Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for the ‘Liberal’ Category

Well Done, Hollywood Left: You Just Got The Second Amendment Totally Wrong (Again)

with 2 comments

By Matt Vespa
Townhall
December 29, 2017

If there’s a reason why Hollywood should just stay out of politics, especially gun politics, and this is your classic example. Ed Asner and Ed Weinberger, a screenwriter, decided to teach the National Rifle Association a history lesson on the left wing site Salon. It dropped a little before Christmas, and it ended with both men getting a face full of buckshot. They argued that our Founders were pro-gun control, which is odd given that the first shots fired in our American Revolution at the battles of Lexington and Concord, were in response to British soldiers trying to seize our guns. Still, let’s go through their arguments:

Now that we have your attention, let’s consider the case made by the NRA, its Congressional hired hands, the majority of the Supreme Court, and various right wing pundits who claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun.

[…]

First, here’s that elusive Second Amendment as it now appears in the Bill of Rights: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Arguably not the clearest amendment in the Constitution. And that’s the problem with it: While stating the need for a “well-regulated Militia,” does it at the same time also guarantee the individual citizen the personal right to “keep and bear arms?” In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, ruling for the Majority, said that it was. Ignoring over 200 years of precedent, historical context, the Framers’ Intent and the D.C. laws of its elected officials, Scalia relied solely on the text, arbitrarily dividing the Amendment into two parts. The first – “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — he called the prefatory clause. The second part – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — he called the operative clause. Claiming that second part was all that really mattered; Scalia discarded as irrelevant that inconvenient reference to a “state militia.

[…]

Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s intent could not be more obvious: his Second Amendment refers only to state militias. If not, why include that exemption for what we now call “conscientious objectors?”

When Madison’s amendment was rewritten by a joint committee from the House and Senate in 1791, the “religious” exemption was lopped off as too cumbersome in language and too complex to enforce. Thus, the Amendment as it now stands.

Okay—what am I missing here? Asner and Weinberger really just ignore the Supreme Court to peddle a recycled liberal talking point. Of course, the anti-gun Left peddled the tired and disregarded state militia provision, just as they ignore the Citizens United decision and its implications on expanding free speech rights. Also, this line, “the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun” is just pure trash. Law-abiding gun owners are not killers in waiting. Second, it’s not an unfettered right; Justice Scalia said so in the Heller decision, which they don’t mention in their piece:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

You hear that guys. You have the right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia, but states have the right to impose their own restrictions, like on concealed carry rights. This is a rather explicit recognition of federalism, along with limiting the Court’s impact so as to not produce challenges to laws prohibiting domestic violence abusers, the mentally ill, and convicted felons from owning firearms—all common sense provisions. Stephen Gutowski found some of Madison’s quotes about the Second Amendment as well. It doesn’t help the pro-gun control hypothesis that’s rather shoddy in this piece. In fact, if these two guys had read Heller, they would see it’s not some SCOTUS opinion intended to turn the country into the Wild West. Anti-gunners, you guys have lost this debate. Gun rights have expanded since this landmark 2008 decision. Every state recognize concealed carry rights, even in Washington D.C. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere. Deal with it.

 

Pro-Abortion Student Defends Infanticide. Killing a 2-Year-Old Baby is Okay Because “It Can’t Communicate”

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
January 4, 2018

A pro-abortion student has been filmed on video defending infanticide, saying there is nothing wrong with killing a two-year-old baby. The student at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville bragged about his support for infanticide up to two years of age.

The video, provided to LifeNews by Students for Life of America, shows a pro-abortion student defending his position in favor of ending the lives of unborn children.

During the video, the student also defends infanticide and says that there’s nothing wrong with killing newborn babies because they are not capable of taking care of themselves or holding an intellectual conversation. The twisted logic claims that because babies are not on the same level as someone old enough to feed and clothe themselves and to carry on a conversation that apparently their life is somehow less valuable.

That is the same contorted and twisted logic that abortion advocates use to defend abortion. Supposedly because unborn babies are something less than capable adult human beings their lives have no value. It is the same kind of logic that also persecutes the elderly and disabled and says that their lives have less value because they are supposedly less capable.

“The fact of the matter is without communication, we have no way of knowing of you are sentient or not,” the unidentified student says in the video clip. “It’s no different than this tree. It’s alive, but is it sentient? I don’t know. I cannot communicate with it.”

Then he defends killing infants.

“Can the two year old talk to me? In some instances I’m fairly certain that is,” the student said. “But generally speaking the child still has the inability to communicate. And until we determine that as such at what point does sentience become an issue. We can’t really debate whether or not that is the situation or not.”

 

 

The head of the pro-life student group was not surprised by the warped thinking.

“The idea that someone could support infanticide is incredibly disturbing. Yet, it reflects the kinds of attitudes our staff members and students can face on a daily basis on high school and college campuses,” Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said. “Life is only valuable if I can talk to it?”

Why Colorado Doesn’t Need New Gun Laws

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

Almost any loss of life qualifies as a tragedy. Even the loss of someone so despicable that most of us would gladly have pulled the trigger may well be an unmitigated tragedy for someone who cared about that individual.

However, even the loss of a deputy’s life shouldn’t spur new gun laws without a darn good reason. Luckily, it seems people in Colorado get that.

After the killing of Douglas County sheriff’s deputy Zackari Parrish on Sunday as well as the shooting of others, including four other deputies, some gun control activists are calling for new state laws.

“We don’t have any tools in Colorado for the police to disarm the individual,” said Eileen McCarron, president of Colorado Ceasefire, a gun control advocacy group.

McCarron is arguing for the Gun Violence Restraining Order, which would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership from individuals for up to a year.

Any request for a ban would have to be signed off by a judge. California, Washington, Oregon and Connecticut have signed similar measures into law.

The gunman had an apparent history of mental illness, including a psychotic episode with the Wyoming VA in 2014 as well as concerns from the University of Wyoming.

But multiple sources said there is little appetite for new gun control laws at the state Capitol — at least right now.

That’s because Colorado, nor any state for that matter, has a need for additional tools to disarm people.

The gunman in question should have been mentally adjudicated as being a danger and he wasn’t. Had he been, his ability to legally own firearms would have ceased and this incident wouldn’t have happened.

The problem with these Gun Violence Restraining Orders is that they allow people to be disarmed over some awfully tenuous circumstances. Note the phrasing here. It “would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership.” Family members.

How many of us have family that disagrees with gun ownership? Do you really think someone won’t try to use this to settle personal scores?

No, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there needs to be more to it than a family member’s desire to disarm someone. And yes, there needs to be a judge’s approval for anything to happen. Yes, I get all that.

However, people lie and judges believe those lies all the time.

Plus, there are plenty of existing laws on the books that could have averted this particular tragedy if only someone had utilized them. They didn’t. Why didn’t they? Who knows. Maybe they thought the killer would get better. Maybe they thought that while he was disturbed, he wasn’t a threat. Who knows.

What we do know is that the ball got dropped plenty of places along the way.

So why wouldn’t the gun grabbers in Colorado want to try and push for one more anti-gun law in the process? Why not? It’s what they do, especially when it’s just too damn hard to look at the problem objectively and try and address the root of the problem for a change.

Anti-Gun Celebs Gather For Golden Globes Under Protection Of Men With Guns

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 7, 2018

One of Hollywood’s premiere events is taking place later today with the Golden Globes set to take the stage. Host Seth Meyers has already promised to get political during the show–which never turns out badly for Hollywood, now does it–and that may well mean some slams on guns and gun ownership.

Even if it doesn’t, however, the audience will be filled with people who have pontificated on the topic of firearms and the Second Amendment, usually without having a freaking clue what they’re talking about. They’ll be sitting there with their fellow celebrities and, oddly enough, they’ll be nice and safe.

Why?

Because despite their insistence that guns are a problem, they’ll be protected by men with guns.

With this year marking the 75th anniversary of the Golden Globes, organizers have heightened security for the event.

With the Globes and subsequent after-parties scheduled to take place Sunday at and around the Beverly Hilton, the Beverly Hills police are collaborating with multiple law-enforcement agencies on security. The FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department are working with Beverly Hills P.D.

Meanwhile, private security officers employed by event organizers are expected to play a major role. The Hilton on Wednesday provided Variety with details of its plan to move after-party attendees through a revised transportation and security system following last year’s check-in meltdown that saw long wait times for guests arriving at the after-parties from off-site. The new plan calls for an increase in the number of security stations processing party-goers as they check in to the event, and expedited travel for shuttle buses through security checkpoints.

Asked whether attendees can expect to once again see armed officers wearing body armor at and around the Globes and related events, as was the case last year, Hoshino said, “Absolutely. That’s the norm.” He added, “I know that we’re using a lot of technology at the event. We consider this a large-scale event, and there’s going to be a multi agency response.”

For all their arrogant talk about guns and gun ownership, they have no problem hiding behind armed security, not just in their day-to-day lives, but in their social lives as well.

The thing is, most Americans don’t get armed security everywhere they go. We don’t get the virtual army of private security that celebrities at the Golden Globes get. We get whatever we can muster ourselves, and only an elite few can afford professional bodyguards. Most of us can’t.

That means we buy guns. We get guns to protect our homes and our families because we don’t have the resources to hire security.

It remains to be seen just what topics Meyers will spout off on. He may be wise enough to leave guns off the table, especially if he’s self-aware enough to understand that pontificating on guns for average Americans while surrounded by armed men paid to keep you safe is just begging to get everyone labeled as hypocrites.

As it stands, plenty of them are. They enjoy the safety provided by men with guns, but would rather see you unable to provide that safety to your family, just because it makes them feel funny.

Mother Of Dead Robber: ‘Why Did He Shoot Him Five Times?”

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 8, 2018

I feel bad for Cynthia Ruiz. In addition to being a widow, she has now had to bury her son. It’s a horrible thing to lose one of your children, but she did.

However, I can only feel so bad for her. After all, her son brought this on himself.

Ruiz’s son, Andrew Herrera, was shot and killed when he tried to rob a Popeye’s Chicken in Texas. That’s when he came face-to-face with the state’s self-defense laws.

Now, Ruiz has questions.

 “Did my son deserve to be punished? Yes, he did,” Ruiz said.

Police said Herrera, wearing a hoodie and a mask, entered the South Side restaurant with gun and confronted a man and his family who were eating.

After the man told Herrera he had spent the money he had on their dinner, Herrera turned toward the counter and pointed the gun at one of the workers, who was running away.

That’s when the man, who had a concealed handgun license, fired several shots at Herrera.

A police spokesman later said, “Here in Texas, if you’re in fear of loss of life, loss of property, you have a right to defend yourself.”

Ruiz said she understands the man who shot her son was defending his family, but she asked, “Why shoot him four more times? Why did he shoot him five times?”

I hate to break it to Ruiz, but the reason the man shot him five times was simple. You shoot until there’s no longer a threat. The armed citizen judge there was still a risk to him and his family–and the word “family” means no self-respecting man is going to take a chance at that point–and kept shooting until there was no longer a threat.

Shootings aren’t like the movies or on TV. You don’t shoot to wound. A wounded person can still kill you. You shoot until the threat has been eliminated. If the first shot wounds them but they drop their weapon and surrender, so much the better for everyone, but only a complete and total idiot expects that to happen.

Herrera threatened the lives of human beings, and he paid a price for that. It’s a price that Ruiz is being forced to pay, which is a pity, but either she failed to teach him it was wrong to steal, or he failed to heed the lessons. Either way, he tried to rob a chicken place and came face-to-face with someone who was not going to be a victim.

Why was Herrara shot five times? Because he stood there, gun in hand, and threatened the innocent.

Ruiz contends that a second suspect who served as Herrera’s getaway driver claims the gun wasn’t loaded. To that I reply, “So what?”

If you point a gun at me, my family, or anyone else in my vicinity, I’m not going to assume that it’s unloaded. That is stupid, especially since one of the basic rules of firearm safety is to treat all firearms as if they’re loaded. For me, that applies to the one in the criminal’s hand. I’m going to act as if it’s loaded because the alternative is the loss of innocent life if I’m wrong.

Why did they have to shoot him five times? Because he was a threat, and common wisdom is to just keep shooting until he’s not a threat any longer.

If you want your kids to not be shot, impress upon them that this is what happens when you threaten people with a gun.

‘Black Guns Matter’ Group Joins World’s Largest Gun Show With a Unique Message

with 2 comments

By Lauretta Brown
Townhall
January 5, 2018

Black Guns Matter, a Second Amendment education group with an urban focus, will be featured in and sponsoring SHOT Show, the largest gun show in the world.

Maj Toure founded Black Guns Matter in 2015. The group is focused on providing Second Amendment education and information to urban communities that are plagued by violence.

“I don’t think there’s a black gun culture or white gun culture,” Toure says on the group’s website. “I think there’s an informed gun culture and an ignorant gun culture.”

In their December feature on black gun ownership, Toure told The Huffington Post why gun ownership and education has become so important to him.

“Guys in my neighborhood would get drunk and shoot their guns into the air on New Year’s Eve,” Toure recounted. “Bullets come down though, number one. Number two, you’re wasting ammo. And number three, that’s just not responsible. I had uncles who were in Desert Storm, I got uncles who were in Vietnam. And seeing their understanding of firearms and how they carried themselves, I immediately had what to do and what not to do.”

Toure explained what his group is doing to spread more education about gun safety and laws.

“We give classes free to all on firearm safety, on knowing the law, on how to apply state laws and for different permits, how to get a license to carry in your particular town, who are some trainers that you can work with,” he said. “We work with trainers locally for whatever city, lawyers that know firearm laws, the Sanskrit, the basics, conflict resolution, de-escalation tactics. We give lessons on basics, so in essence it’s a class on the Second Amendment, on human rights, on civics, firearm safety and the cultural differences between communities.”

He went on to address the historical significance of the Second Amendment and his perspective as a black gun owner.

“America would not have even been created without firearms,” Toure emphasized. “Some people say it’s a contradiction for me as an African-American man to have a position: ‘When they wrote the Second Amendment, they didn’t mean it for you.’ I don’t give a f**k who they meant it for. It’s mine now.”

John McNamara, senior director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that sponsors SHOT Show, told the Washington Examiner Friday that “the era of cultural divide when it comes to firearms ownership should be a thing of the past, and thanks to the work of Maj Toure and Black Guns Matter, we’re a lot closer to that being a realization.”

“He’s putting his money where his mouth is through this sponsorship, but his real impact will be in the ‘Black Guns Matter: Engaging Urban Communities in the 2nd Amendment Fight’ Retailer Seminar he’ll be conducting,” he said.

SHOT Show will kick off January 23rd at the Sands Expo Center in Las Vegas.

Pro-life Pregnancy Center Files HHS Complaint Over Illinois Law that Requires Them to Promote Abortion

with one comment

By Lauretta Brown
Townhall
January 5, 2018

The Thomas More Society filed a complaint Thursday with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) against the state of Illinois over a new law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to discuss the benefits of abortion and sterilization procedures. The law also requires the centers, if asked, to refer patients to abortion providers despite the centers’ opposition to these procedures.

The Thomas More Society is representing Dr. Jim Gallant and Hope Life Center, a pro-life pregnancy center in Sterling, Illinois.

In the complaint, the groups argue that the new requirements violate existing federal law including the Hyde-Weldon Amendment which forbids state and local governments from discriminating against healthcare providers based on their refusal to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for” abortions.

They argue that the law also specifically targets pro-life healthcare providers and infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

Thomas Olp, Vice President and Senior Counsel for the Thomas More Society, said that federal and state courts have issued injunctions blocking the law while litigation is pending.

He explained the group’s purpose in filing a complaint to HHS.

“We believe that P.A. 99-690 violates several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of physicians and other healthcare providers,” he said. “But some courts have held that only the federal government, not individual citizens, can enforce these laws. Our administrative action is designed to trigger enforcement action by the federal government. We are hopeful the Trump administration will act on the pro-active pro-life principles it has articulated since the President took office.”

The complaint also calls on HHS to “issue interpretive guidelines making it clear that the cited federal laws reach, and prohibit, any state law which, like P.A. 99-690, targets and punishes religious and conscience-based opposition to the practice of abortion. The cited federal laws were enacted precisely to protect conscience-based refusals to participate in abortion, and should be interpreted so as to be effective in prohibiting state laws like P.A. 99-690, which seek to force conscience objectors to participate in and promote abortion against their will.”

“Without this office’s interpretive guidance some states will continue to interpret these laws in ways contrary to their manifest purpose, and will continue to enact laws punishing conscience-based refusals to participate in abortion, as did Illinois through enactment of P.A. 99-690,” the complaint continues. “Such state actions flouting the federal laws cited should not be countenanced. This office’s regulatory guidance would facilitate that desired outcome.”

The Illinois law is similar to a California law, which the Supreme Court will examine this year, that requires pregnancy centers, despite conscience objections, to disseminate a message to their clients promoting free and low cost contraception and abortion services.

NY County Executive Bans Gun Sales On County Property

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

The idea of a New York politician who hates guns is is only slightly more shocking than finding out about a fish that prefers water to dry land. It’s just not terribly surprising.

For one recently elected official, however, he wasted no times trying to establish his bonafides.

Democrat George Latimer took office Monday as Westchester County Executive and among the first order of business was to bounce future gun shows.

Latimer in November defeated two-term Republican incumbent Robert Astorino for the spot as head of the executive branch of the million-resident county in the Hudson Valley and his First Year Plan includes prohibiting gun shows from the County Center. The new county head said he felt having gun shows on government property did not reflect the community and signed an executive order this week temporarily banning future events.

“While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not believe that there is any proper role for government in promoting guns and gun paraphernalia,” said Latimer. “Additionally, the Westchester Gun Show has brought with it horrendous problems, including the availability of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia.”

According to local media, the last show held at the Center in early 2017 drew about 7,500 over two-days and a spokesman for then-county boss Astorino said the event was “well-run and well-attended.” The Democrat-heavy county legislature had previously voted 9-8 to ban further gun shows, a move Astorino vetoed, saying there was no basis for a restriction.

I do so love how he claims to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Here’s a pro tip for you. If you start off a sentence with, “While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” then you’re probably about to do something that shows that you aren’t.

While we can agree to disagree over whether a government should promote guns in any way, renting a space to someone doesn’t constitute “promotion” in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, I suspect Latimer is likely to find his county being sued rather quickly. Absent a problem stemming from gun shows, there’s no basis to ban them from county-owned property except personal politics.

Even the argument surrounding the presence of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia falls flat for one simple reason, these items are typically being marketed for historical reasons, not racial ones. Like it or not, both of these entities existed and there are people who are fascinated with the material culture of both armies for whatever reason. Since a Venn diagram of military history buffs and gun buffs would show a massive overlap, it’s not hard to understand why these items are sold there, especially since there are so few places that will sell either these days.

But it seems that Latimer, despite his claims of supporting the Second Amendment, is really just virtue signaling like so many of his fellow Democrats. From here, it looks like he wants all the other Democrats to know that he’s doing his part to fight gun owners.

If he wants to claim to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, then he needs to act like one.

Abbas orders staff to sever ties with US over Trump Jerusalem declaration

with one comment

By Christine Douglass-Williams
Jihad Watch
December 27, 2017

he Palestinian Authority’s rift with the U.S. is growing deeper, according to Israeli media outlets. PA President Mahmoud Abbas president has come to see U.S. President Donald Trump as “a lost cause,” according to the Tims of Israel.

Abbas is unglued and will not be comforted. Why? because America exercised its right to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in keeping with Jewish history of its land. This naturally does not bode well for Palestinian interests, as their primary goal is to obliterate the Jewish state. The world still has not come to grips with the fact that appeasement of jihadists just does not work. The more they are appeased, the more empowered and emboldened they become.

According to a report aired by Channel 2 news, Abbas was “not only closing the door, but throwing away the key” on the chance of any future Palestinian-American relations.

Now the “White House is reportedly looking for a Palestinian liaison other than Abbas.” Congratulations to the White House in attempting to maintain its honor in getting along, but its dream is rather unlikely, unless the PA changes its charter to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

“Reports: PA President Mahmoud Abbas Instructs Staff to Sever Ties With U.S.”, Breitbart, December 25, 2017:

The Palestinian Authority’s rift with the U.S. is growing deeper, according to Israeli media outlets.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas president has come to see U.S. President Donald Trump as “a lost cause,” according to the Tims of Israel.

The PA leader reportedly instructed his staff to sever all ties with US diplomatic officials at every level, including relations between the Palestinians and American diplomats posted at the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem.

The White House is reportedly looking for a Palestinian liaison other than Abbas.

Last week, the Palestinians announced they would not meet with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who was scheduled to arrive in the region. Pence visited U.S. soldiers posted in Afghanistan instead.

According to a report aired by Channel 2 news, Abbas was “not only closing the door, but throwing away the key” on the chance of any future Palestinian-American relations.

A White House official who was interviewed by the Times of Israel said in response to the Channel 2 report: “Apparently, the outlet that has reported this hasn’t been paying attention over the past several months. As we have said over and over again, we will not impose a peace deal. That is not news. We anticipated a cooling off period and remain as committed to peace as ever and are working hard on our plan, which we will present when the time is right.”

The Palestinians, according to Channel 2, have no plans to lift their boycott of the U.S.

Planned Parenthood Closes Abortion Clinic Operating for 18 Years After It Loses Taxpayer Funding

with one comment

By Steve Ertelt
LifeNews.com
December 27, 2017

LifeNews can report excellent news today from the state of Iowa. There, a Planned Parenthood abortion business that had been killing unborn children for 18 years is closing down. The abortion company blamed the Iowa state legislature for revoking its taxpayer funding as the reason why.

“After nearly two decades [of doing abortions] in the Quad Cities, on Friday, December 29, 2017, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPHeartland) will officially close their Bettendorf location, a move directly resulting from defunding by extreme Iowa lawmakers,” the abortion giant grumbled in its press statement.

Earlier this year, PPHeartland announced the Quad Cities health center, located at 2751 Tech Drive, would stop dispensing contraception after June 30th but would continue profiting from abortions until the sale of its building. Now the abortion center will close.

“Gov. Kim Reynolds and anti-woman lawmakers forced us to make some extremely difficult changes this year in order to continue providing care for as many patients as possible. It is as devastating today as it was last spring to announce that we are no longer able to serve our patients in Bettendorf,” said Suzanna de Baca, PPHeartland president/CEO.

Planned Parenthood is apparently sore that Reynolds supports defunding the abortion business. She doesn’t want Iowa linked to a company that aborts baby girls. Because she hates women. Or something.

The Planned Parenthood abortion affiliate in Iowa received about $2.7 million in tax dollars per year from the grant and the state. Instead the money is going to places that don’t do abortions. Iowa will now spend an equal amount on family planning services by tapping a separate federal grant. This money will go to organizations that don’t perform abortions.

While Planned Parenthood no longer would receive tax dollars, community health care facilities would. These clinics are far more numerous than Planned Parenthoods, and they offer comprehensive health services that the abortion chain does not.

In 2015, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Charlotte Lozier Institute reported there are 13,540 medical clinics providing whole-woman healthcare in the United States versus 665 Planned Parenthood facilities, which offer only limited services including abortion.

As LifeNews previously reported, a 2015 public opinion poll conducted in Iowa found that the majority of the state’s residents support de-funding Planned Parenthood and sending government funding to legitimate health care clinics instead. The survey, commissioned by the pro-life legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, found that 69 percent of Iowans agree that taxpayers should not subsidize groups like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions.

%d bloggers like this: