Category Archives: Pro-Life

Texas to require burial or cremation of aborted fetuses

Cue the outrage from the pro-aborts in 3, 2, 1…

unborn baby

Via NY Post: Texas intends to require that aborted fetuses be buried or cremated under new rules following the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down two of the state’s most restrictive abortion laws.

A federal judge has blocked similar fetal remain requirements in Indiana as part of a preliminary injunction against a sweeping anti-abortion law signed by Republican Gov. Mike Pence.

But Texas is moving forward under orders from GOP Gov. Greg Abbott instead of waiting for lawmakers to pass a bill.

An Abbott spokeswoman said Thursday that talks began months before the proposed rules were quietly released for public comment this week. The new rules are expected to take effect in September.

Abortions in Texas plummeted in the first year under anti-abortion laws that the high court threw out last week.


Remembering that first 4th of July

Today, July 4, 2016, is the 240th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence.

As the light of freedom dims in America, we should recall that first Fourth of July in 1776, when 56 men convened in a hot stuffy room in Philadelphia to deliberate on and sign the Declaration of Independence.

There are 3 parts to this post:

  1. An evocative narrative of that day in 1776
  2. The Declaration of Independence
  3. What happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren’t nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that “the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them.” All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president’s desk, was a panoply — consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!”

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. “Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York.”

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase “by a self-assumed power.” “Climb” was replaced by “must read,” then “must” was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called “their depredations.” “Inherent and inalienable rights” came out “certain unalienable rights,” and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: “I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American.” But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

[Source: “The Americans Who Risked Everything,” by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. – father of talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh, III]


The Declaration of Independence

The Want, Will and Hopes of the People

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton


The Fate of the Signers

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. [from “The Americans Who Risked Everything“]


Friends and patriots, on this Independence Day, never forget the sacrifices so willingly undertaken by these 56 bravehearts. Let us take up the challenge and make sure that the dream they began 238 years ago be never extinguished. 

May God have mercy on America.


This is how The Daily Show celebrates Supreme Court ruling against Texas anti-abortion law

Last Monday, June 16, 2016, the post-Scalia Supreme Court partly overturned a Texas pro-life law that led to the closure of many abortion clinics because they did not follow the same health and safety standards as legitimate outpatient surgical clinics.

That pro-life law, according to figures from the Texas health department, had led to a 15% decrease in the number of abortions from the year before, thereby saving the lives of some 9,000 babies.

Donald Trump quickly condemned the Supreme Court ruling.

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show celebrated SCOTUS’s decision with a tweet urging men to impregnate (“knock up”) someone in Texas, now that abortions are easier to get in that state.

Daily Show tweet on abortionThere’s no word other than “demonic” for The Daily Show‘s cavalier disregard for human life.

Meanwhile, pro-aborts are emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling:

  • Planned Parenthood wasted no time and is already seeking to overturn abortion clinic regulations of other states.
  • Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana sided with Planned Parenthood in its quest to block a new Indiana law, the Dignity for the Unborn Law, before it could take effect the next day. That law, which was signed by Gov. Mike Pence earlier this year, would have protected unborn babies from being aborted simply because of a disability like Down syndrome, race or sex.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Waltan Pratt

U.S. District Judge Tanya Waltan Pratt

Since black babies are disproportionately aborted, black Judge Pratt’s ruling will ensure the unrestrained abortion of more black babies. Why isn’t she called a self-hating racist?


Woman sues for wrongful conception after doctor said she couldn’t get pregnant

suing for conception fox 2 photo

From Fox2Detroit: It is an unusual civil case out of Oakland County (Michigan). A woman is suing her doctor for the stress caused by an unplanned pregnancy. He told her there was no chance she could get pregnant but she did, with a child who has Down syndrome.

The woman is not suing for wrongful birth – she is suing for wrongful conception. She blames her doctor and according to our legal expert – it sounds like she has a case.

Pictures show Lori Cichewicz as a doting loving mother. Reportedly she always planned to give birth but the problem, she never wanted to be pregnant. (This makes no sense at all.)

“This is really very close to a medical malpractice case,” said FOX 2 legal analyst Charlie Langton. “That’s really essentially what it is.”

In 2008 she went to get a permanent birth control procedure, to get her tubes tied. But her doctor told her that her fallopian tubes were blocked. She had no chance of getting pregnant and she didn’t even need birth control.

Three years later Lori got pregnant with a baby who had Down syndrome.

Lori is now suing her doctor for “wrongful conception” – basically his negligence. She is seeking damages for the emotional distress caused by the unplanned pregnancy. Cichewicz is now 50 years old and raising a special needs child.

According to Langton, the courts have already decided damages are limited to the stress of the conception.

“The stress associated with thinking about of having to be pregnant or being pregnant when she didn’t want to be pregnant are the only damages,” he said. “It’s not the fact she is going to get money for having to raise a Down syndrome child, the court already said no.”

The case is expected to go to a jury trial within the next few months – unless the doctor settles it before then.


California health group drops abortion doctor after video captured him saying he loves to kill babies

Robert SantellaRecently, pro-life advocate Zephaniah Mel stood outside the Family Planning Associates abortion clinic in San Diego.

An abortionist, 72-year-old Dr. Robert J. Santella, charged out of the clinic at Mel, California Catholic Daily reports.

Mel calmly told Santella he must repent for murdering babies because it’s a sin against God.

At that, Santella went berserk, made a strange “AARGH!” gutteral noise, and screamed, “I love it! I don’t go to Christ. I don’t listen to Christ. And yeah, I do have a darkened heart, I do, I do, very much.” When Mel said that Santella is “tearing babies apart,” the abortionist again said, “I love it! I love it!”

Here’s Mel’s video of the confrontation.

According to LifeNews, Santella has a bad reputation with his patients and has been accused of injuring several patients in botched abortions. Pro-lifers who witnessed one of the incidents said one woman’s mother called 911 for her daughter after Santella and his staff refused to.

Santella had faced several disciplinary measures from the California Medical Board which resulted in years of probation. The medical board presently is reviewing a new case alleging that Santella treated five patients with gross negligence, repeated negligent acts, prescribing without a prior appropriate examination, unprofessional conduct, and failure to keep adequate and accurate medical records.

As recounted by Operation Rescue, pro-lifer Allyson Smith saw the video of Santella raging that he loves to kill babies, and noticed that Santella was wearing an identification badge from Sharp Healthcare, a group of hospitals throughout San Diego County, including Grossmont Hospital.

So Smith, on June 17, sent an email to Sharp Healthcare, asking, “Why is this ‘doctor’ allowed to be affiliated with Grossmont Hospital? He is nuts and should be fired. What will you do about him?”

Soon, Smith received a reply from Sharp Healthcare:

Hi Allyson:

Thank you for your message. We appreciate your concerns regarding this physician, and we can assure you that he is no longer affiliated with any of our hospitals, he is not employed by our medical groups, and he does not practice or have admitting privileges at any of our facilities. We are currently looking into other aspects of this matter, and we will provide updates as we have more information.


H/t Big Lug and Tim Shey.


Harvard Law prof: Treat conservatives as defeated war criminals

Still think you can reason with or compromise with a “liberal”?

They have no intentions of listening to or compromising with us.

Mark Tushnet, 70, is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a scholar of constitutional law and legal history. Tushnet’s father was Jewish; his mother was Unitarian.

Writing on the blog Balkinization on May 6, 2016, Tushnet scolds fellow liberals that they must stop their “defensive-crouch liberalism,” wherein “with every liberal position asserted nervously, its proponents looking over their shoulders for retaliation by conservatives”:

It’s time to stop. Right now more than half of the judges sitting on the courts of appeals were appointed by Democratic presidents, and – though I wasn’t able to locate up-to-date numbers – the same appears to be true of the district courts. And, those judges no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if they take aggressively liberal positions.

The reason why liberals must stop being “defensive-crouch” is because they’ve decisively won the culture wars:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars (see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term.) And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own. (No conservatives demonstrated any interest in trading off recognition of LGBT rights for “religious liberty” protections. Only now that they’ve lost the battle over LGBT rights, have they made those protections central – seeing them, I suppose, as a new front in the culture wars. But, again, they’ve already lost the war.).

Since conservatives have lost the culture wars, the question before liberals is how to treat them. Tushnet recommends:

For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

In other words, this Harvard professor says Americans who are conservative should be treated as defeated war criminals. Defeated war criminals don’t have constitutional rights or protection, which means this constitutional law professor is recommending that U.S. citizens be stripped of their rights for no reason other than that we hold different beliefs and values, e.g., pro-life.

Beneath the mask of a liberal is a Nazi.

Harvard Law prof. Mark TushnetH/t


Trump hires pro-lifer as top domestic policy adviser; Hollywood insider as campaign finance chairman

On Wednesday, May 4, a day after Trump essentially sealed his nomination by decisively winning the Indiana primary, I was listening to a call-in talk show on EWTN Catholic radio while driving on the freeway. Well knowing the presidential race is now a Trump vs. Hillary contest, the host expressed his reservations about Donald Trump, questioning whether Trump is really a Christian because of his dubious stance on abortion — all legitimate issues to raise.

The host urged listeners to pray, especially the Rosary, for the November presidential election. Then the sanctinomious host made what he imagined to be a really clever quip, saying, “Trump will pick the perfect, just the perfect, VP running mate! Are you ready? — Charlie Sheen!”

Whatever Trump’s flaws, and there are many, there has never been any suggestion that Trump condones the noxious, criminal behaviors of the sociopath Charlie Sheen. That quip was below the belt, grossly unfair, and decidedly unbecoming for a Catholic program. And yet this radio host is the one who questions whether Trump is really a Christian. Too funny.

I wonder what this radio host will say about Trump’s appointment of a major pro-lifer as his top domestic policy adviser.

Donald TrumpSteven Ertelt reports for LifeNews, May 5, 2016, that Trump is winning praise from pro-life advocates for hiring John Mashburn, a long-time conservative congressional aide and a top pro-life advocate as a key domestic policy advisor. Mashburn has worked for pro-life lawmakers including the late Sen. Jesse Helms, former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, and current North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis.

John Mashburn in 2011In 2011, Mashburn joined the conservative D.C. think tank Carleson Center for Public Policy as its executive director.

The Washington Examiner reports that pro-life groups see the move as Trump making serious overtures to pro-life voters and hail it as Trump indicating he will govern in a pro-life manner if elected president.

Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, said: “Yes he [Mashburn] is a rock solid pro-lifer and former Helms staffer. Someone we can work with.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement to Trump:

“If I were running for president, I would want John Mashburn as a top advisor, too. If elected, no doubt John Mashburn will serve you well as you fulfill your campaign promises to defund Planned Parenthood, advance and sign into law the popular Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and appoint Justices to the bench who will protect and defend the Constitution.

Donald Trump has brought on John Mashburn as his Policy Director. This is an excellent hire, especially for the pro-life movement and our legislative priorities.

I have known and respected John Mashburn for many years. He is a smart strategist with deep pro-life roots. John is well-respected across every issue set. For him, the life issue is foundational and one which helped draw him into politics.

On Planned Parenthood and abortion, although Trump has said he opposes taxpayer funding, he’s also made some remarks about the “good things” Planned Parenthood does that alarm pro-life voters. In a recent CBN interview, however, Trump was asked a pointed question by David Brody: “As a President Trump, if a bill came to your desk that would defund Planned Parenthood you would support that, you would sign that?”

Trump answered:

“Yes, because as long as they do the abortion I am not for funding Planned Parenthood…. As long as they’re involved with abortion, as far as I’m concerned forget it, I wouldn’t fund them regardless. I would defund Planned Parenthood because of their view and the fact of their work on abortion…. I am for defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they are involved with abortion.

Trump also said he thinks the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case that ushered in an era of 48 million abortions was “wrongly decided.” Although he opposes Roe v. Wade and said that as president he would appoint “very good judges” who would ultimately “change it,” Trump has not specifically said the ruling should be overturned.

Meanwhile, in other news, The Hollywood Reporter reports that yesterday Trump named Hollywood insider Steven Mnuchin, 52, the wealthy chairman of Dune Entertainment Partners, as his national finance chairman. Trump said, “Steven is a professional at the highest level with an extensive and very successful financial background. He brings unprecedented experience and expertise to a fundraising operation that will benefit the Republican Party and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton.”

But the appointment is sure to raise eyebrows among Republicans and Trump’s populist supporters because:

  1. Mnuchin has donated more money to Democrats than he has to Republicans, including $7,000 to the Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton, whom Trump is likely to face in the general election for president. Trump, though, also has a history of giving money to both parties.
  2. Mnuchin also partnered on a hedge fund with billionaire George Soros, who has practically made it his life mission to discredit Republicans, including funding the progressive group Media Matters for America, which has issued a steady stream of anti-Trump missives over the past several months. Soros also is one of the primary donors behind a $15 million effort to mobilize Latinos in an effort to defeat Trump.
  3. Mnuchin made a small fortune at Goldman Sachs, were he had worked for 17 years, and Trump used to criticize former GOP rival Ted Cruz because his wife had also worked at Goldman Sachs.

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV