Posts Tagged ‘Property Rights’
That the nervous system develops sooner than thought could have implications for whether babies feel pain in the early weeks.
Although there’s no logical reason why a human lack of capacity to feel pain justifies ending the life of an unborn baby, it’s a common argument for why abortion is acceptable in the early stages of pregnancy. However, the prevailing wisdom that babies don’t feel pain in the first trimester may have to be re-examined, as Live Action reports.
A study published in the Journal Cell on 23 March 2017 reveals that the nervous system of embryos and foetuses may be greatly more developed than was previously believed. Entitled “Tridimensional Visualization and Analysis of Early Human Development” the study shows that unborn babies in the first trimester have “adult-like” patterns of nerves. Researchers “combined whole-mount immunostaining, 3DISCO clearing, and light-sheet imaging to start building a 3D cellular map” and found that “the adult-like pattern of skin innervation is established before the end of the first trimester, showing important intra- and inter-individual variations in nerve branches.”
It’s too early to conclude that the system of nerves observed in embryos and fetuses would allow the infant in development to feel pain. However, this new research shows that the nervous system develops much sooner than had previously been thought, which could point to pain sensitivity.
What evidence is there for foetal pain?
For now, it’s almost conclusively provable that preborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation, although they respond to touch as early as eight weeks. There is also increasing evidence that unborn babies can feel pain much earlier than 20 weeks — possibly as early as five weeks. Some evidence exists to show that foetal pain may be even worse in the first trimester, due to the uneven maturation of foetal neurophysiology.
By Elliot Friedland
The Clarion Project
April 20, 2017
Who is doing the ground work in the struggle against Islamist extremism? A lot of the people tackling radical Islam don’t get as much press time as the jihadists they oppose. We want to introduce you to five Americans who are making a difference.
Anila Ali is the founder of the American Muslim Women’s Empowerment Council, which works on the ground with law enforcement and interfaith leaders to counter radicalization. The goal is to build capacity in the Muslim community so they can be the first line of defense against radicalization.
She also promotes community engagement and supports South-Asian peace through the arts through another group she founded, the Irvine Pakistani Parents Association (IPPA).
Other organizations she is involved with include the Council of Pakistan-American Affairs (COPAA), the International Leadership Foundation and Olive Tree Initiative (OTI), all of which promote active engagement of the Pakistani community in American life and dialogue between cultures.
For her work she received the Volunteer Service Award from President Obama in 2011.
Read our interview with Anila about her work here.
Mohamed Amin Ahmed
Mohamed Amin Ahmed is a Somali-American who runs a gas station in the Twin Cities. When he grew sick of the repeated cases of radicalization in his community in Minneapolis, he decided to do something about it. So he founded the ‘Average Mohamed’ organization to counter the extremist message through short animated videos.
“The extremists are having their conversation with our youth,” he told Clarion Project in an interview last year. “No parent talks to their kids about extremism because no parent believes their child can become one. Average Mohamed is about bridging that gap, getting that conversation by guiding it.”
The videos focus on issues like being comfortable with multiple identities and highlights peaceful messages within the Islamic tradition.
His organization is also engaged in direct community outreach, visiting schools, mosques and madrassas, as well as events like the Somali Independence Festival.
Check out his website to see his work.
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
Stephen Schwartz is an Islamic scholar and Sufi Muslim who has dedicated his career to exposing radical Islam. He is the Executive Director of the Washington based Center for Islamic Pluralism, which puts forward a moderate and tolerant approach to Islam as well as highlighting the activities of extremists.
He has a special section on his website entitled “WahhabiWatch” where he critiques the spread of the austere Saudi-backed form of Islam known as Wahhabism and which, when implemented in the political sphere, results in human rights abuses.
Check out his website here.
Muhammad Fraser-Rahim has over a decade of experience working for the U.S. government in roles countering extremism, including for the Department of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center, on highly sensitive counter-terrorism matters.
He has also worked throughout the Middle East and North Africa, most recently in the Horn of Africa for the U.S. Institute for Peace as an expert on countering violent extremism and as senior program officer.
He is a PhD candidate specializing in Islamic Thought, Spirituality and Modernity at Howard University.
Now he has joined the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation to head up their operations in North America.
Quilliam produces high-quality research aimed at combating the extremist narrative as well as conducting outreach to the Muslim community and speaking out against extremism in the media.
“As a descendant of the indigenous African American Muslim community, whose families made great sacrifices in America, our story is one built on resilience, the fostering of trust and of dialogue across multiple viewpoints,” he said on accepting the role which he started at the beginning of April. I look forward to furthering this time honored tradition, rooted in my historical past and envisioning it further in the future with Quilliam.”
Sarah Haider is the co-founder of and director of development for the Ex-Muslims of North America.
The group “advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam.”
It provides a support network for those who choose to leave the faith and helps the fight against the discrimination they may face from family members and former friends who are angry at their decision.
“We started with the goal to build communities for ex-Muslims and that remains one of our main goals” she told Areo Magazine in a December 2016 interview. “As you may know, it’s difficult for apostates to be open about their lack of belief. They face a lot of social stigma from friends and families and from their broader communities. Many of them are immigrants themselves so it’s difficult for them to fit into the broader American culture.
“When you leave religion there is a loss of both your religion and to some extent your cultural identity. We wanted to mitigate this sense of loss, so we decided to have in-person meetings to foster community. We screen people before they come in to protect privacy and provide anonymity. The goal is to provide them with a support network where they can feel comfortable being themselves. Since then, more people are coming out and being open about their apostasy. Recently, we’ve embarked on a project to make videos about people who want to come out as open apostates and share their experiences. We want to show the wide variety of ex-Muslims and their experiences.”
Her work however does not aim to take on Islam in general, and Ex-Muslims of North America states unequicovally “We do not wish to promote hatred of all Muslims. We ourselves were Muslim. Many of our families and friends are Muslim. We understand that Muslims come in all varieties and we do not and will not partake in erasing the diversity within the world’s Muslims.”
This grassroots work is largely unpublicized but has made an invaluable difference to the lives of many ex-Muslims.
Check out their magazine, The Ex-Muslim, the only one of its kind.
By Micaiah Bilger
April 21, 2017
Missouri has one abortion clinic, but that is about to change.
After Planned Parenthood won an initial victory against a Missouri law this week, the abortion chain announced plans to open four abortion clinics in the state.
A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Great Plains told reporters that they plan to begin doing abortions at their Kansas City, Columbia, Springfield and Joplin locations in the near future.
A number abortion facilities stopped doing abortions in Missouri in the past 10 years, because they could not or would not meet state health and safety regulations. The Planned Parenthood abortion chain filed a lawsuit challenging the regulations in November.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Howard F. Sachs granted Planned Parenthood’s request to block the regulations, arguing that they hurt women’s access to abortion. The laws require abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges for patient emergency situations, and abortion facilities to meet standards similar to other ambulatory surgical facilities.
The ruling means Planned Parenthood can expand its abortion practices again in Missouri.
Jesse Lawder, a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood affiliate in St. Louis, said they plan to provide abortion drugs at their Springfield and Joplin locations. KTTS Radio reports this will be the first time the Springfield Planned Parenthood offers abortions.
“We have some work yet to do, but we’d like to make these services available to members of the community as soon as possible,” Lawder told the Joplin Globe.
It appears that the Columbia and Kansas City Planned Parenthoods will provide abortion drugs again, too; however, it is not clear if they also will do surgical abortions.
Here’s more from KY3 News:
[Lawder] said a doctor has been picked for the clinics in southwest Missouri but some final steps remain. Lawder says Planned Parenthood would not be able to offer abortions without the injunction from Sachs.
Missouri Right to Life Legislative Liaison Susan Klein called the judge’s ruling “egregious.”
“Judge Sachs is giving a dangerous stamp of approval to Planned Parenthood’s history of having rusty equipment, dirty tables, expired drugs and untrained personnel offering services,” Klein said. “These infractions are in public inspection reports of the Planned Parenthood in St Louis. This same Planned Parenthood has had at least 69 emergency ambulance calls since 2009.”
The state regulations have helped to saved thousands of unborn babies’ lives since they passed in 2005. Many abortion facilities closed, dropping from seven in 2005 to two in 2014, because they could not or would not comply with the safety regulations. Abortion numbers also dropped steadily after the laws went into effect.
The Planned Parenthood in St. Louis currently is the only abortion facility in the state. It has developed a terrible reputation, sending at least 69 women to the hospital in ambulances since 2009, according to Operation Rescue. State inspection reports between 2009 and 2016 also showed more than 200 health and safety violations that endangered women’s health.
The Planned Parenthood in Columbia had to stop doing abortions in 2015 after its abortionist lost admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens said they will appeal the judge’s ruling.
“Missouri is a pro-life state,” Greitens said on Twitter. “We will beat this on appeal and keep fighting every day to protect the innocent unborn.”
State Attorney General Josh Hawley said Sachs’ decision was wrong, and the state will continue fighting to protect women’s health and safety.
“Today a federal court struck down large portions of Missouri law that protect the health and safety of women who seek to obtain an abortion,” Hawley said Wednesday. “Missouri has an obligation to do everything possible to ensure the health and safety of women undergoing medical procedures in state licensed medical facilities.”
Klein said pro-lifers in the state will continue to work with lawmakers to protect people who will be harmed by the judge’s ruling.
By Cortney O’Brien
April 20, 2017
The Democratic National Committee unity tour continues to look like a struggle bus. DNC Chair Tom Perez was booed during their stop in Maine, immediately putting a wrench in that whole “unity” thing. They booed Perez again once Bernie Sanders came onstage, and the Vermont senator did not bother to defend him.
Now, pro-abortion groups like NARAL are decrying the next stops on the campaign.
The DNC is expected to hold a rally Thursday night in Nebraska with Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Yet, after a little digging, NARAL and liberal media outlets discovered that eight years ago Mello voted for legislation in the Nebraska State Senate that required women seeking abortions to first undergo an ultrasound. NARAL Pro-Choice President Ilyse Hogue demanded that the DNC cancel the event because it would be seen as a “throwback tour” for women.
“The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women – one of the most critical constituencies for the party – of our basic rights and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid. Today’s action make this so-called ‘fight back tour’ look more like a throw back tour for women and our rights.”
How extreme are these groups that they immediately reject a candidate who dares to vote for a bill that would hint toward life in the womb?
But that’s a whole other issue. For now, it’s been fun following this train wreck of a unity tour.
By Randall O’Bannon, PhD
April 17, 2017
This is a continuation of part 1.
Planned Parenthood does receive government money – a LOT of government money. In its most recent annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) said it received $553.7 million – that’s over half a billion dollars – in “government health services grants & reimbursements” in fiscal year ending 6/30/15. That represents 43% of the group’s $1.3 billion revenues.
It will be a big chunk to make up – that’s why Planned Parenthood is fighting so hard to hold onto it. But it is a serious mistake to think this money is the reason these clinics stay open or close.
It may not be widely known, but Planned Parenthood affiliated clinics have already been closing, even with government revenues on the increase. In its last five annual reports (covering fiscal year ending 6/30/10 to 6/30/15), Planned Parenthood gained an additional $66.3 million in “government health services grants & reimbursements” but the number of “health centers” decreased from 840 to 661.
As noted in Part One, the number of abortions stayed steady at PPFA while other services such “cancer screenings” tumbled during that same five-year time frame.
Indeed, despite the overall drop in clinics and major services other than abortion, the number of abortion performing clinics rose during that time (see NRL News Today, 9/27/16 ).
Planned Parenthood is shutting down clinics, but not for lack of government money. Ostensibly a “non-profit,” Planned Parenthood is making business decisions. It is shutting down clinics that aren’t generating the desired level of revenues, don’t have the customers, cost too much to operate, or aren’t fulfilling the group’s policy goals.
It may well be the case that reductions or eliminations of government funds give Planned Parenthood reason to do more pruning. But it isn’t as if the extra $66.3 million pulled in from “government health services grants & reimbursements” in its past six annual reports was used by Planned Parenthood to help build or maintain non-abortion performing centers in rural areas.
No, what Planned Parenthood affiliates all over the country have been doing the last ten years is closing a lot of their old, non-abortion clinics and building giant new high volume central abortion mega-clinic hubs in major metropolitan areas, sometimes with government grants, as we have documented many times at National Right to Life News Today.
That business model doesn’t provide a whole lot of “cancer screenings” or even “family planning services” for women in remote rural areas, but it does help Planned Parenthood build and maintain its lucrative abortion empire.
It’s where Planned Parenthood is going, with or without government help.
MYTH #4: Poor women and minorities will lose basic healthcare if Planned Parenthood is defunded.
Though it adamantly denies that it targets the poor or minorities with its abortion marketing, Planned Parenthood is anxious to let people know that “nearly half” of its patients are “people of color” and “many…live in rural areas.” Also supposedly at risk [if government funds are cut] are “people with low incomes.” (See “The impact of Defunding Planned Parenthood,” “Groups That Would Be Disproportionately Hurt by ‘Defunding’ Planned Parenthood,” at http://www.istandwithpp.org, accessed 3/29/17).
When Planned Parenthood makes broad statements about such patients having “nowhere else to turn for healthcare,” a serious caveat is in order. Planned Parenthood generally doesn’t offer basic health care, just some low level gynecological care. At your standard Planned Parenthood clinic, you won’t get immunizations for your kids, help for your achy joints or sore throat, or treatment for your diabetes, asthma, or heart disease.
Such services are offered at community health centers, which are greater in number and reach than Planned Parenthood clinics and offer these and other many other services at low or no cost. The difference is that these federally funded community health centers do not offer abortion.
There are some 9,800 sites in the federally health center program, compared to about 650-665 Planned Parenthood locations. Federally qualified health centers provide all these services that Planned Parenthood does – birth control, STD testing and treatment, cancer screenings, etc. – but not the abortions. We should also note that one can get prenatal care at a federally qualified health centers (something Planned Parenthood rarely offers), as well as mammograms, which Planned Parenthood does not provide at all.
Planned Parenthood wants to argue that these federally qualified health centers and other rural health clinics (estimated to be around 4,100 in number) cannot or will not absorb its family planning clients, but this is not a given. If federally qualified health centers had access to the half a billion dollars that Planned Parenthood gets from the government each year, it could certainly provide such services to many if not most of Planned Parenthood’s current patients.
Though, unlike federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics are not required to offer family planning services or serve lower income patients, access to that revenue stream could also incentivize some of those to pick up patients in any areas not covered by federally qualified health centers.
As noted above, it is not the federal government but Planned Parenthood itself which is closing many of its clinics in rural areas, even with government funding showing an increase. If Planned Parenthood was really committed to keeping those clinics open, though, to providing birth control and cancer screenings and STD treatments to poor and minority clients, and if federal funding really was the key, it could do so by simply dropping abortion from its offerings.
That is something Planned Parenthood simply refuses to do. It has decided, for whatever reason, that it would rather continue to perform abortions, taking lives, than provide poor or minority women in rural areas those lifesaving “cancer screenings” they say are so critical.
By Katie Pavlich
April 19, 2017
Detroit emergency room Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was arrested and charged last week for allegedly conducting female genital mutilation [FGM] on girls as young as six-years-old.
As previously reported, the details are horrifying.
According to the criminal complaint, Nagarwala performed the illegal and severe procedure in a “medical clinic” outside of the hospital, but did not receive payment and did not bill patients. The FBI classified her as a member of a specific religious community. Girls from neighboring Minnesota, at least one who was seven-years-old, were brought by their parents to Nagarwala for the procedure. They were also interviewed by the FBI and could face charges.
The minors were told they were being taken on a “girls trip.” Once they arrived at the hotel, they were told they needed to go the doctor for a “stomach ache” and FGM was performed to “get the germs out.”
During her court hearing this week, Nagarwala defended the practice as a “religious removal” and denied it was mutilation at all. From Fox 2:
Inside a federal courtroom, 44-year-old Dr. Jumana Nargarwala, a mother of four, stood before a judge handcuffed, dressed in an orange jumpsuit and a long hijab draped down her arms and shoulders, appearing emotionless as the prosecution and defense divulged gruesome details of what allegedly went on in her Livonia clinic after hours.
The defense argued, claiming no female genital mutilation took place, instead, a religious removal of a mucus membrane from the genitals which was wrapped up and given to the parents to bury — a practice they say is performed by a small sect of Indian-based Islam called Dawoodi Bohra.
Their mosque is located in Farmington Hills.
In the criminal complaint, the FBI classified the doctor as a member of a specific religious community. They did not name or mention Islam. For more detail on how the World Health Organization defines FGM, please read the affidavit.
Nagarwala is being held without bond due to being a flight risk. She is facing life in prison if convicted. This is the first federal FGM case in American history.
NYC censored anti-terror handbook to appease Muslims, but it accurately predicted radicalization patterns
By Robert Spencer
April 16, 2017
This is an illustration of the truth about what I said last Thursday at Truman State University: that charges of “Islamophobia” and “racism” are used to hinder legitimate counterterror efforts, thus paving the way for more jihad terror attacks.
“The purge of a report on radical Islam has put NYC at risk,” by Paul Sperry, New York Post, April 15, 2017:
The NYPD has had a stellar track record of protecting the city from another 9/11, foiling more than 20 planned terrorist attacks since 2001. But some worry the department is losing its terror-fighting edge as it tries to please Muslim grievance groups.
Last year, for instance, it censored an anti-terror handbook to appease offended Muslims, even though it has accurately predicted radicalization patterns in recent “homegrown” terror cases. Rank-and-file NYPD officers, detectives and even intelligence and counterterrorism units are officially barred now from referring to the handbook or the scientific study on which it was based.
Former law-enforcement officials fear its removal as a training tool may be hurting efforts to prevent terrorist activity, such as the vehicle-ramming attacks plaguing European cities.
“The report was extremely accurate on how the radicalization process works and what indicators to look for,” said Patrick Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the New York state prisons’ criminal-intelligence division, who also worked with the NYPD’s intelligence division for several years.
Mayor de Blasio agreed in January 2016 to purge the remarkably prescient police training guide “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” to help settle a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Muslim groups who claimed the NYPD’s anti-terror training discriminated against Muslims.
Written 10 years ago, the seminal NYPD report detailing the religious steps homegrown terrorists take toward radicalization is now more relevant than ever, with recent terror suspects closely following those steps. But in 2007, the same year the study was released, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized a protest against it, complaining it “casts suspicion on all US Muslims.” Even though federal law enforcement has long-shunned CAIR as a suspected terrorist front organization, “groups like CAIR were insistent on having it removed, and de Blasio caved into them,” Dunleavy said.
Under the city’s unusual settlement agreement, the NYPD as well as New York state agencies were forced to remove its 90-page anti-terror study — described by plaintiffs as “deeply flawed” and “inflammatory” — from databases and no longer rely on it “to open or extend investigations” into terrorist activities. Also, police must now commit to “mitigating the potential impact” of any counterterrorism investigation on the Muslim community.
The deal has had a chilling effect on other city police forces’ ability to use fact-based, trend analysis to develop terrorism cases, experts say. They warn that purging such studies deprives local law enforcement of the ability to understand how ISIS and other jihadists recruit, organize and operate — which is critical to disrupting terrorism plots.
“The FBI has its hands full with over 1,000 open cases on ISIS terrorist suspects already in the US,” former FBI Agent John Guandolo said, “and it needs the help of well-trained eyes and ears on the ground at the local and state level.”
“The bad guys know if police don’t know this stuff at the ground level, they win,” added Guandolo, who trains sheriffs departments across the country to ID local jihadi networks through his consulting firm, Understanding the Threat LLC.
The authors of the report, led by Mitch Silber, former NYPD director of intelligence analysis, examined hundreds of “homegrown” terrorism cases and found that suspects followed the same “radicalization” path. Key indicators include: alienating themselves from their former lives and friends; giving up cigarettes, drinking and partying; wearing traditional Islamic clothing; growing a beard; becoming obsessed with Mideast politics and jihad; and regularly attending a hardline mosque. In other words, the more they immersed themselves in their faith, the more radical they grew.
“You can take all the terrorist cases since that report and compare the information on the subject and the case and see stark similarities to what Mitch laid out,” Dunleavy noted.
The terrorists who carried out recent attacks in Boston; Fort Hood, Texas; Little Rock, Ark.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Bernardino, Fla.; Orlando; Philadelphia and at Ohio State University, among others, followed a similar pattern of radicalization. In each case, the Muslim attacker was influenced through “incubators of extremism” within the Muslim community, including Islamic student associations, schools, bookstores and mosques. Jihadi websites also played a role, but what unifies them all is Islamic doctrine. As the NYPD study found, “The ultimate objective for any attack is always the same — to punish the West, overthrow the democratic order, re-establish the caliphate, and institute Sharia,” or Islamic law.
“The radicalizer is Sharia, not the Internet,” said Philip Haney, a former Homeland Security counterterrorism analyst. Haney says the feds are plagued by their own PC censorship. Bowing to pressure from CAIR and other Muslim groups, Homeland Security and the Justice Department have purged anti-terrorism training materials and fired instructors deemed offensive to Muslims. CAIR-launched protests also helped convince the FBI to recently suspend an Internet program aimed at preventing the radicalization of Muslim youth.
“If we fail to correct this situation, it is inevitable that more attacks will occur,” warned Haney, author of “See Something, Say Nothing.”…
By Jenn Jacques
April 17, 2017
A video posted by Viral Hog is, well – going viral, and so are the responses to the unique family fun featured in it.
“I was practicing drawing from holster and dry fire drills and she decided to join in,” the dad said of the video.
As he was practicing in their family home, this hands-on daddy thought taking a video of the adorable (and educational) bonding experience he and his daughter were enjoying would be cute. And it really is…
Melody Lauer of Ballistic Radio and director of training for Citizens Defense Research said she hopes the video will begin a conversation on why guns should be introduced to children at a young age and kids need to be properly educated.
“To people who don’t understand firearms, seeing a video of a child seemingly ‘playing’ with a gun can be alarming, and if done negligently or carelessly, it can be devastating,” Lauer said. “What they are not seeing in this video, however, is the care with which the father is going through to positively educate that child on the tenets of safe firearms handling. Her gun is a inert training aid. He instructs her on where she should and should not point it. He also models this good behavior for her by being consistent in his own handling in the video.”
Lauer, who teaches a Contextual Handgun Course for Armed Parents/Guardians, went on to say, “Studies have shown us that early education and positive exposure to firearms reduces the risk of firearms-related accidents in children. If this family is going to have a gun in their home—as clearly they do—this father is doing is the most responsible thing for his child by educating her and modeling positive gun handling for her.”
But leave it to the internet to take a touching moment and lose their minds over it:
Ben Wiskin Give the kid 18 years and he’ll be murdering black folks while wearing a badge and carrying handcuffs
Philip Malone Who the fuck does this, oh wait americans.. no wonder you have gun massacres in elementary
Gareth Hughes Another dickless ammosexual who feels the need to introduce an infant A FUCKING INFANT to weapons…..
Linda Bale Dad would be in so much trouble if this was mine.
Russell Deller Exhibiting complete stupidity. When we were kids we played cowboys and soldiers and watched cowboys and soldiers in movies and on tv along with detective shows never realizing how it would have an effect on human behavior in the future. Play serves good purposes but safe play should consider mental as well as physical side effects.
By David Lombardo
April 10, 2017
A recent article in Freedom Outpost looked at Arkansas State Senator Stephanie Flowers’ rant at her fellow legislators. The focus of her wrath was to gin up support for proposed Senate Bill 724. The bill seeks to exempt college sports stadiums, teaching hospitals, and day cares from having to allow guns inside their facilities. It follows on the coattails of the recently passed Act 562, which expanded the right of concealed carry holders, and would reduce some of those rights.
Addressing the legislature about the concept that being able to protect one’s family is a God given right, Flowers shouted, “Where I’m from, the God I serve does not tell me that I have a fundamental right to carry a gun.” From a theological perspective, Flowers has apparently missed a few bible study classes.
According to Luke 22:36, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” It isn’t the only reference to using lethal force for personal protection.
In Exodus 22:2-3, “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.” Fundamentally, according to scripture, when your life is being threatened, you have a moral right to react appropriately.
From a theological perspective, the issue isn’t that the word “gun” isn’t mentioned in the bible, the issue is the bible supports the concept that everyone is responsible for their own protection including the appropriate use of lethal force. Bearing a sword, given the technology of the time, was to be in possession of weaponry in common possession of the military of the day.
As tempting as it may be to turn to theological roots for the Second Amendment, the fact is the Second Amendment is a direct descendant of English Common Law. In her treatise, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition,” Joyce Lee Malcolm explains the English Bill of Rights adopted in 1689.
When William III of Orange, a protestant, invaded England in 1688 he overwhelmed James II, a Catholic, who was unable to mount an effective defense. It is important to understand that the religion of the monarch determined the religion of England. James II wisely withdrew which lead to Parliament negotiating with William, and his wife Mary, for the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. The subsequent accession, known as the Glorious Revolution, was predicated upon their acceptance of parliamentary rule.
Parliament drew up a Declaration of Rights which was signed by William and Mary on February 13, 1689 and cleared the way for them to be crowned as joint monarchs. It was that Bill of Rights our Founding Fathers used as a basis for our own Constitution.
The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 included freedom from royal interference with the law, freedom from taxation without agreement by Parliament, and freedom to have arms for defense among other stipulations. While there were significant religious overtones due to the country’s struggle to reduce the influence of Catholicism in favor of Protestantism, the Bill of Rights established the rights of individuals over the government and it is that right to bear arms for defense that was the basis for our own Constitution’s Second Amendment. However, the importance placed upon including the Second Amendment in the Constitution went far beyond simply adopting the Mother country’s existing laws.
Underscoring the inclusion of the Second Amendment was the very nature of the birth of the colonies. The colonists, in many cases, didn’t simply migrate, they fled to the colonies. The colonists, in a large part, consisted of British citizens who were antiauthoritarian having been through one traumatic upheaval after another. They arrived in the colonies with a healthy dose of distrust of any form of a strong, centralized government in general and specifically anyone who would rise to lead it.
Bernard Bailyn, a 20th century American historian, author and academic, wrote of the colonist’s deep-seated concern. “To say simply that this tradition of opposition thought was quickly transmitted to America and widely appreciated there is to understate the fact. Opposition thought, in the form it acquired at the turn of the seventeenth century and in the early eighteenth century, was devoured by the colonists. . . . There seems never to have been a time after the Hanoverian succession when these writings were not central to American political expression or absent from polemical politics.”
While the governor did sign the bill, given the course of history that gave birth to the United States of America, there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers fully intended for all citizens to not simply have the right to keep and bear arms to hold government accountable but the moral obligation to do so. Equally important, they did so without stipulation to where citizens may bear arms. Senator Flowers is not only devoid of an understanding of the bible but also of the history of the country whose constitution she has sworn to uphold.
By Steven Ertelt
April 13, 2017
President Donald Trump signed into law today a bill to overturn a rule pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place preventing states from defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion business. The rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prevented states from blocking Title X funding to abortion companies like Planned Parenthood.
After the House first passed the measure, the Senate voted 50-50 for the bill, with a couple of liberal pro-abortion Republicans joining Democrats in supporting the abortion giant and Republicans voting pro-life. The tie vote made it so pro-life Vice-President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to approve the measure.
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser will be at the bill signing and talked with LifeNews.com about it.
“This week the pro-life movement had two huge victories: first, the swearing-in of Justice Gorsuch and now, President Trump will undo former President Obama’s parting gift to the abortion industry. The resolution signed today simply ensures that states are not forced to fund an abortion business with taxpayer dollars. Rather, states have the option to spend Title X money on comprehensive health care clinics that better serve women and girls,” she said.
“We thank President Trump, Vice President Pence, who cast the tie breaking vote last month, as well as the women who led this effort in Congress, Rep. Diane Black and Sen. Joni Ernst. Prioritizing funding away from Planned Parenthood to comprehensive health care alternatives is a winning issue. We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life health care reform after the spring recess,” she added.
In recent years, several states receiving Title X family planning grants have opted to direct those funds to county health departments, community health centers, or other types of providers, in preference to organizations engaged in objectionable activities, such as Planned Parenthood, a mega-marketer of abortion that has also been involved in selling aborted baby parts.
H.J. Res. 43, once Trump signs it, would mean that states, if they chose, could continue to attempt to redirect Title X funds away from objectionable organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) were behind the bills to overturn the rule.
“State legislatures around the country have spoken out about their preference for prioritizing more comprehensive primary and preventative care providers for the receipt of Title X funding,” the duo wrote in a joint op-ed for the Washington Examiner, “and their voice should be respected by bureaucrats in the federal government.”
“According to its 2014-2015 annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortion procedures in just one year. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the abortion industry in this country. Nor should they be forced to foot the bill for an organization like Planned Parenthood that has displayed such blatant disregard for human life.”
“With a pro-life president in the White House and pro-life majorities in the House and Senate, we will continue to work together this year to undo the damage done by the Obama administration,” the women write.
Leading pro-life groups like National Right to Life supported the bill. In its letter to House members, NRLC wrote: “Over one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at PPFA-affiliated facilities. Longstanding objections to the massive governmental funding of PPFA have been reinforced by widely publicized undercover videos, which illuminate the callous brutality that occurs daily in these abortion mills.”
Other groups also applauded the House.
“President Obama’s parting gift to the abortion industry was in keeping with his Administration’s actions over the last eight years. At every turn, then-President Obama thwarted efforts by state and local authorities – who were acting on the will of the people – to prioritize taxpayer funding away from Big Abortion,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Obama’s legacy of forcing Americans to finance the abortion industry is being steadily dismantled by our new pro-life President and the pro-life Congress. We look forward to swift passage of this resolution in the Senate so that it can receive President Trump’s signature.”
She told LifeNews: “Planned Parenthood which, according to their latest annual report, performed 323,999 abortions in a single year, does not need or deserve taxpayer dollars. We thank Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) for leading the effort to overturn this unpopular rule. Their leadership reflects the truth that women largely support stopping taxpayer funding of the abortion industry and redirecting funds to centers that offer real health care.”
Recently, two new videos showed former Planned Parenthood employees discussing how women were “treated like cattle” and “herded” through clinics. In last week’s video, a former manager admitted Planned Parenthood had “abortion quotas” that, if met, would result in pizza parties. Other videos have exposed Planned Parenthood’s claim of providing prenatal services and demonstrated that ultrasounds are used almost exclusively for abortion.
Here’s an example of how Obama’s rule has prevented states from revoking taxpayer funding for the abortion company Planned Parenthood.
Under current state law, the state of Tennessee doles out Title X funding provided by HHS to county health departments, who then determine appropriate sub-grantees. All 95 counties have identified community health centers and other providers aside from Planned Parenthood who meet all Title X eligibility criteria to receive this funding, effectively cutting off Planned Parenthood’s access to Title X funds in the state of Tennessee.
The rule from HHS cites other examples of states such as Florida and Texas enacting or attempting to enact similar measures. The rule undermines such state laws, explaining that it “precludes project recipients [states] from using criteria in their selection of subrecipients that are unrelated to the ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries in an effective manner.”
The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all t hirteen:
- In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
- In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
- In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
- In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
- In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
- In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
- In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
- In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
- The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
- The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
- Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.
- The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
- The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.
- The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.