It has been a very rough couple of weeks for abortion rights advocates at the Supreme Court. First Justice Sonia Sotomayor (an Obama appointee) granted the Little Sisters of the Poor relief from the abortion services provision mandate, which led to Jamie Stiehm's epic anti-Catholic meltdown in the US News & World Report. Then on Wednesday, in hearings on the challenge to the abortion clinic anti-speech bubble, Justice Elana Kagan (another Obama appointee) likened the abortion industry to......
"In a painfully ironic moment, Justice Kagan compared abortion clinics to slaughterhouses, asking what if this statute had been written about slaughterhouses to keep animal rights activists from blocking the entrance and exits."
And liberal abortion rights supporters heads exploded everywhere!
Justice Kagan raises a great point though. States like Massachusetts would never in a million years pass an Ag-Gag bill like we have here in Utah. They would call it a complete affront to free speech. So why then, are they prohibiting pro-life supporters from even talking quietly in front of a clinic? As long as they are not trespassing (on the clinic or on the farm) both SHOULD be protected speech....
Just because the government doesn’t like your speech or agree with it does not mean that they get to restrict it – not liking it is not a compelling interest and banning it is not narrowly tailored.
That’s First Amendment law in a nutshell … in every case that is but abortion. Regarding abortion the rules too often become distorted in favor of abortion and against pro-life viewpoints. To some, the First Amendment just doesn’t cover pro-life speech.
Simple - it is because it is not speech that they like or approve of, so it must be shut down AT ALL COSTS! It is not pre-approved by dear leader so it can not be spoken! And in this case, dear leader is not JUST Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick....
Most disturbing about this case though is that it was not just Massachusetts defending this pro-abortion law, the Obama Administration sent its lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that this anti-pro-life speech law in no way violated the Constitution.
At one point the Obama Administration’s lawyer actually argued that there was no such thing a right to conduct a quite conversation on a public sidewalk.
While we won't have a ruling on this case until later this summer, Justice Kagan's remarks do bring a couple of points for thought. First is the life of a human less valuable than the life of a cow or a pig or a horse? Second, we've gotten to a point where there is free speech for some, but not all - when are we going to STOP that and allow free speech for all? Whether we like and agree with it or not?
Hi - I'd like to introduce myself. Yeah, it's me - Lady Logician. Last year was a busy one that included a) a new puppy, b) a new career, c) sending the Junior Logician off to college (sob) and d) a new non-political hobby. Yes it was insane and it got worse as the year went on. Things have (momentarily) slowed down, so I am going to try to get back in to the semi regular blogging habit - schedule willing.
It's another election year, so buckle up friends.....it's about to get bumpy!
Abortion rights advocates have spent months now trying to assure the public that Kermit Gosnell was the exception to the rule, but is he? Word is not starting to come out that he is not the exception but closer to the rule....
First, from Texas we have Douglas Karpen....
Authorities in Houston, Texas are responding to calls for an investigation of Douglas Karpen, who is being considered the second Kermit Gosnell for killing babies born alive after abortion.
Yesterday, the Lt. Governor of Texas demanded an investigation of an abortion practitioner who is considered the second Kermit Gosnell.
A new video expose’ of Douglas Karpen has three former abortion clinic employees of abortion practitioner Douglas Karpen exposing horrific practices that took place at his abortion clinic....
...The three informants in the expose’ video, Deborah Edge, Gigi Aguliar, and Krystal Rodriguez, have come forward to tell of their horrific experiences working for him at one of three of his Texas abortion clinics, the Aaron Women’s Clinic in Houston. A fourth informant has co-operated with Operation Rescue, filing an affidavit about her experiences, but remains at this time anonymous.
These women brought forward evidence of illegal late-term abortions in the form of photos taken on their cell phones at the Karpen’s clinic on Schumacher Lane in Houston.
The photos were scandalous. They depicted two babies aborted well beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks in Texas. Their necks had been cut.
Anyone who has ever lived in Chicago for any length of time and followed Chicago politics recognizes exactly what is going on in DC today. We are seeing, Chicago on the Potomac playing out. Even veteran Chicago political reporters are seeing the parallels.
The Internal Revenue Service scandal now devouring the Obama administration — the outrageous use of the federal taxing authority to target tea party and other conservatives — certainly makes for meaty partisan politics.
But this scandal is about more than partisanship. It's bigger than whether the Republicans win or the Democrats lose.
It's even bigger than President Barack Obama. Yes, bigger than Obama....
The recent admission from IRS Director of Tax Exempt Organizations Division Lois Lerner (the department in charge of non-profit organization 501 (c) approvals) that Tea Party, 9/12, pro-life and other conservative leaning groups were give extra scrutiny in the approval process has led many to wonder just what other groups got special scrutiny/treatment. While a charity supportive of President Obama got swift approval, others have not been so lucky.
Three years ago, at the request of a constituent, US Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) launched an investigation in the HSUS's 501 (c) status. Recent IRS developments have caused him to renew his call to have the HSUS's status investigated.
Three years after launching an investigation with a constituent-driven inquiry questioning the tax exempt status of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and subsequent stonewalling by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) is renewing his inquiry. Luetkemeyer is also raising serious questions about IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner’s political ties to HSUS in light of her recent apology for targeting conservative non-profit groups seeking tax-exempt status.
In a letter dated May 17, 2013 to U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Luetkemeyer called for an investigation into the handling of his request made to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in March, 2010 about constituent concerns regarding HSUS’s significant lobbying activities as a tax-exempt group. Luetkemeyer also sent a letter to Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George requesting that he perform his own investigation into the HSUS.
In May, 2010, Luetkemeyer had shared those concerns in both a personal conversation and letter to Lerner who has been tied directly to the political arm of HSUS. Since launching his inquiry, Luetkemeyer has received repeated non-responsive letters from the IRS about his inquiries and given recent events and his responsibility to constituents mandated that a follow-up letter renewing his concerns be sent because it was both timely and necessary.
I am not Catholic, but a Catholic friend forwarded this to me and I really enjoyed it. This is from the personal blog of the Arch Bishop of New York, His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan.
It was a lesson I began to learn when I was seven or eight . . .
My buddy Freddie from across the street and I were playing outside. Mom called me for supper.
“Can Freddie stay and eat supper with us?” I asked.
“He’d sure be welcome, if it’s okay with his mom and dad,” she replied.
“Thanks, Mrs. Dolan,” Freddie replied. “I’m sure it’s okay, because mom and dad are out, and the babysitter was just going to make me a sandwich whenever I came in.”
I was so proud and happy. Freddie was welcome in our house, at our table. We both rushed in and sat down.
“Freddie, glad you’re here,” dad remarked, “but . . . looks like you and Tim better go wash your hands before you eat.”
Simple enough . . . common sense . . . you are a most welcome and respected member now of our table, our household, dad was saying, but, there are a few very natural expectations this family has. Like, wash your hands!…
So it is with the supernatural family we call the Church: all are welcome!
All are welcome to the Church. But we do have a set of beliefs the define the church. Those beliefs are found in the Bible. A cutesy acronym that I heard years ago for the Bible was Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth - in other words, the Christians "rules of the road". With that in mind His Eminence continues with a lesson right out of Parenting 101.
The USA Today has the latest on the Obama Administrations use of the IRS to target enemies. It took away the "bureaucratic incompetence" argument.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
So contrary to Ms. Lerner's claims that the extra scrutiny was not "partisan", evidence suggests otherwise.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Thus begins Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment for Richard M. Nixon from May, 1974. It seems that some people have not learned from the lessons of the Nixon Administration.
Now before my liberal friends go all "you have no proof that this goes to the White House.", I would like to refer you to one Trey Hardin.
“I will tell you this on the IRS front. I’ve worked in this town for over 20 years in the White House and on Capitol Hill and I can say with a very strong sense of certainty that there are people very close to this president that not only knew what the IRS were doing but authorized it. It simply just does not happen at an agency level like that without political advisers likely in the West Wing certainly connected to the president’s ongoing campaign organization.”
Emphasis mine. Mr. Hardin is not the only one with that sense of certainty.
The jury in the Kermit Gosnell trial came back with a verdict.
After a two-month trial and 10 days of deliberation, a jury on Monday decided that Baby A, Baby C and Baby D lived a few fleeting moments outside their mothers’ wombs before their spinal cords were severed at Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in West Philadelphia.....
.....Jurors acquitted Gosnell of third-degree murder but found him guilty on a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter in the 2009 death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar of Virginia, who died from a drug overdose while undergoing an abortion at his clinic.
What the jury had to say about Babies A, C and D is going to be basis of future abortion "rights" arguments.
The way those brief lives ended didn’t amount to abortion but to three acts of first-degree murder, jurors concluded.
This has given legal standing for late term abortion bans. But that is not all. There were an additional 200 + charges against Gosnell.
Last week, in an appearance in Mexico City, President Obama uttered these amazing words.....
"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," President Obama said during a speech at Mexico's Anthropology Museum. "I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will."
"But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do," Obama added.
Emphasis through out the post is mine. What he didn't add was WHO in the United States let the guns through.
Water is a huge issue out here in the semi arid west. Going back to the settlement days, range wars were fought over water and water access. Today, there is a large battle going on in Utah over access to streams and rivers.
Water is life, and access to clean water is one of those issues that can unit people from Zimbabwe to the Antarctic. Which is why you see stories like this in papers out here in the west.
Today, the hottest and thirstiest parts of the United States are best described as over-forested. Vigorous federal protection has stocked semiarid regions of public land with several billion trees too many. And day after day these excess trees deplete a natural resource that has become far more precious than toilet paper or 2-by-4's: water.
Scientists and water managers report that 39 states face water scarcity. Much of the nation's freshwater shortfall comes from our population growth, waste, hunger and contaminants. But we must also now implicate the escalating thirst of unnatural forests.
Water depletion from afforestation — the establishment of trees or tree stands where none previously were — is the unintended consequence of a wildly popular federal policy.
Yes Virginia, there is such a thing as OVER-planting and we are seeing the consequences of that "wildly popular" policy. It should also be noted that the policy was most popular in states where the policy was not being implemented. I remember Arbor Day drives when I was a school aged child back in Illinois, where we were encouraged to raise money to buy trees to plant - OUT WEST. No, don't worry about planting trees at home, no - send them somewhere else so that THEY can deal with the consequences.
For millenniums, fires set by lightning or Native Americans limited forest stocks to roughly a few dozen trees per acre. All that changed after the nationally terrifying Big Blowup wildfires of 1910, which led the United States to in effect declare war on wildfire. The government's wartime-like tactics included security watchtowers, propaganda, aerial bombing and color-coded threat alerts. Uncle Sam trained elite Hotshot and Smokejumper crews to snuff out enemy flames. Congress annually funded the war effort with an emergency blank check, now $2.5 billion.
We have raised a psychotic generation of people who worship nature and "Mother Earth" and yet when it comes to natures manner of maintaining balance, they are the first to rush to stop nature from running it's course.
As closing arguments were made in the Kermit Gosnell trial yesterday, pro-life group Live Action Network release a pair of undercover videos showing that, when it comes to performing risky, illegal late term abortions, he's not the ONLY bad apple. The first of the two videos shows the abortion counselor nervously laughing as she describes how the baby is "fully grown" at 6 months and how they pull it out "in pieces" and that if the baby does come out alive and moving the solution that they put it in will make it stop moving. The counselor finally said (in response to a question about whether she would have to take a baby that survived the abortion) "No. That is so illegal! Once was start this, we have to finish it.” That is not a true statement (see the next paragraph).
The second video shows a "doctor" advising a patient that (at 24 weeks) it is too early for the baby to survive (not true by the way) and that if it did it would "expire shortly after birth" thereby acknowledging that the baby IS INDEED born. He also says "it's all in how vigorously you do things to help the fetus survive", he then goes on to admit that his clinic would not do anything to help. That is a violation of the Federal Infants Born Alive Protection act (bet you didn't know we had one of those did you?) Here is what this "doctor" had to say when pressed on the possibility of the infant surviving the abortion process.
When asked by the undercover investigator what would happen if the baby were to survive the abortion, Doctor Santangelo responds:
“Technically – you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. But, you know, it probably wouldn’t. It’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point. Let’s say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know? Then we would do things – we would – we would not help it. We wouldn’t intubate. It would be, you know, uh, a person, a terminal person in the hospital, let’s say, that had cancer, you know? You wouldn’t do any extra procedures to help that person survive. Like ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. We would do the same things here.”
Emphasis mine. The mind blowing part is when he says that it's like a "Do Not Resuscitate" order that a terminally ill patient CHOOSES to sign. The now born infant does not have the ability to CHOOSE to sign a DNR. They have no choice in this matter at all. To try to imply that it is like a DNR is preposterous!
So what lessons can we take from Philadelphia and the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. There are several. First (as Jonah Goldberg summarizes) is that media bias is a reality.
My fellow Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers wrote a USA Today column last week shaming the media for not covering the Gosnell case enough or, in many cases, at all. She got results. Suddenly everyone was talking about it. Though a dismaying amount of the coverage is about why there was a lack of coverage.
It’s an important issue, of course. But it’s not a complicated one. It seems obvious that most mainstream outlets are run and staffed by pro-choice liberals. But whatever the motivation, The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger is surely correct when she says the mainstream media are generally locked into a single narrative about abortion: “reproductive rights under siege.”
Ironically, the same factors that might have discouraged the mainstream media from covering the story in the first place now give them an incentive to turn it into a story about the media. CBS News, for instance, broke its broadcast boycott of the trial by running a piece on the political firestorm over the lack of coverage.
Secondly, he points out that a lack of oversight needs to be corrected.
If anything good can be said to have come out of the whole Kermit Gosnell horror story, it is this....this story skewered a whole lot of abortion myths. What myths? I'm glad you asked....
Myth #1 - babies don't survive the abortion procedure.
A 2002 article in The Journal of Clinical Nursing seems to indicate that nurses encounter babies born alive after abortions with some frequency. According to the article:
In the case of late termination, the death of the fetus before delivery, though usual, is not inevitable except in rare cases of extreme physical abnormality[.] … At times the fetus will actually attempt to breathe or move its limbs, which makes the experience extremely distressing for nurses. Also, whereas the woman will probably go through this process once in her lifetime, nurses may go through it several times a year or even in the same week. (1)
The article quotes author and lecturer Annette D. Huntington, BN, Ph.D. saying that abortion live births are a “regular occurrence.”
Testimony in the Gosnell case showed that time and time again, infants survived the abortion process.
A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth...
As I indicated in my initial post on the subject yesterday, unless you were actively looking for it online, finding national coverage on the Kermit Gosnell trial has been difficult to find. You had to go to local Philadelphia outlets, or foreign outlets (the Daily Mail has covered the trial in all it's gruesome detail) or to conservative leaning websites like Life News or Hot Air for anything about the trial. This black out was intentional.
In a HuffPost Live segment today on the issue, host Marc Lamont Hill admitted what many pro-life advocates have been thinking:
“For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”
Inspired by Kirsten Powers’ USA Today column yesterday, I decided to start asking journalists about their personal involvement in the Gosnell cover-up.
I wonder how are friends in the gun control lobby will try to bury THIS in their post-Newtown rush to grab the guns of law abiding citizens.
The Boston Marathon bombings appear to have been driven by the older of the two suspects, according to CBS News...
...Tsarnaev is communicating with authorities in writing. According to CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, he can say about one word at a time. Investigators went through public safety questions with him and tried to find out if he is part of a group.
“His account so far is that this was driven by his brother. It was mostly done online in terms of radicalization, finding instructions, and so on and so forth and there’s no international terrorism organization or Mr. Big behind it,” Miller said Tuesday....
...“The original question is they walked up to that car and appeared they shot the officer in the head unprovoked, that it was an assassination. But why? How did that fit into their plan? The operating theory now in the investigation is they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother and the fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go.
Emphasis mine. No gun show "loophole"...no private sale....just murdering a cop in order to get his gun. How are you going to prevent that? Murder is already illegal.....as is robbery....no new law would prevent someone hell bent on committing a crime from breaking the law, so the question remains for our gun grabbing friends on the left....
How are you going to stop someone from murdering a cop for his/her weapon?
- House Of Horrors
- I'm SHOCKED
- Green Jobs Killer
- GOP Nannies
- Teaching Fear
- Couldn't See This Coming
- Yet Another....
- If You Like What You Have Now...
- Another ACA Failure
- More Surprising ACA Consequences
- Political Grandstanding 101
- Those Who Don't Learn From History
- Just The Facts
- Another "Unexpected" ACA Set Back