British organ transplant specialists want the country’s National Health Service to encourage parents considering aborting their disabled unborn children to carry them to term so their parts can be harvested.
While proponents say the harvesting won’t happen until the baby is dead, that could mean “brain-dead,” raising the prospect of other bodily functions being intentionally terminated at the optimum moment for removal of organs.
The practice has generated strong criticism from ethicists, and though pro-life advocates appreciate that officials would encourage parents to carry their children to term, they are criticizing the underlying idea that reduces babies to spare parts.
Dr. Anthony McCarthy, a bioethicist and the education director of the London-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), told LifeSiteNews, “Babies should be spared abortion because they are babies – not because they are useful to others if taken to term.”
The issue was raised at a British Transplantation Society meeting in Glasgow last week, reported in the Daily Mail. There transplant surgeon Niad Ahmad reported that health officials would soon be trained to approach parents who have decided to abort their unborn children because of defects to carry them to term for harvesting. “A number of staff in the NHS are not aware that these organs can be used. They need to be aware. They can be transplanted. They work. And they work long term,” Dr. Ahmad reportedly told the gathering. (Read more from “Britain’s NHS Asks Moms Not to Abort Disabled Babies, but There’s a Morbid Reason Why” HERE)
00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-03-11 00:28:132016-04-11 10:51:44Britain’s NHS Asks Moms Not to Abort Disabled Babies, but There’s a Morbid Reason Why
Nona Ellington was 15 years old when she found out she was pregnant. A victim of rape, Ellington felt alone, ashamed and desperate for help.
After a free pregnancy test came back positive, showing that Ellington was five weeks pregnant, she went forward and scheduled an abortion.
Around October 1983, Ellington, who was still in high school at the time, aborted the only child she would ever successfully conceive.
“As a result of that [abortion], I was never able to have children,” Ellington told The Daily Signal. “I had five miscarriages, two were pregnancies that required emergency surgery and [during] the last one in 2004, the only tube I had left ruptured so I was bleeding internally and they almost lost me.”
When Ellington was eventually ready to have children with her then-husband, she said she visited a fertility doctor who “confirmed that it was the abortion that had damaged me so much that I was not able to have children.”
Ellington considered trying in vitro fertilization (IVF)—where an embryo is manually transferred into the uterus—but said even if it had worked, her health insurance didn’t cover the cost.
“It covered abortion. But not fertility stuff,” Ellington said.
Looking back on her experience, Ellington calls abortion the most “selfish” decision she ever made, and now, she spends her time trying to warn other women against it.
As part of that effort, Ellington joined 3,348 women who who shared their abortion “injury” stories with the U.S. Supreme Court as part of what’s called an amicus curiae brief.
Their hope is that by discussing their “injuries”—both physical and mental—the Supreme Court justices will uphold a controversial Texas law that places new regulations on the abortion industry.
The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, is being called one of the biggest abortion case since Roe. v Wade, in which the Supreme Court said that women have a right to abortion while also affirming a state’s right to regulate the practice.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt could signal how far states are allowed to go in issuing those regulations.
The law in question, known as H.B.2, requires abortion facilities in Texas to maintain the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers and abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Whole Woman’s Health and its supporters believe the imposed regulations dangerously limit women’s access to safe and legal abortion.
“Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States, and neither of the requirements imposed by the Texas law would make it any safer,” the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. “Worse, this law clearly imposes an undue burden on a large number of Texan women, who would no longer have reasonable access to abortion care when needed, forcing them to wait longer before an abortion, travel across state lines for safe care, or even forego abortion care altogether.”
Those in favor of upholding the law argue the regulations are “commonsense” for the health and safety of women.
The law, wrote Sarah Torre, a pro-life expert at The Heritage Foundation, “was passed in response to the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who ran a ‘House of Horrors’ abortion clinic for over a decade with nearly no government oversight.” She added:
After the Gosnell grand jury recommended new clinic regulations and after hearings on the medical risks of abortion, Texas (along with other states) decided to require abortion clinics to meet the same minimum cleanliness and safety standards as other outpatient surgery facilities and require doctors performing abortions to have the credentials to admit a patient to a nearby hospital.
Myra Jean Myers, another plaintiff on the Supreme Court brief, said she’s experienced some of these dangers first-hand. Both Myers and Ellington spoke last week at a press conference held at the Family Research Institute one day before the court heard oral arguments for the case.
“Abortion is a dangerous procedure,” Meyers said. After her procedure, Myers said, “I had a hysterectomy two months later.”
A hysterectomy is a surgery to remove a woman’s uterus. At 28 years old, she, too, would never be able to conceive again due to her abortion.
Allen E. Parker, a lawyer at The Justice Foundation, which is the non-profit submitting the personal testimony by women who allege injuries caused by abortion, said most of the participants “suffered grievous psychological injuries,” “but many suffered severe physical complications as well.”
The most common physical complications of abortion, he added, are hemorrhaging, punctured uterus, punctured colons and scarring of the uterus.
“In abortion, you’re basically scraping the walls of the uterus and the contents of the uterus with a scalpel-like instrument,” he said. “And you’re doing it by hand in most instances or by feel, the doctors would say. And you can punch the wrong part and that’s where the complications occur.”
As for the mental conditions, Parker cited guilt, shame, sadness, depression, anxiety, drug abuse and suicide as the most common conditions.
Ellington blames her abortion for causing her to “spiral” into a “very destructive behavior of drugs, alcohol and promiscuous sex.” In 2001, she ended up pleading guilty to felony theft.
Myers said while the physical scars are still present, it’s the mental anguish that continues to haunt her.
“Nothing wounds you like being responsible for the death of your child,” she said at the press conference.
Parker, who sounded hopeful that the Supreme Court will consider the testimony of the 3,348 women when issuing their ruling in the case, added, “Whether you’re for abortion or against it, you can acknowledge that some women are hurt by abortion and we ought to do everything we can to protect these women.” (For more from the author of “She Had an Abortion at 15 – This Is How It Changed Her Life” please click HERE)
00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-03-07 23:26:122016-04-11 10:51:50She Had an Abortion at 15 – This Is How It Changed Her Life
By Robert Barnes. The Supreme Court on Friday blocked Louisiana from enforcing a law that threatened to close all but one of the state’s abortion clinics.
The court’s action came just two days after it heard oral arguments in a similar case from Texas, and abortion rights supporters treated it as a positive sign. It came just hours after the justices met to discuss the Texas case for the first time in their private conference.
The court gave no reason for its Friday order; only Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he disagreed and would have let the Louisiana law take effect.
The issue is whether clinic doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. It was hotly debated during Wednesday’s oral arguments reviewing the Texas law.
Abortion providers say the requirement is medically unnecessary — hospitals accept any patient who developed complications after an abortion, they say, whether the doctor had admitting privileges or not. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blocks Pro-Life Legislation; Only One Justice Says He Disagrees” HERE)
_____________________________
Lesbian ex-Girlfriend Backed in US Supreme Court Ruling on Custody
By Newsmax. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Alabama court order that had prohibited a lesbian from having contact with the three children she adopted and helped raise in neighboring Georgia while in a long-term relationship with their biological mother.
The 6-2 ruling reinforces gay rights less than a year after the court legalized same-sex marriage across the country. The justices didn’t hear arguments in the case, instead summarily reversing the Alabama Supreme Court.
The woman, identified only as V.L., has been battling the children’s biological mother, known as E.L. in court papers. The two women lived as a couple for 17 years in Alabama before gay marriage was legal in the state. V.L. adopted the children in 2007 after the pair set up a second residence in Georgia. The children were conceived by insemination from an anonymous donor. (Read more from “Lesbian Adoptive Mother Backed in US Supreme Court Ruling” HERE)
00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-03-07 11:01:422016-04-11 10:51:51Supreme Court Blocks Pro-Life Legislation; Only One Justice Says He Disagrees
In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.
Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.
“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”
The bill defines abortion as “the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being” and provides the unborn with protection from the moment of conception.
The bill is stated to come as the result of a petition signed by over 30,000 Oklahoma residents, calling for lawmakers to immediately present legislation that would result in a complete end to abortion in the state. (Read more from “Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder” HERE)
00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-03-06 23:46:192016-04-11 10:51:54Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder
One of the 3,348 women who are part of The Justice Foundation’s amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt case compared the harm abortion causes to the trauma following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, which killed almost 3,000 people.
“Nothing wounds you like being responsible for the death of your child,” Myra Jean Myers said at a press conference on Tuesday at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. “Do you realize today and every day is the daily equivalent of 9/11, when across America women and men are deceived and wounded?”
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.06 million abortions performed in the United States in 2011, which averages to 2,904 abortions every day.
The press conference at the Family Research Council was held in advance of the oral arguments in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt at the Supreme Court.
Myers recalled at the event that she was married with children in 1973, the year the high court legalized abortion across the United States in the Roe v. Wade case. When she became pregnant, her husband convinced her that she should have an abortion, which she did. (Read more from “Woman Reveals the Terrifying Truth About Abortion to Supreme Court” HERE)
00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-03-04 00:09:232016-04-11 10:51:59Woman Reveals the Terrifying Truth About Abortion to Supreme Court
Photo Credit: BreitbartPro-life organization Live Action is showing a video series in which a former abortionist uses medical animations to reveal the harsh reality of abortion for both mother and baby.
The group’s goal is to cut through the pro-abortion rhetoric that speaks of “tissue masses,” “clumps of cells,” and “products of conception,” especially at a time when abortion has become a major issue in the 2016 election.
The video below features former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino – who performed more than 1,200 abortions – using accurate medical depictions of what happens during the abortion procedure. No graphic photos of real babies are used in the series.
“I’d like to challenge the abortion lobby – Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the rest – to respond to these videos,” Lila Rose said during a web conference for media Tuesday. “After seeing the videos, most people would have a difficult time telling a woman that abortion is ‘health care’ or ‘empowering,’”
Rose, president of Live Action, said her group’s nine years of video investigations have led to the realization that most of the general public is uninformed about what happens during an abortion. (Read more from “Horrifying: Former Abortionist Uses Medical Animations to Show What Happens to Baby and Mother During Abortion” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/abortion-procedures-DE-672x372.jpg356475kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-02-25 22:36:422016-04-11 10:52:15Horrifying: Former Abortionist Uses Medical Animations to Show What Happens to Baby and Mother During Abortion
In the Alaska State Legislature, Democratic State Senator Berta Gardner has introduced two controversial bills to allow pharmacists in Alaska to dispense – without a doctor’s prescription – self-administered hormonal contraceptives, and to force health care insurers in the state to cover contraceptives, sterilizations and contraceptive procedures and devices – including those that cause abortion.
PHARMACIST MANDATE
Sen. Gardner’s Senate Bill 169 would allow pharmacists to dispense – without a doctor’s prescription – self-administered hormonal contraceptives as listed by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Those include the Pill and so-called “emergency contraception,” which can cause an early abortion of a living human embryo by inhibiting his or her implantation in the womb.
Moreover, SB 169 would mandate Alaska’s state Board of Pharmacy to develop a pharmacists’ “training program” on prescribing those hormonal contraceptives and counseling “patients” on “all contraceptive methods,” including long-acting reversible contraception, such as abortion-causing IUDs.
RIFE WITH CONCERNS
There are numerous concerns surrounding the pharmacist-prescribed contraceptives bill.
The bill does not only allow, but could force pharmacists to dispense – without a doctor’s prescription – and to recommend contraceptives. Senate Bill 169 does not contain any conscience protections to allow pharmacists for ethical or moral reasons to refuse prescribing or counseling for contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs – or to opt out of the state board’s training program.
Moreover, the bill would have pharmacists prescribe and dispense strong-acting, hormone-based contraceptive drugs to patients who have not first undergone a basic consultation or clinical breast or pelvic exam by their primary care practitioner. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) stresses that “individuals should consult their health care providers” before choosing a particular method of contraception. Such conversations and exams can reveal underlying medical conditions and family histories that would make certain drugs especially dangerous to the individual. For instance, the NIH explains the use of combined oral contraceptive pills – such as the Pill – which contain various combinations of strong synthetic estrogens and progestins, is “not recommended” for women in certain circumstances, including those with a history of blood clots or a history of breast, liver or endometrial cancer. The use of combined oral contraceptive pills is linked to the development of deadly blood clots.
Senate Bill 169 would require a pharmacist to receive a “self-screening assessment tool” from the patient before dispensing the hormonal contraception, but the bill does not require the patient to have first seen her health care practitioner, as she would before accessing similarly potent drugs from the pharmacy. In fact, the bill even prohibits the pharmacist from requiring a patient to schedule an appointment with him or her before receiving the drugs.
The bill would require pharmacists to dispense hormonal contraceptives to a “patient” but the bill does not identify a minimum age for patients. So it is unclear whether pharmacists would have to dispense prescription contraceptives to 14-year-old girls on demand; the bill does not require pharmacists to first notify or obtain consent from a girl’s parent. Moreover, it’s not clear how the pharmacist could secure health background information from a young patient who cannot assess her own health or recall family health history – or how the girl could manage serious possible side-effects of the Pill like high blood pressure and heart attack.
FORCING HEALTH CARE INSURERS
Another bill sponsored by Sen. Gardner – SB 156 – would force health care insurers operating in the state to provide coverage for the “full range” of prescription and over-the-counter contraceptives, sterilizations and contraceptive-focused exams, “procedures and medical services.” Health care insurers would be forced to cover the contraceptive Pill, so-called “emergency contraception” and IUDs (inserted in outpatient procedures) – all of which can cause early abortions of living human embryos.
The bill has a narrow exemption for some health care insurers that provide an insurance plan to an objecting “religious” employer, namely a church, an association of churches, the “exclusively religious activities” of any religious order, or a non-profit religious organization that objects and has “self-certified” as such with the federal Department of Labor or has provided notice to the effect to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
This could leave out various organizations, including religious orders or religiously-affiliated organizations with a focus on social services that aren’t officially “religious” activities. Moreover, the bill would force health care insurers to cover contraceptives when they provide insurance plans to non-religious, for-profit businesses or non-profit organizations that aren’t officially “religious” but oppose covering contraceptives and abortifacients for religious or ethical reasons.
In addition, SB 156 prohibits health care insurers from requiring copayments, deductibles or other forms of cost sharing to offset the costs of covering contraceptives. But the bill does not prohibit insurers from raising the prices of insurance plan premiums – including of objecting and exempt organizations – to pay for the abortifacient contraceptives provided to others.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
From the first century the Catholic Church has affirmed the moral evil of procured abortion. “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” explains the Catholic Catechism.
Moreover, Christianity has always recognized that the marital act has a two-fold purpose — to foster loving unity between spouses and to produce children. Each time a couple rejects the life-creating nature through contraception, that falsifies “the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality,” Saint Pope John Paul II explained in his 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio.
The Catholic Catechism notes that for just reasons spouses may wish to space the births of their children, while respecting God’s design for human sexuality. The church supports Natural Family Planning, morally sound methods to achieve and avoid pregnancies. NFP is based on a woman’s observations of the naturally occurring signs of the fertile and infertile phases that God built into the menstrual cycle.
HOW TO TAKE ACTION
On Wednesday, Feb. 24, at 1:30 p.m. the Senate Health & Social Service Committee will conduct a hearing on Senate Bill 156. The hearing in Juneau will be teleconferenced.
For more information and to contact legislators about SB 156 and SB 169, go to akleg.gov or call 800-478-4648.
To follow Catholic Anchor reports on these bills and others, including news on public testimonies and bill hearings, go to CatholicAnchor.org. The current legislative session runs Jan. 20-April 19. (For more from the author of “Proposed Bills Would Force Alaska Pharmacists and Insurers to Supply Abortion-Causing Contraceptives” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Opened_Oral_Birth_Control.jpg13182024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-25 22:32:362016-04-11 10:52:16Proposed Bills Would Force Alaska Pharmacists and Insurers to Supply Abortion-Causing Contraceptives
Abortion access in the U.S. has been vanishing at the fastest annual pace on record, propelled by Republican state lawmakers’ push to legislate the industry out of existence. Since 2011, at least 162 abortion providers have shut or stopped offering the procedure, while just 21 opened.
At no time since before 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, has a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy been more dependent on her zip code or financial resources to travel. The drop-off in providers—more than one every two weeks—occurred in 35 states, in both small towns and big cities that are home to more than 30 million women of reproductive age.
No region was exempt, though some states lost more than others. Texas, which in 2013 passed sweeping clinic regulations that are under scrutiny by the Supreme Court, saw the most: at least 30. It was followed by Iowa, with 14, and Michigan, with 13. California’s loss of a dozen providers shows how availability declined, even in states led by Democrats, who tend to be friendly to abortion rights . . .
Typically defined by medical researchers as facilities that perform 400 or more abortions per year, the ranks peaked in the late 1980s at 705, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive-health research organization. By 2011, the most recent year for which Guttmacher has data, that number had fallen to 553. (Read more from “Abortion Clinics Are Closing at a Record Pace” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Save_the_unborn_child_sign_in_New_Zealand.jpg466479kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-02-24 20:29:352016-04-11 10:52:17Abortion Clinics Are Closing at a Record Pace
A federal judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction on Feb. 12 against a California law that forces pro-life pregnancy centers to advocate for abortion.
…Judge John A. Houston refused to put the law on hold while the lawsuit proceeds, becoming the third federal judge to do so. He indicated during the hearing that he thought the required information was necessary for women to make “an informed decision.”
California’s “Reproductive Fact Act” took effect Jan. 1. It requires licensed, religious, pregnancy resource centers to inform women, with either posted signage or a handout, that the state offers free abortions for qualifying women. It specifies the inclusion of a phone number for a county social services office that offers free abortions through the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare system. The law mandates the time of distribution and the font size for the signs and handouts. It also requires unlicensed centers to inform visitors that they are not state-approved.
The state currently has 150 local crisis pregnancy centers affected by the law…
“We cannot allow this intrusion into the religious freedom of our pro-life members in California,” said Anne O’Connor, president of legal affairs at [The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates]. “If this act is not successfully challenged, then other states, prompted by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, will pass similar legislation forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to become abortion referral agencies.” (Read more from “Federal Judge Forcing Christian Crisis Pregnancy Centers Violate Conscience, Advocate for Abortion” HERE)
The Courts are at it again. And with Republicans planning to confirm another Obama judge as their first vote of the week, it’s time for conservatives to pay attention to the judiciary.
If you thought the last term at the Supreme Court was just an anomaly, think again. The court system is irremediably broken, and that includes the majority of lower courts as well as the majority of judges on the Supreme Court.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been observing a pattern of cases in which the high court refuses to overturn lower court decisions that struck down state laws that were clearly constitutional, all the while refusing to reverse lower court decisions that upheld lawlessness.
For example, while the courts had no problem overturning state marriage laws, they have upheld state gun laws that are clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has refused to take up any of these appeals, even though the lower courts are violating the McDonald decision. The court agreed to take Obama’s appeal to possibly overturn the lower court decision placing an injunction on the DAPA amnesty. At the same time, the court denied the appeal from Sheriff Arpaio to reverse the lower court decision upholding the DACA amnesty. Last week, the court refused to grant cert to those representing power plants languishing from Obama’s carbon rules that clearly violate congressional statutes.
The general theme is that what is in the Constitution is regarded as unconstitutional and what’s not in it is enshrined into the document by judicial action.
Yesterday’s announcements from the court were no different. On the same day the court struck down state sentencing laws regarding juveniles convicted of murder, it refused to hear an appeal from North Dakota after a lower court struck down its abortion law.
First, the sentencing decision. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court retroactively applied the Miller v. Alabama decision, which struck down most state laws sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole. In 2012, Justice Kagan, writing for the majority opinion in Miller, found that the Eighth Amendment precludes states from issuing such sentences to juvenile murderers under most circumstances. Today’s decision in Montgomery, authored by Justice Kennedy, applied this decision retroactively to as many as 2,500 murderers serving life in prison without parole for murders committed as juveniles. Chief Justice Roberts joined with the five liberals, while Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
As Justice Thomas has said before, “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights.” Yet, once again, the court rules that the Constitution as adopted is unconstitutional. Now the federal courts can engage in retroactive jail break and foray into an area of law over which they clearly have no authority. And again, I will note that this same court stands by idly as states violate the plain meaning of the Second Amendment with prohibitions on concealed and open carry.
As Scalia concluded in his dissent:
[I]n Godfather fashion, the majority makes state legislatures an offer they can’t refuse: Avoid all the utterly impossible nonsense we have prescribed by simply ‘permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole.’
Both Thomas and Scalia noted that the court created an entirely new constitutional right to retroactively overturn convictions that were completely constitutional at the time they were passed. Hence, with the ever-evolving standards of the legal profession’s “Constitution,” they can order judicial jailbreak at any time for any reason.
Meanwhile, as the high court overturned the Louisiana State Supreme Court and the state legislature on a retroactive creation of a newly concocted constitutional right, the court refused to hear a petition from North Dakota after a federal district court blocked the state’s six-week ban on abortion. Sadly, this is not surprising because SCOTUS refused to grant cert to Arizona after the Ninth Circuit struck down its 20-week abortion ban in 2014.
Here we are in the year 2016 and the courts have the final say on all important societal questions—from marriage and abortion to immigration and basic criminal justice laws. Many Republicans are excited by the degree of GOP control of state governments, but unless we rein in the courts and strip them of jurisdiction over political questions, they will void out the most basic laws, even those put in place at the founding of our union and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. At the same time, the courts will carelessly uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws passed by blue state governments.
If conservatives are fortunate enough to win back the White House in 2016, the most important looming question is what to do with the courts; for, if the courts are allowed to rewrite our Constitution and impel societal transformation without representation, elections will be rendered moot. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Upholds Abortion, Strikes Down Juvenile Sentencing” please click HERE)
