Category Archives: abortion

Army stands ready to build wall when Trump declares national emergency

Tonight, at 9 p.m. EST, President Trump will speak to America about security along our border with Mexico. Trump will follow his speech with a visit to the border on Thursday.

Vice President Pence said the national address is due to congressional Demonrats’ refusal to even negotiate on funds for border wall construction, which would end the partial (25%) federal government shut-down that began December 22. President Trump asks for $5.7 billion for construction of a steel border wall.

Note that the first order of business of the House Democrats was to pass bills to fund hundreds of millions of dollars for abortion by Planned Parenthood ($100 million), international NGOs ($500 million), and the UN Population Fund ($37.5 million).

A new Economist/YouGov survey, conducted Dec. 30-Jan. 1, found that:

  • A vast majority (86%) of Americans say illegal immigration is a problem, including 97% of Republicans, 82% of independents, and 83% of Democrats.
  • Only 7% of Americans think illegal immigration is “not a problem”, including 2% of Republicans, 7% of independents, and 12% of Democrats.
  • The remaining 6% of Americans are not sure if illegal immigration is a problem or not.

It is expected that in his national address, President Trump will declare a national emergency to build and pay for the wall. Indeed, border insecurity is a national emergency:

  • In fiscal 2017, as many as 3,755 known or suspected terrorists entered the U.S.
  • In fiscal 2018, which ended on Sept. 30, at the southern border:
    • Customs and Border Protection agents caught 17,000 adults who had criminal records.
    • Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehended 6,000 members of gangs, including the violent MS-13.
    • A 73% increase in fentanyl, one of the deadliest drugs, totaling 2,400 pounds.
    • A 38% increase in methamphetamine.
    • A 38% increase in heroin.
    • 50 migrants a day required medical treatment.
    • 31% of female migrants said they were sexually assaulted on the journey to the U.S. (The Daily Signal)

And when/if President Trump declares border security is a national emergency, the U.S. Army will be the primary contractor to build the wall.

InfoWars reports that two days ago, on Sunday, January 6, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a letter to Democratic House committee chairs, informing them that the Customs and Border Protection agency is coordinating with the army to fulfill President Trump’s goal of securing the border with a steel wall.

The letter also says that President Trump’s request for $5.7 billion would fund construction of approximately 234 miles of a steel border wall, and several other areas pertaining to border security, including more border patrol personnel, humanitarian supplies, and technology resources. (Read the letter on ScribD, here.)

Yesterday, a White House official said, “If the president declares a national emergency, the Army Corps of Engineers will kick into high gear. They’re already handing out contracts, and that would speed up a lot.”

In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers had begun soliciting bids in mid-2017 for companies to produce “a mix of border fence, border wall, border patrol roads, border access roads, border lights, border gates (for access to border monuments, for maintenance, and for Border Patrol operational use), border drainage improvements, levee walls, and other miscellaneous improvements, repairs, and alterations.” (Daily Mail)

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Priorities: First order of business for Democrat House majority is abortion

“Every nation has the government it deserves.” – Count Joseph-Marie de Maistre (1763-1821)

Today is the first day of the 116th United States Congress.

Last November, American voters saw fit to elect a majority of Democrats to the House of Representatives.

As a demonstration of the House majority Democrats’ priority, their first order of business is the killing of tiny, innocent, unborn human beings.

The faces of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — who portrays her beginnings as humble, from Bronx, when she actually grew up in upper middle-class Westchester County — and the other freshman Congresswomen remind me of this scene from The Devil’s Advocate (1997):

House Democrats have inserted language to expand abortion access into a bill to end the partial government shutdown. The bill is set for a vote tomorrow; the federal government has faced a partial government shutdown for 12 days. (H/t Washington Examiner)

The abortion language inserted into the spending bill is meant to:

  1. Undo what President Trump did on January 23, 2017, his first full day of work as President. That day, which was a day after the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Trump signed his first executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy that bans U.S. taxpayers’ funding of at least half a billion dollars to international non-government organizations (NGOs) that perform abortions or provide information about abortion. House Democrats’ spending bill  includes language specifying that NGOs that perform abortions consistent with the laws in their country are eligible for U.S. family planning funds.
  2. Increase funding for the forced abortion-sterilization promoting United Nations Population Fund from $5 million to $37.5 million. The Trump administration’s State Department ended contributions to the fund because anti-abortion groups oppose its relationship with China, where citizens are not permitted to have more than two children, leading to forced abortions, sterilizations, and female infanticide.

Update (Jan. 8): House Democrats passed a first bill to restore $100 million in funding for Planned Parenthood. (LifeNews)

Such are the priorities of Demorats: Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in the world and for Planned Parenthood in the U.S., but not for a US-Mexico border wall, never mind that Israel — the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid — has an impregnable sea-land border wall.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement Democrats were “already trying to foist a radical pro-abortion agenda on the nation”. Since “a strong majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion,” House Democrats’ repeal of Trump’s policy on nongovernmental organizations would make “taxpayers complicit in the exportation of abortion and destruction of countless unborn children around the world. This is unconscionable and we oppose the bill in the strongest terms.”

Refusing to meet Trump’s demands for $5 billion to fund a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, House Democrats plan to vote on two separate bills tomorrow to fund the federal government. Thankfully, the bills face dim prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, you should know that abortion was the leading cause of death in the world in 2018.

There were approximately 41.95 million abortions carried out around the world in 2018, according to Worldometers, an organization that tracks death statistics. Overall, the deaths by abortion outnumbered those from cancer (8.2 million), malaria, HIV/AIDS (1.7 million), smoking, alcohol, and traffic accidents put together.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Children’s YouTube channel features radical pro-abort feminazi promoting abortion to kids

This video comes from the HiHo channel. From the video description: “To learn more about Amelia and the new Shout Your Abortion book, check out the link here: (link purposely not provided).”

Amelia is the radical feminazi Amelia Bonow, cofounder of #shoutyourabortion.

In this video she describes the abortion procedure as such: “They suck the pregnancy out. It was like a crappy dentist appointment.

Amelia has the word “abortion” tattooed on HER INSIDE LIP (forward to 7:34 mark).

Sickening.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Democrats introduce House bill calling abortion a human right

Pro-lifers call abortion an abuse of human rights.

As an example, reacting to the recent news that new justice Brett Kavanaugh had cast the deciding vote against the Supreme Court taking up appeals from Kansas and Louisiana to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding, March for Life president Jeanne Mancini said: “Abortion is not healthcare, it is a human rights abuse. Until Planned Parenthood ceases to perform abortions they should not receive any money from taxpayers.”

But if Democrats have their way, killing tiny innocent human beings would be called a “human right” — a perversion of the English language which exceeds even George Orwell’s Newspeak.

On December 10, 2018, Human Rights Day, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Katherine M. Clark introduced H.R. 7228: Reproductive Rights are Human Rights Act of 2018. Clark said: “Documenting and reporting human rights violations is a major part of eradicating their existence. This bill would ensure that our State Department maintains its vital role as an international watchdog and protector of women’s rights no matter the ideology of our White House.”

The bill has 51 co-sponsors, all Democrats. Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Florida) said in a statement: “Women’s rights are human rights. There is no greater right for women than to be in charge of their own bodies.”

HR 7228‘s purpose is “To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to include in the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices a section on reproductive rights”. “Reproductive rights,” in turn, are to include the right of “women and girls” across the world to “access…safe abortion services, in accordance with such country’s laws, including post-abortion care”.

Reporting for LifeNews on Dec. 11, Micaiah Bilger writes:

The pro-abortion bill, the Reproductive Rights are Human Rights Act, would require the U.S. State Department to include abortion on demand and other reproductive rights in its annual human rights report. It is a reaction to the Trump administration, which, earlier this year, prioritized real human rights issues by removing references to the so-called “right” to abort an unborn child from the report….

The report represents a significant change from pro-abortion President Barack Obama’s administration, which promoted the killing of unborn babies for any reason up to birth as a woman’s “right.”

In contrast, the Trump administration has been focusing on policies that protect both women and their unborn children.

Responding to criticism about the report, the State Department said it is not “downgrading coverage of … women’s issues.” Rather, it now will focus on ending the most “egregious” of human rights abuses against women and families in the world, including forced abortion and sterilization.

Under the pro-abortion Obama administration, one section of the report was called “Reproductive Rights.” The Trump administration removed that section and added a new one called “Coercion in Population Control.” ….

“This erasure puts real lives in danger,” said NARAL President Ilyse Hogue. “Using backdoor tactics to erase all mention of reproductive rights—including abortion, contraception, and maternal mortality—from vital reports and resources in order to push an extreme, ideological agenda is a true testament to just how dangerous and corrupt this administration is.”

Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL and 42 other pro-abort oganizations endorsed HR 7228 and promoted it on social media in connection with Human Rights Day.

In a tweet, Planned Parenthood’s new president, Leana Wen, thanked the pro-abort House Democrats for introducing the bill.

Meanwhile, President Trump continues to keep his campaign promise to pro-lifers by:

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

DEMENTED: Mom sings lullaby before aborting baby

Video NSFW due to some language.

A very disturbing video from the Michael Anderson Show. From his description:

“This video shows an activist group called “Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights” hosting a pro-abortion rally titled, “Holy Ground: Blessing the Sacred Space of Decision” at Your Choice Healthcare, a non-surgical abortion facility. The event consisted of calling on “God” (Satan or some sh*t to be honest) to bless abortions while praising those who perform the procedure,“We want to show there are people of faith who support bodily rights” said Elaina Ramsey, executive director of the organization. The group also plans to conduct these ceremonies at the six other abortion clinics in Ohio over the next year, according to The Columbus Dispatch.”

Woman starts speaking at 3:15 mark.

Read the story at The Columbus Dispatch here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Betrayal: Brett Kavanaugh cast deciding Supreme Court vote enabling Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood

Et tu, Kavanaugh?

Medicaid is a government welfare program that provides health care services for “the poor”. Jointly funded by the states and the federal government, Medicaid is largely administered by the states. About 70 million people — one out of every five Americans — are enrolled in the program, including two million women who use Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider.

Two states, Kansas and Louisiana, seek to exclude Planned Parenthood (PP) from their Medicaid “health care” providers, after a series of undercover videos show PP abortion clinics engaged in illegal sales of fetal tissue for allegedly medical research. In the words of Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life: “Abortion is not healthcare, it is a human rights abuse. Until Planned Parenthood ceases to perform abortions they should not receive any money from taxpayers.”

Kansas and Louisiana brought suit to in an effort to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, but preserve their Medicaid funding. The cases are Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (17-1340) and Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast Inc. (17-1492). But their cases were tossed by lower courts.

Similar defunding laws in Arizona, Ohio, Texas, and Indiana have also been tossed by the lower courts. Only Arkansas’ law has been allowed to go into effect, but that is being challenged in the courts.

To quote Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri: (pp. 1-2)

Medicaid offers the States a bargain: Congress provides federal funds in exchange for the States’ agreement to spend them in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions…. When a state fails to comply with the terms of Medicaid, the statute provides one remedy: the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services may withhold funds from the state…. [T]he Tenth Circuit below held that §23(A) of the Medicaid Act…requires states to provide in their administrative plans the ability of eligible patients to obtain services from “any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required…who undertakes to provide him such services.” 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(23)(A). Although the Medicaid Act elsewhere grants a state substantial leeway in deciding when to exclude individual providers from the Medicaid program, see id. §1396a(p)(1), the Tenth Circuit’s decision permits patients to challenge those decisions in federal court….

Fox News reports that on Monday, December 10, 2018, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declined to review the appeals from Kansas and Louisiana, effectively giving a victory to Planned Parenthood.

According to Supreme Court rules, 4 of the 9 justices must vote “yes” for the Court to accept a case (source: United States Courts). That means that the Court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, cast the deciding vote.

Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, crowed: “We are pleased that lower court rulings protecting patients remain in place. Every person has a fundamental right to health care, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn.”

The three conservative justices who dissented are Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. They maintain the Supreme Court should get involved in the legal fight on states’ rights grounds. Justice Clarence Thomas said: “These cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty.”

The six members voting to deny the petitions did not comment. They are the four “liberals” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) and two other ostensibly conservative members—Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts.

During the Senate confirmation hearings on Kavanaugh, Planned Parenthood had threatened senators if they voted to confirm him to the Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood needn’t have bothered as Kavanaugh poses no threat to their funding and slaughter.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Ethics philosophers argue for ‘after-birth abortion’ of babies

We were warned about the slippery slope of legalizing abortion.

Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing euthanasia, euphemistically called “physician-assisted suicide”.

The latest in the slippery slope is a call for infanticide.

In an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics, two philosophers propose that mothers should have the right to kill their newborn, which the two philosophers call “after-birth abortion”. The two authors are:

  • Alberto Giubilini, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia, and is now a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, England.
  • Francesca Minerva, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Australia, and is now a post-doc research fellow at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

Here is the article’s Abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The authors begin their article by arguing that “the same conditions that would have justified abortion,” such as Down’s syndrome and other severe mental and/or physical impairments, should also be “applied to killing a newborn human” because “children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”

But the authors then go further, arguing that even if severely disabled children are happy, they should be “aborted” after birth because of the problems they create for the mothers and for society:

[H]aving a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself….

[T]o bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Playing word games, the authors say they eschew calling “after-birth abortion” either “infanticide” or “euthanasia” because “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child,” and because “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

In short, the authors justify “after-birth abortion” on the grounds that the newborn infant is just like the unborn fetus in that “neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense” because neither has “the potentiality to become a person” in the sense of forming any future aims.

By “person” the authors mean “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

By that definition, “many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons,” but newborns and fetuses are not persons because they “are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence”. At best, newborns and fetuses are only “potential persons”, which means that the interests of “actual people” (parents, family, society), no matter how weak their interests, always “over-ride” the interest of “merely potential people”. The latter “cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence” because the interest of non-persons “amounts to zero”.

Giublini and Minerva even argue against adoption of unwanted newborns if the mothers could be “damaged” by giving up their newborns for adoption.

The authors do allow that since newborns and fetuses are “only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure,” they “have a right not to be inflicted pain.”

How humane and generous of Giubilini and Minerva. /Sarc

As to how old a newborn would be when killing him/her is no longer “permissible”, Giublini and Minerva refuse to specify. Instead, they leave the cut-off threshold open-ended. In their words:

[W]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

You can read their short article here.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, said the article had “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

Savulescu defended Giubilini and Minerva on the grounds that their arguments are not new and in the interest of academic freedom. He said:

“The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands…. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

See also “Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It’s okay to rape the mentally disabled”.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) threatens to nuke gun-confiscation resisters

Rep. Eric Swalwell, 38, is a California Demonrat who represents east Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area.

In a May 3, 2018 USA Today op/ed entitled, “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Swalwell said he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage “survivors” of the Parkland school shooting who have been more strident.

Swalwell proposed outlawing and confiscating all “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons”. Existing owners of semiautomatic rfiles would be forced to sell their weapons or face prosecution because merely banning assault weapons would still “leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Townhall‘s Katie Pavlich points out that “assault rifle” is a politically loaded, misleading term used by the Left to demonize semi-automatic rifles, and that what Swalwell wants to confiscate is “In other words, every rifle in America.”

Responding to Swalwell’s gun ban and confiscation proposal, former InfoWars reporter Joe Biggs @Rambobiggs tweeted:

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

To which Swalwell tweeted this threat:

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

Biggs tweeted back:

So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow

So did others:

@KGamecock: “‘We can nuke you but hey, let’s find common ground’ – A sitting US Representative. That’s almost as laughable as your wikipedia photo. Stay in California Eric.”

@Elm 335: “You really just threatened to use nukes on our citizens and can’t understand why we don’t trust the government enough to give up our 2nd amendment rights?!”

Like other Demonrats who’ve issued threats, when confronted Swalwell calls his threat mere sarcasm:

it’s sarcasm. He said he’s going to war with America if gun legislation was passed. I told him his government has nukes. God forbid we use sarcasm

He then portrays himself as the innocent victim:

America’s gun debate in one thread.

1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons

2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens

3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century)

4) I’m called a tyrant

Swalwell also calls Biggs and other pro-Second Amendment Americans “gun trolls” whom he’s bravely taken on “to protect kids from being slaughtered in class”.

Elected to the House of Representatives in November 2012, Swalwell is a strong supporter of abortion and LGBTs. He has been mentioned as a potential 2020 presidential candidate and has publicly expressed an interest in running.

Eric Swalwell is precisely the sort of politicians about whom Thomas Jefferson had warned.

About the Parkland school shooting, see the post that got Fellowship of the Minds bot-attacked: “Parkland anomalies: David Hogg was at home during school shooting; interviewed girl before shooting”. If you can’t load that page, you can read the post on archive.today. Click here.

The distributed denial-of-service cyber attacks began 7 days ago and are continuing. That is why you sometimes get a blank page when you try to access FOTM. When you do, just refresh the page until you get a substantive page. Our hosting server has already boosted FOTM‘s memory to the max and can’t do more. We just have to wait them out.

Thank you for your patience and persistence.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

UN: abortion & euthanasia should be universal human rights; one world government in 12 years

Inés San Martin reports for Crux, Nov. 15, 2018, that the United Nations Human Rights Committee wants to make abortion and “assisted suicide” — a euphemism for euthanasia — a univeral human right.

A “General Comment” is a UN agency’s interpretation of the provisions of the treaties to which it is a party.

According to a draft “General Comment” of the UN Human Rights Committee’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN member governments:

  • Must decriminalize abortion for women and abortionists.
  • Must guarantee “safe, legal and effective” access to abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, or when carrying the pregnancy to term could cause her “pain or suffering” as in the cases of rape or incest.
  • Must remove barriers that deny access to a safe abortion, “including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.” In other words, medical providers must be forced to perform abortion, regardless of their religious or moral objection.
  • Guarantee girls’ and women’s access to post-abortion health care “in all circumstances, and on a confidential basis.”
  • Guarantee access by “boys and girls” to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods.
  • Allow medical professionals to “facilitate the termination of life of afflicted adults, such as those who are terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and who wish to die with dignity.”

An earlier version of the draft was read in July 2017, during the 120th session of the Human Rights Committee and made available online by the UN. “All interested stakeholders” were invited to comment on the draft. Although many pro-life groups submitted comments, their views are disregarded as the current version of the draft, as of October 31, shows that the language calling for governments to guarantee access to abortion and “assisted suicide” remains.

Meanwhhile, writing for American Thinker, Oct. 27, 2018, E. Jeffrey Ludwig reminds us that in 2015, the UN issued a program for world government, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 14,883-words document has 91 numbered sections addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership; and contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

The earlier UN ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are now subsumed under “sustainability”. The UN World Commission on Environment and Development defines “sustainable development” as:

  • Development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” — whatever that means.
  • “Environmentalism” — preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.
  • The Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

Ludwig warns:

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN….

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers. The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945. Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

HR 3222: Freedom of religion in danger with Democrat House majority

On Nov. 16, 1993, then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected” into law, with an almost-unanimous approval by Congress. Every House member approved of the bill; only three senators voted no.

Incredibly, both the House and Senate versions of RFRA were sponsored by Democrats: Rep. Chuck Shumer (NY) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA).

Then is then, and now is now.

The Democrat Party that spearheaded RFRA has become the hate-America, hate-God Demonrat Party that now is bent on the all-but-in-name repeal of the same law it once championed.

In an op/ed for the Washington Examiner, November 14, 2018, former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), who now teaches political science at Utah Valley University, reports that even before the Nov. 6 election, 50 House Democrats had co-sponsored H.R. 3222, a bill to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). With a majority of Demonrats now in control of the House of Representatives after the recent mid-term elections, there are now 172 House Democrats who support H.R. 3222, as their party takes control of the House.

H.R. 3222, sanctimoniously and deceptively titled the Do No Harm Act, is sponsored by Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and co-sponsored by 170 other House members, all Demonrats, one of whom is the anticipated incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), 71. That committee would be in charge of approving the undoing of RFRA.

H.R. 3222’s companion Senate bill (S. 2918) is authored by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 28 other Demonrat senators.

Instead of a head-on repeal of RFRA, H.R. 3222 and S. 2918 take a sly approach by creating a long itemized list of exemptions from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, thereby diminishing and undermining RFRA’s protection of religious freedom. The exemptions include sexual orientation, gender identity, and abortion. In effect, our Constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of religion would be declared less important than other claims never mentioned in the Constitution and often not even legislated by elected officials.

Groups endorsing HR 3222 and S 2918 are the usual leftwing suspects and promoters of evil: the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, Lambda Legal, NAACP, NARAL, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Organization of Women, and Planned Parenthood.

Istook writes:

H.R. 3222 would declare that religious freedoms must yield when they run counter to the LGBTQ agenda or to other progressive causes such as abortion rights. Pushing this are progressive groups which claim that religious beliefs are just a cover for discrimination, bigotry, and hate….

The turnaround [since RFRA] dramatizes how culture and politics have changed in 25 years. Secular values have been given priority and religious freedoms have been narrowed.

Istook warns that HR 3222 and S 2918 will also reverse the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop decisions. State-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are also being attacked. Those were enacted in 21 states after the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that RFRA protects only against intrusive laws on the federal level.

And although the GOP-majority Senate is very unlikely to approve S. 2918 or any legislation gutting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, those who oppose RFRA will be emboldened by HR 3222, and they will keep trying.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0