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)
By Townhall. An elderly pro-life woman was attacked and thrown to the ground last month outside of an abortion clinic in Kentucky, suffering a broken leg and multiple head injuries.
The incident was captured on video by a surveillance camera outside of the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville.
The victim is long-time pro-life sidewalk counselor Donna Durning. She can be seen in the video being pushed to the ground, after calmly approaching a woman who’d exited the abortion facility. Durning said she was merely attempting to give the woman some literature about a crisis pregnancy center.
Abortion Clinic Customer Assaults Elderly Pro-Life Woman, Pushes Her to Ground and Breaks Her Leg
“I had a little card from Little Way Crisis pregnancy center, and I just offered it to her. And I said, ‘Honey, if you need to talk to anybody, there’s a number on here,’” the pro-lifer said, WLKY News reported. . .
According to LifeNews, abortion activists in the Louisville area are using the recent assault to bolster calls for so-called “buffer zones,” which “prohibit pro-lifers from coming within a certain distance of the abortion clinic.” (Read more from “Elderly Pro-Life Woman Attacked Outside Abortion Clinic” HERE)
Anti-Abortion Activist Says She Was Assaulted Outside Kentucky’s Last Abortion Clinic
By WLKY. Durning has approached countless women outside of abortion clinics over the last 23 years.
“I was there, as I am five days a week, talking to girls, offering them alternatives to abortion,” Durning explained.
But this encounter went differently. Durning said the woman came after her and threw her to the ground.
“I saw a lot of hatred in her face and, I’m not exaggerating, I saw the face of Satan in her eyes,” Durning said.
Durning suffered a broken femur and a head injury. She underwent surgery and is now recovering in a rehabilitation center. (Read more from “Anti-Abortion Activist Says She Was Assaulted Outside Kentucky’s Last Abortion Clinic” HERE)
Testifying in support for a bill (Bill 359) seeking to protect babies born alive from botched abortions in North Carolina, Republican state representative Pat McElraft recalled horrifying experiences that she witnessed at the hands of a late-term abortionist when she previously worked in the medical field.
After passing the state House and Senate, the bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Roy Cooper (D-NC). But McElraft’s harrowing testimony offers a chilling inside looks at late-term abortion, which is increasingly being relentlessly pushed by the Democratic Party.
“You will hear from opponents of Bill 359 that there is no need for this bill. ‘We don’t have is happening in North Carolina.’ I can testify to the fact that infanticide has happened in North Carolina. I’ve been witness to the results of those late-term abortions,” stated the lawmaker, reported Live Action.
“There was an abortionist in Jacksonville, North Carolina, who was known nationally for performing late term abortions,” the Republican continued. “We heard of many girls who came from other states to North Carolina — Jacksonville, North Carolina, to have their late-term abortions. Even hitchhiking down from New York, some of them did, to come in — those were the days when saline abortions were performed.” . . .
“Nurses told of stories of the babies that were born alive and [had] been taken by the doctor and turned over with their faces down in the saline to drown,” she recalled. “Most of the nurses refused to work with this abortionist. He only did his abortions on the weekends.” (Read more from “Lawmaker’s Harrowing Testimony: I Saw Born-Alive Babies Drowned in Saline After Botched Abortions” HERE)
The Kansas State Supreme Court ruled on Friday that laws restricting abortion go against the state’s constitution. Only one of the court’s seven justices dissented. . .
The court asked if the “equal and inalienable rights” granted by the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights includes a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy.” It determined that the answer to this was “yes.”
“The State may only infringe upon the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy,” the court argued “if the State has a compelling interest and has narrowly tailored its actions to that interest.”
In his dissent, Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall argued that the ruling “fundamentally alters the structure of our government to magnify the power of the state” and accused the majority of painting “the interest in unborn life championed by millions of Kansans as rooted in an ugly prejudice.” . . .
There is no path for this ruling to be appealed. In 2014, however, voters from Tennessee amended that state’s constitution to clarify that the Tennessee state constitution did not prohibit the legislature from passing laws pertaining to abortion in response to a similar ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court. (Read more from “Kansas Supreme Court Rules That Abortion Is Protected by the State’s Constitution” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/baby-784607_960_720-1.jpg640960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-04-26 20:33:532019-04-26 21:30:00Kansas Supreme Court Rules That Abortion Is Protected by the State’s Constitution
By Life Site News. The Trump administration secured the removal of pro-abortion language from a United Nations resolution against rape in war zones Tuesday by threatening to veto the measure if the final version contained a notorious euphemism for abortion.
The UN Security Council had been debating updates a resolution first approved in 2013 to combat the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. The United States objected to a reference in the document calling for “comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health” for “survivors of sexual violence,” on the grounds that “reproductive health” is a longstanding term of art for abortion and related services.
America remains “strongly committed to preventing conflict-related sexual violence and holding responsible persons accountable” and agrees “more needs to be done to deter the recurrence of such crimes and assist survivors,” the cable said, but “cannot accept unamended explicit, or implicit, references to ‘sexual and reproductive health’” because “we do not support or promote abortion.”
“If we let the Americans do this and take out this language, it will be watered down for a long time,” an unnamed European diplomat complained to The Guardian. “It is, at its heart, an attack on the progressive normative framework established over the past 25 years.” (Read more from “Trump Admin Gets Pro-Abortion Language Removed From UN Anti-Rape Resolution” HERE)
_____________________________________________
Bowing to U.S. Demands, U.N. Waters Down Resolution
By US News. A U.S. threat to veto U.N. Security Council action on sexual violence in conflict was averted on Tuesday after a long-agreed phrase was removed because President Donald Trump’s administration sees it as code for abortion, diplomats said.
A German-drafted resolution was adopted after a reference was cut referring to the need for U.N. bodies and donors to give timely “sexual and reproductive health” assistance to survivors of sexual violence in conflict. (Read more from “Bowing to U.S. Demands, U.N. Waters Down Resolution” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/President_Trump_signing_Hurricane_Harvey_bill_cropped.jpg11271256Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-04-24 18:56:192019-04-24 18:58:42Trump Admin Gets Pro-Abortion Language Removed From UN Anti-Rape Resolution
One woman took to Reddit to share how she was “dumped” out of an Uber taxi after the driver figured she was on her way to an abortion clinic. . .
She said: “After a few more minutes he asked, ‘are we going to an abortion clinic?’ I was shocked; I had no idea what to say, so I just remained quiet. He then said ‘I know it’s none of my business, but…’ and proceeded to mention something about his wife being pregnant.” . . .
“There was a gas station and a closed antiques store, and around us was farmland and forest. He said ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t take you the rest of the way. I can take you back to [my city], but you won’t be able to find another Uber out here.’” . . .
The woman went on to report the driver to the police. Uber have since confirmed to her that he has been banned from working for the company.
People flooded to the woman’s aid on the Reddit thread. One user wrote: “There’s a BIG difference between refusing to drive someone to a destination/dropping them off somewhere they didn’t ask and intentionally driving out of your way to shame and leave them stranded based on your perceived moral high ground.” (Read more from “Woman Aggressively Going After Uber Driver Who Refused to Take Her for Abortion” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/40834812504_0dfe369dd9_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-04-23 21:11:302019-05-10 21:14:23Woman Aggressively Going After Uber Driver Who Refused to Take Her for Abortion
North Carolina’s Democratic Governor Roy Cooper vetoed a state-level anti-infanticide bill Thursday morning.
Senate Bill 359 was passed out of the North Carolina House of Representatives and sent to Cooper earlier this week. Like similar federal legislation that is currently the subject of a discharge petition in the House of Representatives, it is titled the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.”
The North Carolina legislation would have required that children who survive botched abortion attempts be given the same degree of lifesaving medical care “as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” Failure to do so would have been classified as a felony punishable with a fine of up to $250,000.
“Laws already protect newborn babies and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients,” reads a statement from Cooper’s office. “This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other healthcare providers for a practice that simply does not exist.”
In reality, current federal law passed in 2002 declares that abortion survivors are legal persons, but impose no legal penalties for medical professionals who willfully deny them lifesaving care after the fact. Alexandra DeSanctis has more details on that at National Review.
“The day before Good Friday, Governor Cooper has chosen to stand with infanticide and extremist groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL over life,” reads a statement from North Carolina Republican Communications Director Jeff Hauser. “It is grotesque to think that Cooper believes providing care to infants born alive during an abortion procedure is ‘an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients.’”
And contrary to the fear-mongering talking points about the bill’s supposed affects on abortion access, it would have imposed no restrictions on abortion procedures or time limits before a child is born. It literally only applied to newborns outside the womb.
“Caring for a living, breathing, newborn infant is too restrictive for Governor Cooper’s radical abortion agenda,” the legislation’s sponsors said in a press release. “We thought Democrats would agree that children born alive should be separate from the abortion debate, but it’s clear that they want the ‘right to choose’ to even extend past birth. This is a sad day for North Carolina.”
The measure passed by a vote of 65-46 in the state house and by a vote of 28-19 in the senate.
While many of Cooper’s vetoes have been overridden by the GOP-controlled legislature, this is the first he’s issued since Republicans lost a veto-proof supermajority in November. And while a handful of Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, it remains unclear whether pro-lifers will have enough bipartisan support to override the veto. (For more from the author of “Democratic Governor Vetoes Anti-Infanticide Legislation, Offers Misleading Excuses” please click HERE)
