An Obama judge just made a ruling that Nancy Pelosi will love


The biggest challenge for President Trump since his election has been Obama-era officials keeping him from doing his job.

These are officials who are remaining loyal to former President Obama, despite serving under Trump.

And an Obama judge just made a ruling that Nancy Pelosi will love.

Throughout the country, states are continuing to enact pro-life legislation.

But whenever one of these laws is passed, it doesn’t take long for an Obama-era judge to step in and overrule it.

That’s exactly what happened in Arkansas, where a District Court Judge blocked three pro-life laws in the state.

District Court Judge Kristine Baker of the Eastern District of Arkansas said the laws “cause ongoing and imminent irreparable harm” to patients, along with being “unconstitutional.”

The laws she blocked include one that forbids abortion from taking place more than 18 weeks after the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period.

Another forbids abortionists from committing an abortion if the woman seeking it has obtained a prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome.

And the third law was one that requires abortions to have OB/GYN certifications.

LifeSiteNews reports:

District Court Judge Kristine Baker of the Eastern District of Arkansas agreed Tuesday night to block three duly-enacted pro-life laws in Arkansas, intervening on the abortion industry’s behalf the day before they were to take effect.

One of the laws forbids abortions from taking place more than 18 weeks after the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period, except in cases of rape, incest, or physical medical emergency. Another forbids abortionists from committing an abortion if they determine that the woman seeking it has obtained a prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome. The third requires abortionists to have OB/GYN certifications.

Baker granted a temporary injunction against the laws on the claims they were medically unnecessary, would “cause ongoing and imminent irreparable harm” to patients, and “are unconstitutional,” CNN reports.

While these laws do not go as far as pro-life advocates want, they are a strong step forward in protecting unborn baby boys and girls.

But Obama-era judges continue to make it impossible to advance even the simplest pro-life proposal.

So while Democrats can’t get much done in Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, she is at least happy that Obama holdovers are making sure Democrats get some wins.

Do you consider yourself pro-life?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.


  1. Loading...
  2. Either these judges don’t believe in God, or they don’t believe in Hell. Either way, things will go hard for them someday, and it will not be pleasant.

  3. In her essay, “Life and Peace,” Juli Loesch wrote: “In a revealing article published in Seven Days, Michelle Magar suggests that the New Right’s relationship with Right to Life has been ‘more a marriage of convenience than true love.’

    “She suggests that the anti-abortion position adds ‘a certain moral luster’ to the New Right, which otherwise has a distinctly different set of priorities (threatening war for the possession of Persian Gulf oil, and so forth). Magar points out that, in a practical sense, the New Right’s concern for the unborn gives it access to the ‘grassroots anti-abortion network of the Catholic Church—a ready-made constituency which they had so far never been able to win.’”

    Public attitudes towards abortion were revealed in a March 1991 Gallup poll. 66 percent of those polled did not think financial hardships justify abortion. 68 percent did not think “abandonment by partner” is a valid reason to abort an unborn child.

    The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta reported that over two-thirds of all women seeking abortions in 1983 were not using any kind of birth control, while 40 percent of all abortions that year were performed on women who had already had at least one before. Nonetheless, 88 percent of Americans polled said they opposed abortion as a “repeated means of birth control.”

    91 percent of Americans polled said they opposed abortion as a means of sex selection (prenatal sexual discrimination), while 69 percent supported parental consent legislation and viability testing on fetuses after the fifth month of pregnancy. This is significant because only 58 percent of Americans were aware that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion during the entire nine months of pregnancy, and not just during the first trimester.

    Informing a new mother about human prenatal development and the alternatives to abortion was supported by 86 percent of those polled, while 52 percent of the women polled felt the right to life of the unborn child outweighs the mother’s freedom to kill.

    The American public is only familiar with the conservative Republican opposition to abortion. Columnist Tom Goff called the 1992 Republican National Convention “a gathering of loonies.” The intelligent, rational, secular, liberal opposition to abortion goes unreported by the popular news media.

    Columnist Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, a self-described “liberal Jewish atheist,” wrote an article in 1988 entitled, “A Liberal’s Journey to the Pro-Life Side.” In a 1992 article entitled, “Pro-Life Feminists: Celebrating Life’s Greatest Liberty,” Hentoff wrote that R.W. Apple, Jr., in the New York Times, had described then governor of Pennsylvania Robert Casey as “a conservative Democrat.”

    According to Hentoff, however, Casey made Pennsylvania one of the first states to mandate help for young, disabled children (with $45 million for the first year). He set up a model child-care program for state workers; he had been pushing for family leave legislation; and he had put together a program to assure health care to every uninsured Pennsylvania child up to the age of six.

    “This ‘conservative’ governor has been lauded by the National Women’s Caucus for his persistence in naming women cabinet appointees (40 percent) and in increasing the participation of women and minorities in state construction contracts from one percent to 15 percent. He is also a friend of labor (a phrase that used to be said more often with regard to Democratic politicians).

    “I asked Governor Casey how he felt being preserved in the New York Times Index as a conservative. Casey laughed. ‘Well, that’s the mind set of a good many people, in and out of the press. If you’re pro-life, you must be conservative.’

    “The press has been cautioned about its bent toward stereotyping pro-lifers,” noted Hentoff. “…many readers and viewers have a decidedly limited sense of the diversity of pro-lifers. Feminists For Life of America, for example, includes women who came out of the civil rights and anti-war movements and now work for what they call ‘a consistent ethic of life.’…(then Feminists For Life president) Rachel MacNair has been arrested at least 17 times—for protesting against nuclear plants and nuclear weapons…”

    In a September 15, 1992 article appearing in the Village Voice entitled, “The Excommunication of Robert Casey,” Hentoff observed that the Democratic Party had abandoned free speech by not allowing Casey to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. According to Casey:

    “The Democratic National Committee has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Abortion Rights Action League.”

    Casey said he would strongly support Lynn Yeakel who was then running against Republican Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Yeakel favors abortion but, Casey said, “we agree on all the other issues.” Casey stated further that he would not leave the Democratic Party. The anti-abortion Republicans, he insisted, “drop the children at birth and do nothing for them after that.”

    Unlike Republicans, pro-life liberals advocate real social support for pregnant women and mothers. In Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices, editor Gail Grenier Sweet calls for:

    easy access to contraception, sufficient maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, job-sharing and flex-time, aids to women who wish to stay home to raise young children, tax breaks and subsidies for women caring for elderly relatives at home, community based shelters for pregnant single women to learn parenting skills and finish their education, upgraded pension plans to alleviate the poverty faced by many elderly women, humane care of the handicapped and elderly in nursing homes, hospices for the terminally ill, medical care for infants born with handicaps, shelters for battered women, childcare programs, etc.

    Similarly, in the December 1993 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, in an article entitled “How Will we Revere Life?”, editor Rose Evans writes:

    “This editor has long been aware of the relative success of the Dutch support system for pregnant women, compared to that of the U.S. The Dutch abortion rate is a minute fraction of the American. I believe the rate for young women in their teens is about one-twentieth of the U.S. rate. And this is done not so much by restrictive laws (although there are some restrictions) as by real social support for pregnant women and mothers.

    “The situation for pregnant women in the U.S. who don’t have assured income, family support and medical insurance is abysmal and getting worse. Choice is a joke. Women don’t have money for decent food, decent housing, or decent medical care, nor adequate support after the child is born.”

    Some argue that abortion is a necessary evil to prevent the United States from becoming an overburdened “welfare state.” At present, however, there are over two million couples and one million single people wishing to adopt. Figures from Planned Parenthood show welfare costs of $13,900 for each birth. Compare this to the figure of $50,000 each American ends up paying in taxes as an adult. Moreover, the average time a family stays on welfare is only 27 months.

    Persons concerned about a return to “back-alley” abortions if abortion were made illegal again should first read Aborting America by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. 1983 data from the Bureau of Vital Statistics show one would have to go back to the pre-penicillin era to find more than 1,000 maternal deaths per year.

    During 1965 to 1966, the period right before states began to legalize abortion, the number of total deaths were down to 120 per year. In 1970, the figure was 128 per year. A Kinsey study in 1960 showed that 84 to 87 percent of all illegal abortions were performed by reputable physicians.

    Dr. Mary Calderone of Planned Parenthood once stated, “Ninety percent of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians.”

    The majority of pro-life activists also regard the mother seeking abortion as a victim and not a criminal. Looking back on over two hundred years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics concluded that women have never been prosecuted for abortion; only the abortionists. This is analogous to our current laws which arrest drug dealers and prostitutes rather than their clientele. If we continue to imperfectly enforce laws like these against what are arguably victimless crimes, why can’t we take steps towards protecting the unborn?

    One widespread argument against recognizing the humanity of the unborn, is that we must then oppose all forms of contraception, since this also means the destruction of human life. Sperm and egg, however, like saliva and other bodily excretions, are genetically identical to male and female respectively, while a newly formed human zygote is a separate individual human being, genetically distinct from both parents.

    There is no environment anywhere in which an individual sperm or an egg cell could be placed and made to grow into an embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, etc. Doing so would be as absurd as placing a nonfertile chicken egg into an incubator and expecting a chicken to hatch!

    Eating a fertile chicken egg, on the other hand, as all vegetarians know, effectively kills a chicken. Similar reasoning prompted the federal government to enact a law imposing a $5,000 fine for destroying any fertilized bald eagle egg.

    “Is birth control an abortion?”

    “Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

    –Planned Parenthood pamphlet
    August 1963

    While there may be religious reasons to oppose contraception, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, etc. there are no rational, secular arguments against such practices.

    Gays Against Abortion (now known as PLAGAL, or the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) was formed in 1991. They issued a statement:

    “We acknowledge that, from conception, the fetus is a human being entitled to basic rights, including the right to life. We hold that abortion denies that right and destroys that human being. We know first hand, from homophobia, what it is to have our rights denied… Like homophobia, abortion tries to get rid of the persons who are considered undesirable… We volunteer time and energy to pro-life pregnancy centers and pro-life agencies…”

    Similarly, in the May 1992 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, in an article entitled, “Coming Out of the Closet for Life,” Donna Marie Kearney wrote: “It is difficult to understand why so many gay and lesbian people can support the so-called ‘woman’s right’ to abortion. While living as oppressed people, they are blind to the subversion of the rights of the unborn, the weakest and most powerless among us.”

    Kearney is a lesbian Christian peace activist, a member of the Faith and Resistance Community, and has been arrested in protest against nuclear weapons storage, and arrested along with Daniel Berrigan and others for trespassing at a Planned Parenthood building.

    “Want to Stop Abortions?”: asks the June 1995 newsletter for the Colorado Peace Mission in Boulder, CO. “Make them unnecessary. Provide everyone with: A choice of whether to have sex… and with whom; Comprehensive sex education; Non-coercive family planning; Safe, affordable birth control; Open, honest talk about sex; Loving parents…”

    In a 1991 article entitled “When No News is Bias,” Reverend James Burtchaell, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, drew comparisons between civil disobedience directed against abortion clinics and “the far more controversial sit-ins and freedom marches of the 1960s, the raiding of draft board files in the 1970s, the denting of ICBM nose cones in the 1980s, the blockading of the South African Embassy in 1984…”

    According to Reverend Burtchaell, these demonstrators had their rights violated: “A 72-year-old bishop in West Hartford, Connecticut, was seized, cuffed behind his back, then lifted from the ground by billy clubs between his wrists… 17 female college students had their clothes ripped off and were forced to walk in the nude, in some cases crawl.

    “Some of them were sexually assaulted… arrested women were strip-searched and cavity searched; others were stripped to the waist and dragged through the jail by their bras with breasts exposed… prisoners in Atlanta were forbidden to pray together in jail…”

    Reverend Burtchaell noted further that “whereas actor Martin Sheen was given three hours of community service for his 18th conviction for anti-nuclear protest, a first-time abortion protester in Fargo, North Dakota, was sent to prison for 21 months. Militant homosexuals who had invaded St. Patrick’s Cathedral and disrupted Mass were fined $100; the organizers of the New York and other pro-life protests have been fined $450,000.”

    Anti-abortion clergy and protesters must be given the same level of respect (and equal time to air their views through the news media) given to animal rights activists, environmentalists, feminists, civil rights activists, anti-nuclear activists, anti-capital punishment activists, antiwar activists, “militant homosexuals,” etc.

    In These Times, a progressive political newspaper in Chicago observed in the late 1980s: “Our reaction to scenes of anti-abortion activists engaging in civil disobedience outside of clinics is similar to that of many on the left: ‘What are THEY doing using OUR tactics? One major factor may be uncomfortable for many of us to admit: that many of them ARE us.’”

    The Seamless Garment Network (SGN) is a coalition of peace and justice organizations on the religious left. Animal rights, like ecology, nuclear power, gun control, or the drug war, is a topic of serious discussion among SGN members. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has signed the SGN Mission Statement.

    “We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, the arms race, the death penalty and euthanasia.

    “We believe these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.”

    Carol Crossed, then Executive Director of the SGN, wrote in 1994:

    “In the last 27 years, I have engaged in civil disobedience and risked arrest in over twenty demonstrations around issues as varied as civil rights in Washington, D.C.; anti-Vietnam War actions; and sleeping outside the City Hall in Rochester, NY to call attention to the plight of the homeless. Most recently, I was arrested in opposition to the Gulf War. Five of these arrests were in opposition to aborting children. Rescues are not a monolithic expression by a single group. Many participants, even leaders, are feminists, Quakers, and Pacifists from Catholic Worker communities.”

    On January 21, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the sanctions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could be applied to anti-abortion protesters.

    According to Carol Crossed, “It is an inescapable fact that activists today engage in acts of civil disobedience remarkably similar to some of the acts of pro-life protesters which NOW (the National Organization for Women) would like to transform into federal felons…

    “Environmentalists chain themselves to trees; plowshares activists damage warheads; and animal rights activists sit in at stockyard feed lots. A current bill (HR 1815) called ‘Hunter Harassment’ is under consideration which would not only criminalize actions against hunters—assaults, seizing guns, blocking entrances to hunting grounds, etc.—but speech directed at hunters as well.

    “A Washington Post editorial ‘Shouting and Shooting’ (12/3/93) says, ‘The point of picketing, protests, demonstrations and boycotts is to make people who are targets so uncomfortable that they will change their politics or behavior. So it is with the opponents of hunting, as it has been with civil rights, labor unions and abortion protesters.’”

    When the RICO decision was issued, Carol Crossed saw it as a threat to the whole range of nonviolent protest, and warned others of the threat that the RICO decision posed to all forms of nonviolent protest and peaceful dissent.

    Signers of a newspaper ad protesting the decision included Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progressive; Daniel Berrigan, SJ; Philip Berrigan; Liz McAlister; Leonard Peltier, American Indian Movement; Joseph Lowery, President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; civil rights leader Will Campbell; environmentalist Wendell Berry and others.

    Organizations signing included the International Black Women’s Network; the Fund for Animals; Koininea Partners; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); Sojourners and others.

    Mary Rider, a *practicing* Catholic (arrested for protesting both the death penalty and abortion — when I first met her in 2002, she was pregnant with her eighth child!) and Executive Director of the SGN, wrote in Harmony: Voices for a Just Future in 2002:

    “So we teach our children to walk softly on the earth and to embrace nonviolence as the only legitimate means of conflict resolution, on both a personal and a global level.

    “We are aware of the excessive, privileged life we lead as educated, first world U.S. citizens and of the responsibilities to which our privilege calls us. We try to live simply. We eat low on the food chain. We try to buy nothing new…

    “We try to respect all life and carry that message forward in all we do… Because we value people and relationships over things… First world consumption kills people around the world…

    “Pollution, environmental devastation, corrupt governments, war, sweatshops… all are a are a result of our desire to buy more at a lower price…

    “We believe each person has a right to live a valued and respected life free from hunger and discrimination…”

    Rachel MacNair, vegan, Quaker pacifist, psychology professor, and past president of Feminists For Life, authored History Shows: Winning with Nonviolent Action, aimed at tweens.

    Her paperback book is thoroughly illustrated, and the Table of Contents lists:

    Ancient Asians (Hindus, Buddhists, the emperor Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism)
    Ancient Greeks (the Pythagoreans)
    Early Christians Refuse to Live by the Sword (30 – 425 AD)
    The Holy Experiment (the Quakers of Pennsylvania)
    The Boston Tea Party
    Hungary Splits from Austria (1849 – 1867)
    The First Russian Revolution (1905)
    The Christmas Truce of World War I (December 1914)
    India Defies the Empire (1919 – 1947)
    Latin Americans Do Peaceful Strikes of Fallen Arms (1931 – 1961)
    The Downfall of Dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala (April – June, 1944)
    The Marshall Plan (1948 – 1951)
    The Berlin Airlift (1948 – 1949)
    The American Civil Rights Movement
    Czechoslovakians Resist Soviet Invasion (1968 – 1969)
    The “Crazy Mothers” of the Plaza de Mayo, Argentina, protesting the abduction of loved ones by a repressive government (1977 – 1983)
    People Power in the Philippines (1986)
    Poland’s Solidarity (1980 – 1989)
    The Berlin Wall Falls (1989)

    The back of the book asks:

    “Did you know large nonviolent campaigns go back at least as far as the ancient Romans, whose workers staged a major walk-out in 494 BC? Did you know several brutal dictatorships and entrenched empires have been toppled by nonviolent revolutions?

    “Did you know this has been going on throughout history, all over the world, by people of different religions and backgrounds? Even governments have engaged in nonviolence. The first organized nonviolent army was by Muslims!”

    Gandhi once said:

    “There is hope for a violent man to be someday nonviolent, but there is none for a coward… Nonviolence is not for cowards It is for the brave, the courageous.”

    Anti-nuclear plowshares activists have met with Operation Rescue activists and even “pro-life” and “pro-choice” activists have met to find common ground. Why shouldn’t there be an ongoing discussion between animal rights and anti-abortion activists?

    Columnist Colman McCarthy, a liberal Catholic writer, is an example of an animal rights advocate who may literally be called “pro-life.” McCarthy teaches filled-to-capacity classes on nonviolence in high schools and colleges in the Washington, DC area. He speaks eloquently about the rights of “our fellow Earthians, whom we call animals.

    “How many of you had a corpse for lunch today?” he asks his students. “What part of an animal did you eat? A leg? A rib?… I never call it meat—that’s just a euphemism. You know why I avoid dairy products and eggs? Because they’re sexist; it’s the females in the barns and henhouses. What do you think of that?”

    McCarthy has even drawn fire for advocating vegetarianism. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) once accused McCarthy of having communist ties, after he had urged Americans to skip turkey and eat bulgur at Thanksgiving. In one of his columns, he wrote that American society “chews on the cadavers” of nine million animals a day, and quoted Nobel Prize winning author Isaac Bashevis Singer on the subject of vegetarianism.

    McCarthy writes about public education, the violence of our meat-producing and chemical-agriculture industries, and the wasted millions of dollars spent on the military buildup and high school ROTC programs. He has also expressed opposition to abortion.

    “Have you heard the new pro-choice strategy?” he asked in the spring of 1989 after a huge abortion rally in Washington, DC. “Now they’re all saying nobody wants abortion, but that it’s important to keep the option open.” (He shakes his head) “That’s like a general who says he doesn’t like war, but wants to keep it as an option, just in case. You don’t find peace through war, and you don’t enhance life through killing babies.”

    (Pro-lifers aren’t too thrilled with Colman McCarthy, either, as he doesn’t think criminalization is the answer.)

    Labor leader Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers, like Colman McCarthy, was also a vegan opposed to abortion.

  4. Eventually GOD willing these liberal monsters will learn that it is WE THE PEOPLE that they work for, & not their own greedy corrupted party!

  5. In 1991, when I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area from San Diego, my friend from college, Chris Hull (attending grad school at UC Berkeley) told me my pro-life views probably wouldn’t be accepted here.

    I countered that there are liberal pro-life groups, like Feminists For Life.

    Chris reacted with disbelief, mimicking Richard Nixon leaving the White House in disgrace in 1974, his hands outstretched, giving the “V-for-Victory” sign… as if by referring to pro-life liberals I was describing some nonexistent “silent majority.”

    In early 1992, I contacted Feminists For Life, and told them I’m into animal rights and pro-life feminism. Feminists For Life gave me contact information for SF Bay Area residents Rose Evans and Ruth Enero.

    I was told Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical on the religious left, is supportive of animal issues.

    Rose sent me back issues of Harmony, and some pro-life liberal bumper stickers. When I asked her about the Seamless Garment Network, referred to throughout Harmony, she explained:

    The Seamless Garment Network (SGN) is a coalition of peace and justice organizations on the religious left. The SGN takes a stand against war, abortion, poverty, racism, the arms race, the death penalty and euthanasia. Animal rights, like ecology, nuclear power, gun control, or the drug war, is a topic of serious discussion among SGN members. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has signed the SGN Mission Statement.

    “We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, the arms race, the death penalty and euthanasia.

    “We believe these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.”

    When I attended a pro-life meeting in Pleasanton, CA, I was surrounded by conservatives. They reacted with mild skepticism when I said I see many parallels between animal rights and prenatal rights (thoroughly documented in my 2006 book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion).

    They could tell right away that I’m a pro-life liberal. They were all praising Rush Limbaugh, who I’d never heard of before, and saying, amused, “Oh, you’d like him…”

    One woman said she was home-schooling her kids, distrustful of the public schools, and said she was pleased by Rush Limbaugh’s referring to feminists as “feminazis.”

    When I told her it’s hard to trust Bush Sr. on abortion as being genuinely pro-life as he ran for president in 1980 as a pro-choice Republican, saying he disagreed with Ronald Reagan about Roe v. Wade, etc., she replied, “I’m voting for Pat Buchanan.”

    “I couldn’t do that,” I responded, and said instead, “Jerry Brown. If he were pro-life, he’d be perfect.”

    One gentleman was a high school biology teacher and clearly a conservative. When I asked him how he deals with teaching his students evolution, he said he teaches evolution, but points out the flaws in evolutionary theory as well.

    But he said with regret that America has been on a moral decline since prayers were removed from the public schools.

    I was thinking to myself, “My God, there are actually people who hold these views!”

    As I was leaving the pro-life meeting, the woman who said she was home-schooling her kids and a friend of hers saw me near my car, adorned with pro-life liberal bumper stickers (many thanks to Rose!), and said, “Oh, we wondered whose car that was. Liberal and pro-life bumper stickers.”

    I answered, “Haven’t you heard of the Seamless Garment Network?” (even though I hadn’t heard about it myself until earlier in the year!)

    She responded, “Yes, we’ve heard of it. It was started by some leftist Cardinal. We refer to it as the ‘straightjacket network.'”

    “Seamy!” said Ruth Enero, in a phone conversation years later, saying that’s how one of her relatives referred to the SGN.

    In 1993, when I was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as a contract employee (fortunately, none of my work was defense-related!), my friend Terry Burt, a Vietnam veteran and a pro-choice Democrat, liked to listen to Rush Limbaugh, even though he disagreed with Rush Limbaugh on abortion… Terry Burt, apparently unaware of Atheists For Life, Democrats For Life, Feminists For Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), the SGN, etc., considered opposition to abortion to be an extremely conservative position… and couldn’t understand my identifying myself as a pro-life Democrat!

    “I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher, in the Tallahassee Democrat. “It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

    The only frustration I have with the left, therefore, is its failure to see abortion as a secular human rights issue… especially those who claim to espouse nonviolence, e.g., are antinuclear or antiwar, or support nonviolent civil disobedience.

    During the spring of 1989, for example, a huge “pro-choice” rally in Washington, DC was endorsed by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Studies in Atlanta. The abortion issue was framed solely in terms of “choice,” rather than in terms of the possible rights of the unborn, possibly violating someone else’s rights, endorsed by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Studies, etc. I found this incredibly Orwellian! It’s like many on the left have trouble seeing abortion as a secular human rights issue; seeing it as an act of violence against the unborn.

    Similarly, in the mid-‘90s, a group of recording artists released an album benefiting the abortion rights movement: Born to Choose. The title also struck me as Orwellian: We are “born to choose” whether or not someone else may be born “to choose.”

    And in 2007, I saw a car with two bumper stickers: one of them read “Create Peace” and the other read “Pro-Choice.” The owner of the car apparently saw no contradiction between the two slogans.

    If pro-lifers really want to end abortion, opposition is going to have to come from across the political spectrum, and not just from the far right. Instead of playing to the same old “Ronald Reagan / Oliver North” crowd, pro-life Republicans are going to have to cross party lines, reach across the aisle, and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc. to distinguish abortion from arguably victimless crimes like marijuana and to see killing of the unborn on par with domestic violence, hate crimes against LGBTs, etc.

    The animal rights movement, like the Democratic Party, is dominated by secular progressives. The animal rights movement, like the Democratic Party, is divided on the issue of abortion, and so far, pro-lifers haven’t even managed to convince the majority of animal activists that killing the unborn is on par with killing animals, what to speak of distinguishing abortion from arguably victimless crimes like marijuana, etc.

    Some pro-life liberals who immediately come to my mind are former Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff — a self-described “liberal Jewish atheist”; writer and former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy; the late governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania; and Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, human rights and women’s rights activist, and environmentalist. Of course, I can’t forget Carol Crossed of Democrats For Life, either, who was kind enough to write the foreword to my own 2006 book on the subject.

    A popular liberal bumper sticker reads: “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when the state of Texas executes one!”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014:

    “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  6. Good grief! If I “had to have” an abortion, I would certainly want the operating person to have a OB/GYN certification! Otherwise, it’s back to the “back alley, wire hangar abortions” that the Left is always crying about will happen if abortion isn’t kept legalized. This is so dangerous and I think doctors or technicians who do these abortions should lose their licenses and malpractice insurance, before they kill the women, in addition to the infants.

  7. Anyone who harms a child in or out of the womb is in danger of going to Hell. God forbids the murder of babies.

  8. The Bible permits abortion. Pro-lifers must become secular.

    Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

    If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

    Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon *her*,and not the fetus.

    Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, comments:

    “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

    Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a “partial-life”; it gains full human status after birth only.

    The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

    Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nephesh hu — it is not a person.’

    The Talmud contains the expression, “the thigh of its mother,” i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.

    This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman’s miscarriage, which kills the fetus.

    If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

    There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother:

    One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus.

    Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

    Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother’s milk, then it would starve.

    An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

    Judaism supports abortion access for women. Polls show 90 percent of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

    Pro-life apologists say at least the unborn has *some* value in the Old Testament, if not actual or real personhood. But the New Testament is more permissive than the Old Testament!

    In Christianity, Paul’s gospel displaces Jesus’ gospel. Jesus, a rabbi, repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17) as did his apostles (see chapters 10, 15, and 21 of Acts). Paul, however, claims Mosaic Law has been abolished, referring to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage…”

    So even if you could find a verse in the Old Testament indicating concern for the unborn, Paul, and not Jesus, says it’s “garbage.”

    Like animals in contemporary American society, the Bible accords the unborn marginal concern which is often inconsistent at best.

    Paul doesn’t say anything about abortion in any of his epistles. Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality.

    “This is God’s will—your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God.” (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

    “Make no mistake,” warned Paul, “no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10 [NEB])

    Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12).

    He instructed them to *always* pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

    Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshiping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14)

    According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

    Paul doesn’t say anything about abortion in any of his epistles, but would it matter if he had?

    Conservative Christians are quick to condemn anyone preaching a false gospel, but some conservative Christians argue not only that they’re not under Mosaic Law, but that they don’t have to follow Paul, either, because Paul claims the risen Jesus said to him three times “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” and they take this biblical verse as a license to do as they please.

    If their view prevails, then:

    What basis do pro-life Christians have for prohibiting abortion?

    Doesn’t “three times…” justify choice?

    Secular pro-life arguments are religion-neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics.

    The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion.

    Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on embryology and prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

    The case against abortion is largely extra-canonical, not Scriptural (e.g., the writings of the early church fathers). The earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorted his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and pointed to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding. Secular scholar Keith Akers concludes: “But many others, both orthodox and heterodox, testified to the vegetarian origins of Christianity. Both Athanasius and his opponent Arius were strict vegetarians. Many early church fathers were vegetarian, including Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Heironymus, Boniface, and John Chrysostom… Vegetarianism is at the heart of Christianity.”

    St. Richard of Wyche, a vegetarian, was moved by the sight of animals taken to slaughter: “Poor innocent little creatures. If you were reasoning beings and could speak, you would curse us. For we are the cause of your death, and what have you done to deserve it?” St. Francis of Assisi taught: “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” St. Filippo Neri spent his life protecting and rescuing living creatures. A vegetarian, he could not bear to pass a butcher’s shop. “Ah,” he exclaimed, “if everyone were like me, no one would kill animals!”

    “Thanks be to God!” wrote John Wesley, founder of Methodism, to the Bishop of London in 1747. “Since the time I gave up the use of flesh-meats and wine, I have been delivered from all physical ills.” Wesley was a vegetarian for spiritual reasons as well. Wesley based his vegetarianism on the biblical prophecies concerning the Kingdom of Peace, where “on the new earth, no creature will kill, or hurt, or give pain to any other.” Wesley taught that animals “shall receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings.” Wesley further taught that animals will attain heaven: in the “general deliverance” from the evils of this world, animals would be given “vigor, strength and swiftness… to a far higher degree than they ever enjoyed.” Wesley urged parents to educate their children about compassion towards animals: “I am persuaded you are not insensible of the pain given to every Christian, every humane heart, by those savage diversions, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing, and hunting.”

    The Quakers have a long history of advocating kindness towards animals. In 1795, the Society of Friends (Quakers) in London passed a resolution condemning sport hunting: “…let our leisure be employed in serving our neighbor, and not in distressing, for our amusement, the creatures of God.” John Woolman (1720-1772) was a Quaker preacher and abolitionist who traveled throughout the American colonies attacking slavery and cruelty to animals. Woolman wrote that he was “early convinced in my mind that true religion consisted in an inward life, wherein the heart doth love and reverence God the Creator and learn to exercise true justice and goodness, not only toward all men, but also toward the brute creatures… Where the love of God is verily perfected… a tenderness toward all creatures made subject to us will be experienced, and a care felt in us that we do not lessen that sweetness of life in the animal creation which the great Creator intends for them.”

    Joshua Evans (1731-1798), a Quaker, said reverence for life was the moral basis of his vegetarianism: “I considered that life was sweet in all living creatures, and taking it away became a very tender point with me… I believe my dear Master has been pleased to try my faith and obedience by teaching me that I ought no longer to partake of anything that had life.” The “Quaker poet” and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892), wrote: “The sooner we recognize the fact that the mercy of the Almighty extends to every creature endowed with life, the better it will be for us as men and Christians.”

    The founder and first secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the Reverend Arthur Broome, an Anglican priest, endured poverty and jail for the cause of animals. The RSPCA was originally founded as a Christian Society “entirely based on the Christian Faith, and on Christian Principles,” sponsoring sermons on humane education in churches in London. Its first Prospectus spoke of the need to extend Christian charity and benevolence to the animals, and was signed by many leading 19th century Christians including William Wilberforce, Richard Martin, G.A. Hatch, J. Bonner, and Dr. Heslop.

    General William Booth (1829-1912), founder of the Salvation Army, practiced and advocated vegetarianism. Booth never officially condemned flesh eating as cruelty to animals nor as gluttony, but taught that abstinence from luxury is helpful to the cause of Christian charity. “It is a great delusion to suppose that flesh of any kind is essential to health,” he insisted.

    Although Seventh Day Adventists are known to promote vegetarianism, nonsmoking, and nondrinking for health and nutrition, church founder Ellen White taught kindness to animals is a Christian duty. She urged the faithful to: “Think of the cruelty that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard these creatures of God!”

    “To stand for Christ is to stand against the evil of cruelty inflicted on those who are weak, vulnerable, unprotected, undefended, morally innocent, and in that class we must unambiguously include animals. There is something profoundly Christ-like about the innocent suffering of animals. Look around you and see the faces of Christ in the billions of innocent animals suffering in factory farms, in laboratories, in abattoirs, in circuses and in animals hunted for sport.”

    —Reverend Andrew Linzey, contemporary Anglican priest, and author of several books on animal rights and Christianity

  9. “I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed Rosemary Bottcher in her article “How Do Pro-Choicers ‘Fool’ Themselves?” which originally appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.

    “It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

    Rosemary Bottcher criticized the American Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

    “The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

    “The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

    “The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

    “Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion,” concluded Bottcher.

    “Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother.”

    At a speech before the National Right to Life Convention in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on July 15, 1982, Reverend Richard John Neuhaus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church said:

    “I have a confession to make. I am a liberal. More than that. I am a Democrat… I know that among some pro-life advocates liberalism is almost a dirty word. I know it and I regret it. I know that among others there has been a determined effort to portray the pro-life movement as anti-liberal and, indeed, as reactionary. I know it and I regret it.

    “We are today engaged in a great contest over the meaning of liberalism, over the meaning of liberal democracy, indeed over the meaning of America…Will it be an America that is inclusive, embracing the stranger and giving refuge to the homeless?…Will it be a caring America, nurturing the helpless and protecting the vulnerable?

    “…The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility…”The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right—simply the right to be.

    “There is another and authentically liberal vision of an America that is hospitable to the stranger, holding out arms of welcome to those who would share the freedom and opportunity we cherish. ‘Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me/I lift my lamp beside the golden door.’

    “The unborn child is the ultimate immigrant…The analogy between the unborn and the immigrant may seem strained. I fear, however, that it is painfully to the point.”

    According to Dr. And Mrs. J.C. Willke’s 1988 Handbook on Abortion, a poll was conducted at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, CA, asking: “Should there be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion?” It was found that only nine percent of all delegates to the Convention supported such an Amendment, even though it was supported by 46 percent of all Democrats nationwide.

    In an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Are Black Leaders Listening to Black America?”, J. Perkins wrote:

    “Black leaders react in traditional, knee-jerk liberal fashion to issues across the board, even though, in general, black Americans are decidedly conservative on a number of issues. The Black Caucus, for example, advocates a ‘right’ to abort, whereas 62% of blacks oppose abortion (National Opinion Research Center, 1984).”

    According to Mary Meehan, “…abortion is a civil rights issue. Dick Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide.” For every white baby killed by abortion, for example, two minority children die.

    Civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer (1917-1977) insisted, “The methods used to take human lives, such as abortion, the pill, the ring, etc., amount to genocide. I believe that legal abortion is legal murder.”

    According to Hamer, “These are still our children. And we still love these children. And after these babies are born we are not going to disband these children from their families, because these are other lives, they are…and I think these children have a right to live. And I think these mothers have a right to support them in a decent way.”

    A pamphlet distributed by Milwaukee SOUL (Save Our Unwanted Lives) points out that under current U.S. law, corporations are considered legal persons, while humans in prenatal development are denied this moral status.

    “The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

    –Hubert H. Humphrey

    Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

    Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

    Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

    Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion”destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

    Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

    Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted.” However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

    During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

    A “conscience clause” which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014:

    “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  10. Excuse me vasu
    I am dying to know, how much do you get paid for each word you post? You MUST be a part of the 1%ers by now as much as you dribble your BS in these sites!

  11. Do you realize that nobody reads you posts because you feel you have to right a book & are a ‘Moron’!!!

  12. I believe that when the seed begins to develop it is a living child. I am against Abortion. I believe everyone Human deserves a chance to live, if you don’t want to get pregnant use Birth Control.
    But if you do & don’t want the Child give that Child up or adoption & let a loving Family raise that baby & give it a chance to survive & have a life.
    Babies are not trash, take responsibility for your actions & I mean Males & Females think twice before you make a stupid mistake.

  13. It doesn`t matter if those Judges believe in God or not when they pass away they are going to find out there is a God out there and they are going to stand before God and answer to God and he will judge them all of them !! So will all of those Homosexual People out there !!

  14. Vasu is “filibustering” this sight! He can’t give an opinion of his own.
    I agree! He needs to shut up or say what he thinks!

  15. Since you are an expert of “filibuster”, we don’t care about your posts.

    Shut up or say what YOU think!

  16. From watching an “Ultra Sound Video” of an abortion, we KNOW the fetus tries to avoid the forceps.

    The Fetus KNOWS PAIN

    and the Fetus KNOWS FEAR

    While at the same time, the ‘mother’ experiences NEITHER!

    They are TWO SEPARATE persons.

    Prove me wrong.

  17. Margaret Sanger, the “Mother of the Abortion Movement” wrote …
    “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” – Margaret Sanger
    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” – Margaret Sanger
    “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” . – Margaret Sanger In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

  18. Just like all of CRAZY donald & D for DUMB trump’s tweets are also a feeble way to show his “intelligence”?

  19. One of the 10 commandments in the bible says “THOU SHALT NOT KILL” isn’t that plain enough?

  20. Pelosi is the one who should have been aborted and now should be excommunicated from her Catholic Church she is s traitor to her faith and country and a true racist

  21. Try working with pregnant teens and even young, pregnant women in their 20’s. They USE abortion as birth control, but also, they give up MULTIPLE babies for adoption while still in high school!
    Some of these “women”? never learn!
    And in fact, it is their lifestyles – drinking, partying, hanging around taverns for some attention from men, that lead to these “accidents”.
    How can you call them accidents?
    One girl had gone to a party and had so many “partners” she didn’t even know which guy to accuse.
    BUT, that girl actually kept the baby and though her mother was livid when we told her, within 15 minutes her mother had changed her mind and was crying and hugging her daughter out of joy.
    The girl was also very happy and crying out of joy.
    If this is just a Medicaid issue – most issues in politics are really a FUNDING issue in my humble opinion (not worth getting so angry over) – make these young women pay back the state/federal government!
    Why continue having welfare a one-way street when these costs could be easily repaid?
    Is it because no one trusts state employees to be RECEIVING money?

  22. Then why not have the poor re-pay the state so that others can be helped?
    If you are really interested in the “vulnerable”?
    Or, aren’t you really interested in the bureaucrats who keep these shams going?
    I worked for Medicaid and it is a sham.
    Most of the people who wanted it are perfectly capable of repaying a loan and we had co-workers sitting in wheelchairs WORKING who were worse off than those on the phones yelling and cursing at us.


  24. Isn’t it amazing that the same liberals who wanted zero-population growth AND want abortion – BUT ALSO WANT THE BORDER OPEN AND MASS IMMIGRATION?
    They are so ILLOGICAL!!!!!

  25. Bernie loves to pontificate about how wonderful it would be/could be if all were covered by insurance, but I called his office and asked if he has EVER worked for Medicare and Medicaid and the employee answering hesitated and then replied very softly, “No”.
    So, in other words, it is self-proclaimed “experts” who have NEVER worked in the medical fields claiming that some pie-in-the-sky dream will work wonders.
    At one point we were only charging $6 per person for Medicaid and even then the mostly young people would call up screaming about one complaint or another.
    Even Eric Holder stated that the FRAUD in Medicaid and Medicare is HUGE. Estimating it to be between $60 and $120 BILLION for EACH PROGRAM EACH YEAR.
    There were even crime families involved it was so lucrative!

  26. Many kids don’t learn any Bible verses or anything about the Bible.
    They are consumed with Facebook and selfies and advertising themselves!
    Some of my young relatives have 200-300 following them on Instagram.
    They post some of the dumbest pictures.

  27. VASU YOU TWIT!!! Taking ne verse out of context in the book of Genesis is oh so wrong…if you were an honest and upright person(which I see you’re not) and stayed away from cut and paste(using to your advantage) and just said your own words then you might get someone who might agree with you. You forget to include the next verse following this one:Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime., Judah did not endorse abortion, however what he did say was that because she acted in the manner of a “harlot” to deceive him that she must be burned. It had nothing to do with her being pregnant with his child and by the way, if you had read further you would have found that Judah did not have her burned as she had his pledge to her from the beggining with these: 18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy asignet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.

  28. Is anyone really surprised at this judges decision? They are more concerned about how illegals are being treated at our border than they are about murdering our children. This is what our nation has fallen too. No respect for citizen life but angered about law breakers comfort. Makes one wonder what has happened to this great country?

  29. This lady get tem injuction to block 3 pro-life laws, citing “imminwnt and irreperable harm tp patients.” leezzzz
    seee… trhe 3rd law is to have abortionists to have OP-GYN certifications. Questions, what qualificationas DOES an abortionist neeed NOW?????? which is lerss likely to do”imminwent and irreperable harm” …..current prctices or someone who knows what to do besides kill?? Her logic escapes me.

  30. One person, above cites severalk cases where the Bible allows abortions. One citation is fron Jewish law wher the pregnancy isnt a person until the head is so & so far outside the mother. etc. If I do vehicular homicide against a pregnant woman, how mny deaths will I be respnsible for? Also, I have been informed that when a certain brain wave ceses, then that person is trul;y dead as there is no recusitation practice known that can work. So, if you are dead when thhat brain wave ceases, are you aklive whenever that brain wave starts? Just when does that brain wave start?

  31. No, it will end for them as it should. They give the unborn hell on Earth. Theirs will be much longer – eternity. How justified is that?

  32. Gee Whiz, I’m sure glad my Mother was Pro-Life… Aren’t you glad your Mother was too!

  33. Only One Path To The Father, Jesus Christ, and He loves all people, and He is Alive, as is Father God, our creator! There is no other path to eternal life!

  34. You know that is a lie Betty. Trump as President has lowered unemployment to levels not seen in decades. And workers have seen a rise in income. But I guess that you are mad because it means that you won’t be able to keep minorities on the gov’t gravy train and voting Dem.

  35. Yes, the above begs the question: So they are using coathangers to abort babies now?
    They always tried to use that visual in order to make abortion more palatable, but it seems they don’t really care how safe it is.

  36. @ D.A.N.: Save your breath. You can’t argue with a Trump-hater,
    like Betty. Their brains have hardened up like cement and there’s no getting through to them.

  37. @Linda M: The souls/spirits of the innocent children go straight back to God.
    They are safe now.

  38. There is a difference between “unConstitutional” and following precedent! This judge does not know the difference. The Constitution does not address abortion… therefore these laws cannot be “unConstitutional”…

    The fact that RvW still stands as precedent is another issue. If you want to get right to it, RvW denies not only the unborn child their right to life but also the father’s right to enjoy the life they helped create. Yet there is no absence of screams that the man should financially support the child if the woman chose to give birth.

    The hypocrisy is stunning!

  39. Just keep on posting, Betty. These “christians” on here don’t want to read or hear about anything that upsets their very small world view of anything. They constantly need to be shaken up a bit to wake them upto the real world and

  40. And the biggest challenge for President Obama was the entire Republican controlled congress who absolutely refused to work with him after he was re-elected for a second term. So you can see how that works, can’t you??? Stop your complaining and see that you usually get what you put out there.

  41. What a joke watching these liberal idiots still kow-towing to that affirmative action moron. What happened to White pride?

  42. Betty, Trump has done more for the American people,in a short time, then your Kenyan coon did in 8 years. Actually, it wasn’t hard, the coon did nothing.

  43. D Trump is a hell of a better person than you. I guess you’re totally infected by the TDS virus, better go get some help from a Psychologist or Psychiatrist, eh ?

  44. Oh go away Troll Betty. There is a difference between adding a comment or two by tweeting or other means versus writing a book. Writing a book here indicates to me this person believes that they are the only one who has something of significance to say so monopolizes all the space allotted for any other comments. You on the other have never had anything of significance to add to anything being discussed except hate filled replies so what does that say about your intelligence ? Zip, nada.

  45. They may or may not be getting paid off, could be they are just part of the “deep state” establishment on the same path as those for the New world order which calls for “depopulation” of the world. Look up Agenda 21 for that is part of the plan, not withstanding they don’t want anyone owning their own property whatsoever and more.

  46. Does Pelosi have grandkids??? I know she has a daughter, but unknown if she has children. I wonder how she’d feel if her daughter had an abortion killing a grandchild of hers.

  47. Applies to some of our senators, representatives,or other congressional leaders as well. Americans are second class citizens as our politicians are more worried about helping immigrants than Americans.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here