Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM
Fri., Feb. 1, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
The Democrats' Radicalism Problem
Ben Shapiro
President Trump is deeply unpopular. According to RealClearPolitics, his favorability ratings now stand at just 41 percent -- near-historic lows. This means that Democrats have the upper hand heading into 2020. All they have to do is not be radically insane.
And they just can't do it.
And they just can't do it.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., the media darling of the moment, stated on a CNN town hall this week that she wants to fully abolish private health insurance, ban all semi-automatic weapons and rid the American economy of carbon emissions within a decade.
None of these positions are popular. Americans are interested in the idea of Medicare-for-All so long as there are no costs. The minute they're told that there may be delays in receiving care, as there are in nearly all countries with socialized medicine, support plummets to just 26 percent, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Only 37 percent support Medicare-for-All if it means merely raising taxes. How about banning all semi-automatic weapons? As of October, 57 percent of Americans opposed banning semi-automatics. And when it comes to abolishing private cars -- which would essentially be necessary to achieve the goals of the so-called Green New Deal -- that proposal wouldn't even chart.
Yet the Democratic primaries will require nearly every Democrat to embrace each of these positions. That's probably why Democrats are quaking in their boots at the possibility of a third-party run by former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Schultz has declared nationalized health care an impossibility; he has talked about the dangers of our massive national debt; he has opposed a 70 percent income tax rate. "I respect the Democratic Party," Schultz told CNBC this week. "I no longer feel affiliated because I don't know their views represent the majority of Americans."
Now, Schultz may be a boring billionaire, but at least he isn't pushing proposals so loony they alienate vast swaths of the American public. Democrats want to have it both ways: They want to push radical leftist policy, but they don't want the blowback such policies entail. They want to pretend that radical leftism is popular even as they implicitly acknowledge the fact that it's not all that popular.
Hence New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg's fulminating over Schultz's candidacy. She writes, "this frustrated executive's politics aren't widely shared by people who haven't been to Davos." Trump's riding in the low 40s. Democrats shouldn't have to sweat out fringe candidacies. Yet that's what they're doing, because they know they've pushed too far to the left.
There's an easy answer to the Schultz conundrum for Democrats: Stop embracing the radical id of your own base. But that would involve recognizing that Trump's unpopularity isn't equivalent to support for radicalism. And Democrats will never acknowledge it -- not as long as the hope remains that Trump's unpopularity will translate into extreme leftist policy, the likes of which the republic has rarely seen.
Latino Trump Coalition Co-Founder Asks Gov. Abbott Why He Hasn't Voiced More Support for Trump
In an attempt to make sense of the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade hosted an immigration town hall with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, border patrol agents, and other state officials at his "Battle at the Border" event on Sunday. The town hall was taped in San Antonio, Texas.
Abbott offered the town hall audience brief update on the border crisis in Texas, noting that they still need 130 more miles of border wall. The state starts work on 22 miles of the wall in February, finally getting a chance to spend last year’s funds.
Then, Abbott took questions from the audience. Republican Party of Texas Hispanic Engagement Director Bianca Gracia, who also co-founded the Latino Trump Coalition, helped elected Abbott and is supportive of his efforts at the border. However, she wondered why he hasn't shown much love for President Trump. At least not in public.
“I want to know why you haven’t taken a stronger stance vocally supporting our president?” Gracia asked the governor. "In the media, press releases, I would like to see you have a stronger stance standing with our president because we are the forefront of this battle.”
Abbott assured Gracia he is in constant contact with the Trump administration.
“I work constantly” with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the governor explained. “I visit with the president, vice president. I’m engaged with them constantly, to make sure they have the backing they need.”
He had an immediate chance to vocalize his support for Trump when Kilmeade asked him if he’d support the president if he decided to declare a national emergency.
“I do think it’s an emergency,” Abbott said. “We want the president and Congress to do everything they can to make sure this problem gets fixed.”
Still, Gracia said she’d like to see more press conferences.
"More important than talking to cameras, is talking to people who can pass the laws and fix the problems we’re all dealing with," Abbott replied.
Gracia's concern is an indication that many Latinos support Trump's border policies. Katie recently covered a new poll that showed Hispanic support for the president is skyrocketing. The poll, conducted by NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist, revealed that Trump's approval among Hispanics improved by 20 points since December.
The governor emphasized the importance of "passing laws that will fix our broken immigration system."
Border officials also emphasized that Congress must recognize its role in the crisis.
"Congress has not given us resources" to secure the Rio Grande and other vulnerable points of entry, said Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
Dick Morris: How the Clintons Made Money from Huawei
By Dick Morris
Abbott offered the town hall audience brief update on the border crisis in Texas, noting that they still need 130 more miles of border wall. The state starts work on 22 miles of the wall in February, finally getting a chance to spend last year’s funds.
Then, Abbott took questions from the audience. Republican Party of Texas Hispanic Engagement Director Bianca Gracia, who also co-founded the Latino Trump Coalition, helped elected Abbott and is supportive of his efforts at the border. However, she wondered why he hasn't shown much love for President Trump. At least not in public.
“I want to know why you haven’t taken a stronger stance vocally supporting our president?” Gracia asked the governor. "In the media, press releases, I would like to see you have a stronger stance standing with our president because we are the forefront of this battle.”
Abbott assured Gracia he is in constant contact with the Trump administration.
“I work constantly” with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the governor explained. “I visit with the president, vice president. I’m engaged with them constantly, to make sure they have the backing they need.”
He had an immediate chance to vocalize his support for Trump when Kilmeade asked him if he’d support the president if he decided to declare a national emergency.
“I do think it’s an emergency,” Abbott said. “We want the president and Congress to do everything they can to make sure this problem gets fixed.”
Still, Gracia said she’d like to see more press conferences.
"More important than talking to cameras, is talking to people who can pass the laws and fix the problems we’re all dealing with," Abbott replied.
Gracia's concern is an indication that many Latinos support Trump's border policies. Katie recently covered a new poll that showed Hispanic support for the president is skyrocketing. The poll, conducted by NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist, revealed that Trump's approval among Hispanics improved by 20 points since December.
The governor emphasized the importance of "passing laws that will fix our broken immigration system."
Border officials also emphasized that Congress must recognize its role in the crisis.
"Congress has not given us resources" to secure the Rio Grande and other vulnerable points of entry, said Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
Dick Morris: How the Clintons Made Money from Huawei
By Dick Morris
Hillary Hillary and Bill Clinton (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)When Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies, was arrested in Canada on Dec. 1 through an extradition warrant from the United States, American media described in detail how the company had apparently conspired to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Huawei has long been involved in helping terrorist states and seemingly seeking to thwart U.S. sanctions. Meng is the daughter of Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei.
As details of Huawei’s complicity with Iran emerge, it is time to look back on the Clinton family and its close relationship with Huawei. When their connection was first exposed more than a decade ago, it just seemed like another shady Clinton deal. But now, it becomes clear that Huawei has been central to the Iranian efforts to evade first U.N. and then U.S. sanctions. The Clintons were apparently conspiring with the enemy.
Huawei has long been a bad actor in undermining U.S. foreign policy. The company has had a deep and long term relationship with the Clinton family.
Huawei and the Clintons’ ties began when Terry McAuliffe, the Clintons’ top fundraiser and future governor of Virginia, bought a Chinese car company — GreenTech Automotive — and moved it to the U.S. in the hopes that it would produce electric cars.
McAuliffe got Huawei to invest in GreenTech through a financing firm called Gulf Coast Funds Management, headed by Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham. Gulf Coast, boasting the Rodham name, agreed to help Huawei get visas for its top executives under the EB-5 program, which awards visas to those who invest at least $500,000 in the U.S. to create jobs. The feds had already turned Huawei down because of its links to the Chinese military.
Huawei’s misdeeds are plentiful.
It helped Saddam Hussein install fiber optic cables in violation of U.S. sanctions.
It also helped the Taliban by installing a phone system in Kabul, Afghanistan.
It stole proprietary material from U.S. high-tech company Cisco Systems. This material ended up in Chinese hands.
In 2013, Huawei tried to sell telecom equipment made by Hewlett-Packard to Iran in defiance of sanctions. And, until a few weeks ago, the parent company of Huawei’s Iranian business partner was partly owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is playing the key role in Iran’s nuclear program
According to the South China Morning Post, the U.S. action against Huawei “will severely damage, even cripple, the Chinese company. Of Huawei’s 92 core suppliers, 33 are U.S. corporations, including chip makers Intel, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Marvell and Micron. If Washington now prohibits these companies from selling to Huawei, the Chinese telecoms giant will struggle to survive.”
And, if their full role in the liaison with Huawei comes out, so will Bill and Hillary.
Huawei has long been involved in helping terrorist states and seemingly seeking to thwart U.S. sanctions. Meng is the daughter of Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei.
As details of Huawei’s complicity with Iran emerge, it is time to look back on the Clinton family and its close relationship with Huawei. When their connection was first exposed more than a decade ago, it just seemed like another shady Clinton deal. But now, it becomes clear that Huawei has been central to the Iranian efforts to evade first U.N. and then U.S. sanctions. The Clintons were apparently conspiring with the enemy.
Huawei has long been a bad actor in undermining U.S. foreign policy. The company has had a deep and long term relationship with the Clinton family.
Huawei and the Clintons’ ties began when Terry McAuliffe, the Clintons’ top fundraiser and future governor of Virginia, bought a Chinese car company — GreenTech Automotive — and moved it to the U.S. in the hopes that it would produce electric cars.
McAuliffe got Huawei to invest in GreenTech through a financing firm called Gulf Coast Funds Management, headed by Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham. Gulf Coast, boasting the Rodham name, agreed to help Huawei get visas for its top executives under the EB-5 program, which awards visas to those who invest at least $500,000 in the U.S. to create jobs. The feds had already turned Huawei down because of its links to the Chinese military.
Huawei’s misdeeds are plentiful.
It helped Saddam Hussein install fiber optic cables in violation of U.S. sanctions.
It also helped the Taliban by installing a phone system in Kabul, Afghanistan.
It stole proprietary material from U.S. high-tech company Cisco Systems. This material ended up in Chinese hands.
In 2013, Huawei tried to sell telecom equipment made by Hewlett-Packard to Iran in defiance of sanctions. And, until a few weeks ago, the parent company of Huawei’s Iranian business partner was partly owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is playing the key role in Iran’s nuclear program
According to the South China Morning Post, the U.S. action against Huawei “will severely damage, even cripple, the Chinese company. Of Huawei’s 92 core suppliers, 33 are U.S. corporations, including chip makers Intel, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Marvell and Micron. If Washington now prohibits these companies from selling to Huawei, the Chinese telecoms giant will struggle to survive.”
And, if their full role in the liaison with Huawei comes out, so will Bill and Hillary.
Read my uncensored, self-published account of the Clinton corruption in “Fifty Shades of Politics.” Available only at Amazon.com.
Whoa Nellie, More Leaked Transcripts – Nellie Ohr Researched Trump Kids While Working for Fusion GPS
by sundance
So far the joint house committee transcripts have been leaked to: John Solomon (The Hill), The Epoch Times, The New York Times, and now The Daily Caller. Someone is trying to get additional traction to these structured transcripts.
The content is also interesting. The only thing we knew previously about the testimony of Nellie Ohr was that she evoked ‘spousal privilege’ during her deposition. However, now the Daily Caller is reporting that Nellie Ohr gave testimony about her research with Fusion GPS, to include doing research on Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr’s travels:
Daily Caller – The wife of a Justice Department official who worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 campaign told Congress in 2018 that one of her tasks at the opposition research firm was to research President Donald Trump’s children, including their business activities and travel.
Nellie Ohr, a former contractor for Fusion GPS, also told lawmakers during an Oct. 19 deposition that she recalls that Christopher Steele gave her husband, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, materials from the infamous anti-Trump dossier funded by Democrats.
Ohr said during the testimony that Steele, who like her was a contractor for Fusion GPS, hoped that her husband would pass the materials to the FBI.
“My understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce could put in a word with the FBI to follow up in some way,” Ohr testified to members of the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees, according to transcripts confirmed by The Daily Caller News Foundation. (read more)
According to the prior leaked transcript Bruce Ohr gave testimony he accepted a thumb drive from Glenn Simpson (Nellie’s employer – Fusion GPS), and another from his wife Nellie Ohr, and he passed them along to FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka.
The interesting aspect to the Daily Caller report of Nellie Ohr’s testimony is her apparent focus on research into the Trump family travel:
“How about Donald Trump Jr.? Did you do more in-depth research on Donald Trump Jr. than some of the others?” she was asked.
“I’m afraid it was relatively superficial. It was,” adding that, “I looked into some of his travels and you know not sure how much detail I remember, at this point.”
“Ivanka Trump?”
“I looked into some of her travels,” said Ohr.
The goal was “to see whether they were involved in dealings and transactions with people who had had suspicious pasts.”
This becomes more of a central issue when we go back to the mistake about Michael Cohen within the Steele Dossier; that was also a mistake about travel. [Cohen in Prague] Our suspicion has always been that Nellie Ohr was exploiting her CIA authorized access to the FBI/NSA database doing research (ie. FISA abuse).
Additionally, it has always appeared to be evident that Nellie actually sent her research material to Christopher Steele (another Fusion GPS contractor), who was tasked to verify, find supplemental sourcing, launder the research and present it as a more official looking intelligence product…. The Steele Dossier.
It would just make sense the place where Nellie Ohr would be researching travel would be the FISA database (FBI/NSA). Where else could she access that information?
Sen. Sasse: ‘If You Can’t Say It’s Wrong to Leave Babies to Die After Birth, Get the Hell Out of Public Office’
By Craig Bannister
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) (Screenshot)
“Get the hell out of public office” if you can’t condemn post-birth abortion, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said Wednesday, responding to Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s (D) comment in which he seemed to imply that the decision to abort a child could be made after birth under his new abortion bill.
In a statement denouncing Gov. Northam’s comment provided to CNSNews.com, Sen. Sasse bemoaned how quickly Democrats’ stance on abortion has deteriorated. Anyone, from any party, who can’t defend life after birth, is unfit for public office and should “get the hell out,” Sasse said in his statement:
“This is morally repugnant. In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide.’ I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.” -- Senator Ben Sasse
Gov. Northam sparked outrage earlier in the day when he made the comments in an interview on local Washington, D.C. radio station WTOP, in which he described what would happen to a born-alive baby if his new bill is enacted:
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Much Has Changed for the Better Since 2016—Not That Trump Will get credit.
Mother Teresa visits Covington Catholic HS
The news obsesses over the recent government shutdown, the latest Robert Mueller arrest and, of course, fake news — from the BuzzFeed Michael Cohen non-story to the smears of the Covington Catholic High School students.
But aside from the weekly hysterias, the world has dramatically changed since 2016 in ways we scarcely have appreciated.
The idea that China systematically rigged trade laws and engaged in technological espionage to run up huge deficits is no longer a Trump, or even a partisan, issue.
In the last two years, a mainstream consensus has grown that China poses a commercial and mercantile threat to world trade, to its neighbors and to the very security of the United States — and requires a strong response, including temporary tariffs.
The world did not fall apart after the U.S. pulled out of the flawed Iran nuclear deal. Most yawned when the U.S. left the symbolic but empty Paris Climate Accord. Ditto when the U.S. moved its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In retrospect, most Americans accept that such once controversial decisions were not ever all that controversial.
There is also a growing, though little reported, consensus about what created the current economic renaissance: tax cuts, massive deregulation, recalibration of trade policy, tax incentives to bring back offshore capital, and dramatic rises in oil and natural gas production.
Although partisan bickering continues over the extent of the upswing, most appreciate that millions of Americans are now back again working — especially minority youth — in a manner not seen in over a decade.
The Supreme Court and federal judges will be far more conservative for a generation — as Trump’s judicial nominations are uniformly conservative, mostly young and well qualified.
For all the acrimony about illegal immigration, the government shutdown over the wall and the question of amnesties, most Americans also finally favor some sort of grand bargain compromise.
The public seems to be agreeing that conservatives should get more border fencing or walls in strategic areas, an end to new illegal immigration and deportation for those undocumented immigrants with criminal records.
Liberals in turn will likely obtain green cards for those long-time immigrants here illegally who have a work history and have not committed violent crimes.
Both sides will be forced to agree that illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and open borders should end and legal immigration should be reformed.
Americans have paradoxically grown tired both of costly overseas interventions and perceptions of American weakness that led to the Libyan fiasco, the Syrian genocide, the rise of the ISIS caliphate, and Iranian-inspired terrorism.
Today U.S. foreign policy actually reflects those paradoxes. The public supports a withdrawal from the quagmires in Afghanistan and Syria. But it also approved of bombing ISIS into retreat and muscular efforts to denuclearize North Korea.
Two years ago, most Americans accepted that the European Union and NATO were sacrosanct status quo institutions beyond criticism. Today there is growing agreement that our NATO allies will only pay their fair share of mutual defense if they are forced to live up to their promises.
Europe is not stable and steady, but torn by Eastern European anger at open borders, Southern European resentment at the ultimatums of German banks, and acrimonious negotiations over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
Most Americans have now concluded that while the EU may be necessary to prevent another intra-European war, it is increasingly a postmodern, anti-democratic and unstable entity.
Trump has not changed his campaign reputation for being mercurial, crass and crude.
But what has changed is the media’s own reputation in its hysterical reaction to Trump. Instead of empirical reporting, the networks and press have become unhinged.
When reporting of the presidency has proved 90 percent negative, and false news stories are legion, the media are no longer seen as the remedy to Trump but rather an illness themselves.
Since 2016, polls show that Americans have assumed that the proverbial mainstream media cannot be counted on for honest reporting but will omit, twist and massage facts and evidence for the higher “truth” of neutralizing the Trump presidency.
When asked on “The View” why so often the liberal press keeps making up facts, “jumps the gun” and has to “walk stuff back when it turns out wrong,” Joy Behar honestly answered, “Because we’re desperate to get Trump out of office. That’s why.”
Trump’s popularity is about where it was when he was elected — ranging on average from the low to mid-forties. But many of his policies have led to more prosperity and address festering problems abroad.
And despite the negative news, they are widely supported, even — or especially — if Trump himself is not given proper credit for enacting most of them.
Ex-Abortionist Shares the Horrifying Story That Led Him To Quit After His 23rd Abortion
Ex-Abortionist Shares the Horrifying Story That Led Him To Quit After His 23rd Abortion
For Dr. Paul Jarrett, it was the face that changed everything.
As a young physician in the 1970s, Jarrett’s first years in the medical field coincided with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Like many at the time and now, he accepted the argument that abortion was just another “family planning” strategy and thought little of using the medical skills he had acquired to save human lives to actually destroy them instead.
But there came a day in 1974, when Jarrett came face to face with reality.
At a “Meet the Abortion Provider” conference in 1996, Jarrett described that day’s epiphany – how, after performing more than a score of operations that destroyed babies in their mothers’ wombs he finally faced the truth, literally.
“My 23rd abortion changed my mind about doing abortions forever,” Jarrett told his audience, according to a transcript available on PriestsforLife.org website.
“This patient was a little overweight and ultimately proved to be a little farther along than anticipated. This was not an uncommon mistake before ultrasound was readily available to confirm the gestational age.
“Initially, the abortion proceeded normally. The water broke, but then nothing more would come out. When I withdrew the curette, I saw that it was plugged up with the leg of the baby which had been torn off. I then changed techniques and used ring forceps to dismember the 13 or 14 week size baby. Inside the remains of the rib cage I found a tiny, beating heart. I was finally able to remove the head and looked squarely into the face of a human being — a human being that I had just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse standing next to me and said, ‘I’m sorry.’
“I knew then that abortion was wrong and I couldn’t be a part of it any longer. No one was critical of me for what I had done, nor for having stopped. But I had a lot of guilt about that abortion and had flashbacks to it from time to time. I sometimes dreamed about it…”
That was the physical reality that Jarrett faced in 1974 – that abortion is about stopping a human life at its most vulnerable moments.
But the abortion “debate” in the United States has a political reality as well, one that divorces words from their meaning, and twists them into any shape the liberal media and pro-abortion forces wish them to have.
One of the key words here is “health,” and how abortion proponents use it.Under the terms of the expansive abortion law passed by the New York legislature and signed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week – with the Orwellian name of the “Reproductive Health Act” – abortion is legalized “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.” (Emphasis added.)
As Rebekah Baker, senior story editor at The Western Journal, pointed out in the video at the top of this post, “health is not defined in the bill, and that’s intentional.”
“So, health could really mean anything. It could mean emotional health, financial health. You could say, ‘If I have this baby, I’ll be under emotional distress,’ and that’s the reason.
“So when you hear people say, ‘It’s just the health of the mother that’s at play here, that’s code for ‘any reason.’”
And that really is the core of the issue here.
When then-Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe v. Wade decision, he cited “penumbras” in the Bill of Rights that the court had previously found that guaranteed Americans the right to privacy.
And while the ruling did allow states to prohibit abortion after the point of viability, where a not-yet full term baby could survive outside the mother’s womb, it also allowed the “health” of the mother to be the determining factor.
“If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother,” Blackmun wrote.
New York state’s new abortion law carries that muddy logic to its murderous extreme.
For abortion supporters, “health” doesn’t mean a life-threatening condition could result if a pregnancy goes full term.
It doesn’t mean the woman carrying the child will suffer lifelong physical disability as the result.
It doesn’t mean anything other than that the lives of human beings being taken for any reason at all.
That was the reality Dr. Paul Jarrett faced that day in his Indiana hospital in 1974, when he confronted the torn body and tiny, beating heart of a baby he’d just aborted.
Can the country face that reality today?
As a young physician in the 1970s, Jarrett’s first years in the medical field coincided with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Like many at the time and now, he accepted the argument that abortion was just another “family planning” strategy and thought little of using the medical skills he had acquired to save human lives to actually destroy them instead.
But there came a day in 1974, when Jarrett came face to face with reality.
At a “Meet the Abortion Provider” conference in 1996, Jarrett described that day’s epiphany – how, after performing more than a score of operations that destroyed babies in their mothers’ wombs he finally faced the truth, literally.
“My 23rd abortion changed my mind about doing abortions forever,” Jarrett told his audience, according to a transcript available on PriestsforLife.org website.
“This patient was a little overweight and ultimately proved to be a little farther along than anticipated. This was not an uncommon mistake before ultrasound was readily available to confirm the gestational age.
“Initially, the abortion proceeded normally. The water broke, but then nothing more would come out. When I withdrew the curette, I saw that it was plugged up with the leg of the baby which had been torn off. I then changed techniques and used ring forceps to dismember the 13 or 14 week size baby. Inside the remains of the rib cage I found a tiny, beating heart. I was finally able to remove the head and looked squarely into the face of a human being — a human being that I had just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse standing next to me and said, ‘I’m sorry.’
“I knew then that abortion was wrong and I couldn’t be a part of it any longer. No one was critical of me for what I had done, nor for having stopped. But I had a lot of guilt about that abortion and had flashbacks to it from time to time. I sometimes dreamed about it…”
That was the physical reality that Jarrett faced in 1974 – that abortion is about stopping a human life at its most vulnerable moments.
But the abortion “debate” in the United States has a political reality as well, one that divorces words from their meaning, and twists them into any shape the liberal media and pro-abortion forces wish them to have.
One of the key words here is “health,” and how abortion proponents use it.Under the terms of the expansive abortion law passed by the New York legislature and signed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week – with the Orwellian name of the “Reproductive Health Act” – abortion is legalized “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.” (Emphasis added.)
As Rebekah Baker, senior story editor at The Western Journal, pointed out in the video at the top of this post, “health is not defined in the bill, and that’s intentional.”
“So, health could really mean anything. It could mean emotional health, financial health. You could say, ‘If I have this baby, I’ll be under emotional distress,’ and that’s the reason.
“So when you hear people say, ‘It’s just the health of the mother that’s at play here, that’s code for ‘any reason.’”
And that really is the core of the issue here.
When then-Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe v. Wade decision, he cited “penumbras” in the Bill of Rights that the court had previously found that guaranteed Americans the right to privacy.
And while the ruling did allow states to prohibit abortion after the point of viability, where a not-yet full term baby could survive outside the mother’s womb, it also allowed the “health” of the mother to be the determining factor.
“If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother,” Blackmun wrote.
New York state’s new abortion law carries that muddy logic to its murderous extreme.
For abortion supporters, “health” doesn’t mean a life-threatening condition could result if a pregnancy goes full term.
It doesn’t mean the woman carrying the child will suffer lifelong physical disability as the result.
It doesn’t mean anything other than that the lives of human beings being taken for any reason at all.
That was the reality Dr. Paul Jarrett faced that day in his Indiana hospital in 1974, when he confronted the torn body and tiny, beating heart of a baby he’d just aborted.
Can the country face that reality today?
G’ day…Ciao…Helen & Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2019/01/www_31.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment