to the cheers of Democrat lawmakers and left-wing activists.
“Nearly 60 million babies have been aborted since 1973,” the group explained. “In fact, just three miles from where we’ll be gathering on May 4th, sits Planned Parenthood’s largest clinic. Over 11,000 babies are aborted there each year, an unfathomable fact for anyone who loves and cherishes life. So, our goal is to fill Times Square with joy-filled people who are committed to protecting pre-born life.”
On Wednesday, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly announced that three of the companies who own Times Square billboards – Silvercast, Clear Channel Outdoor, and ABC Supersign – have refused to lease space for the pro-life event.
“In many ways, this blockade only confirms what we’ve long known,” Daly wrote. “There are many people who don’t want the world to see these images of preborn life, because the abortion industry is predicated on a lie – namely that a baby is just a blob of tissue inside the womb.” . . .
Pro-lifers support and abortion activists oppose ultrasound requirements for their ability to convey the humanity of preborn babies and dissuade women from abortion. Pro-life groups Save the Storks says that four out of five pregnant women who see one of their free ultrasounds ultimately choose life. (Read more from “Times Square Billboard Owners Refuse Space for Pro-Life Event” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/2226380468_eed4a35c3a.jpg500375Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-05 21:12:182019-05-05 21:09:08Times Square Billboard Owners Refuse Space for Pro-Life Event
Democratic Alabama State Rep. John Rogers went viral on Thursday for making some awful remarks about abortion.
“Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later,” he stated while filibustering a pro-life bill in Alabama. “You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”
Just about everyone, including Donald Trump Jr., rebuked Rogers for his callousness. He concluded that what Rogers said was even worse than Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s infamous comments on babies who survive abortions.
This is stomach curling and makes Ralph Northam look like a moderate on abortion.
Every Democrat running for President needs to be asked where they stand on this. The extreme turn we've seen from Dems on abortion recently is truly sickening. https://t.co/KchZfqvQMK
How did Rogers respond? With another shocking remark.
Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) responds to Donald Trump Jr. calling him out for his remarks about killing "unwanted kids", says Trump Jr. is "proof that mothers ought to have the right to have an abortion because he is evidently retarded or crazy." pic.twitter.com/YUHTee8puw
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/46453409881_5d2402800c_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-02 20:57:162019-05-02 20:55:20Dem Rep Defends Shocking Remarks, Adds Trump Jr Should Have Been Aborted
Democrat Alabama State Rep. John Rogers made horrifying remarks on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Tuesday about abortion, saying: “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later.” . . .
“Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later,” Rogers said. “You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”
Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) on abortion: “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later” pic.twitter.com/dxPg6X759h
“Some parents can’t handle a child with problems,” Rogers continued, according to a local media report. “It could be retarded. It might have no arms and no legs.”
In support of abortion, Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) questions what happens when the child is born “retarded” and “half deformed” pic.twitter.com/HMV7PCVffP
“Supporters said the bill is intentionally designed to conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationally, hoping to spark court cases that might prompt the justices to revisit Roe,” Fox News reported. “The bill contains an exemption for situations in which there is a serious risk to the mother’s health, but not for rape and incest.”
“The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in a womb is not a person,” Alabama State Rep. Terri Collins (R) said. (Read more from “Dem: Some Kids Are Unwanted, Kill Them Now or Kill Them Later” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/pregnant-mom-belly-people-11e1f4-1024.jpg1024798Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-05-01 21:49:402019-05-01 21:47:23Dem: Some Kids Are Unwanted, Kill Them Now or Kill Them Later
The top Republican on a House subcommittee pointed out Tuesday that, contrary to proponents’ claims, recent pushes to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment would benefit the pro-abortion movement. During a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Ranking Member Mike Johnson, R-La., pointed out that groups on both sides of the debate agree that ERA ratification would be a big win for abortion.
But before we get into that, you may be wondering why in the world this decades-old, expired ratification effort is in the news again. Well, though the original 1972 proposal didn’t get the support of the 38 states it needed, even after Congress extended the original deadline, the states of Nevada and Illinois passed their own ratifications in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
To get the amendment passed without restarting the entire ratification process from the beginning, ERA proponents need one more state to sign on and some kind of workaround to lift the congressionally imposed deadline. Some proponents of the amendment argue that Congress could simply vote to lift the ratification deadline, as does a 2013 Congressional Research Service report. Others argue that the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to set a deadline in the first place.
Earlier this year, pro-lifers in Virginia mobilized against efforts to resurrect the amendment in the Old Dominion. “The only reason to pick the ERA off the dusty floor of history is because of a fierce desire to protect abortion at all costs,” Students for Life of America executive vice president Tina Whittington said of Virginia’s ERA efforts. “The ERA is out of sync with this century where women are already protected as equals in our legislation and the courts.”
But the amendment has indeed made it off the dusty floor of history and found its way back to the halls of Congress, which brings us to Tuesday’s hearing.
During Tuesday’s hearing, subcommittee Chairman Mike Johnson, R-La., responded to proponents’ “bold contention” that the ERA “has nothing to do with abortion” by stating that “pro-abortion groups are clearly saying now” that an ERA “would mean the end of laws that protect the sanctity of every human life.”
As proof, he cited a recent article from the National Organization for Women, which says “an ERA – properly interpreted – would negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception.”
He went on to list a 2019 Planned Parenthood legal complaint that argues that Pennsylvania’s ERA invalidates state-level abortion laws and should therefore allow for Medicaid-funded abortions, as well as a recent document from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Even @NARAL said it themselves: "The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion…[it] would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws…"#ERAHearingpic.twitter.com/feKjqfiZFL
“The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion,” reads a March 2019 email alert, which adds that an ERA “would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.”
“Look,” Johnson concluded, “the fact is that now there is essential agreement between pro-life and pro-abortion groups that the language of the 1972 ERA is likely to result in a powerful reinforcement and expansion of abortion rights.”
The full hearing can be viewed here, and Johnson’s statement begins at 2:10:45:
In addition to Johnson’s examples, a 2018 post at the Daily Beast from pro-abortion journalist Stephanie Russell-Kraft explains: “A right to abortion based on an Equal Rights Amendment wouldn’t be about the abortion procedure itself. It would be about women’s ability to live equally as full citizens under the law.”
After the hearing today, Russell-Kraft also discussed the strategy of trying to sell the ERA by divorcing it from the issue of abortion.
“I understand the political strategy of avoiding abortion, to get the #ERA passed,” she tweeted. “But opponents are raising that concern no matter what. What do we lose when we talk about gender equality without including reproductive rights?” (For more from the author of “GOP Chairman Exposes Dems’ Latest Abortion Trojan Horse” please click HERE)