The Blind Orange Syphilitic Squirrel in the White (Racist.) House throws decent people a bone.

The Tiny and Terrible Clump also spoke to today's March For Life "live"! (Well, as "live" as It can get.) Ain't it grand having a dictator who pretends to be conservative?


Health Workers Who Oppose Abortion Get New Protections - Ibex ...


The Trump administration announced on Thursday that it was taking new steps to protect doctors, nurses and other health workers who have religious or moral objections to performing abortions or sex-change operations, or providing other medical services.

The move, one day before the annual March for Life in Washington, was a priority for anti-abortion groups.

Administration officials urged people to report discrimination to a new unit of the federal government: the conscience and religious freedom division of the office for civil rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Roger Severino, the director of the civil rights office, promised that he and his staff would thoroughly investigate every complaint.

For too long, Mr. Severino said, the federal government has ignored such complaints or treated them with “outright hostility.”

Supporters of the new office, like the Family Research Council, welcomed it as a way to protect the rights of health care professionals.

Critics said the administration was giving health care providers a license to discriminate, and they raised the possibility that some doctors might deny fertility treatments to lesbian couples and that some pharmacists might refuse to fill prescriptions for certain types of contraceptives. In such situations, patients could suffer, and health care workers could violate professional or ethical obligations.

“Donald Trump’s administration is handing out permission slips for hospitals and providers to deny individuals, including women and LGBT patients, access to a full range of health services including life saving emergency care,” said Dawn Huckelbridge, director of the Women’s Rights Initiative at American Bridge, a Democratic advocacy group. “If there is any doubt about how morally repulsive, politically unpopular, and far-reaching the consequences of this rule will be, crafting it in secret behind closed doors and without public input says all you need to know.”

Eric D. Hargan, the acting secretary of health and human services, said the new initiative carries out an executive order issued last year by President Trump, who said that people of faith would no longer be bullied or silenced.

Representative Vicky Hartzler, Republican of Missouri, who attended an event announcing the new office, said, “No nurse or doctor should lose her job, her livelihood or her profession because of her faith.”

Either the fascist left is too stupid to remember Charlottesville, (possible) or they wouldn't mind another one for propaganda purposes.(more likely)

Golly, kiddies, you'd think with AmeriKKKa infested with nazis and rampaging penises, that womyn of the commie persuasion would welcome an attempt by the police to protect other leftist females who want to exercise their First Amendment rights.

You'd be wrong.



From Philthy.com:

Calls grow for protest of Philly Women's March over security measures

A social media campaign calling for a boycott of Saturday’s Women’s March on Philadelphia is quickly spreading. Its rationale? The march organizers’ perceived collaboration with police.

I know this demonstration should be called BabyDeath 2018, but free speech is important so real men can know which females to avoid like the clap.

“The Women’s March of Philadelphia thinks it’s OK to collaborate with the police department to set up security checkpoints and conduct random searches on march attendees, ostensibly stopping and frisking them, putting those already targeted by law enforcement at an even greater risk,” reads a message that started spreading on Facebook Wednesday. “Forget that. Don’t attend the Women’s March.”

People sharing the message on social media are asking friends to share it further. While it’s unclear who started the campaign, its message gained steam after it was shared by activists with large social media followings, including George Ciccariello-Maher, an outspoken ex-Drexel University professor known for his controversial tweets, who has more than 6,000 people following him on Facebook.

Johanna James, a black woman and an organizer with a local group that advocates for people of color, transgender women and other marginalized groups, attended last year’s Women’s March on Philadelphia, but won’t be going Saturday because of the police presence, which she said invites “trauma on our already traumatized people.”






Memo to someone's daughter holding the big white (Racist.) sign in the middle of the photo:

Sweetie, men can't get pregnant. That is why they invented contraception and abortion, so they can fuck women with impunity, and then fuck them over with impunity. (I'm not afraid of losing my Man Card for divulging that. Sadly, women are almost as stupid and evil as men nowadays and stubbornly refuse to get it.)


“One of the biggest antagonizers of the black community, specifically, is the police,” said James, a co-organizer with the Womanist Working Collective. “Inviting them into that space ultimately means you’re not taking our feelings concerning them into any sort of consideration.”

Other organizations have said they’re no longer supporting the event, including the Philadelphia-based Women’s Medical Fund, a nonprofit that aims to expand abortion access for low-income people. Executive director Elicia Gonzales said staff members decided Friday they would not be part of the demonstration after hearing from people in communities they serve who were “saying that they didn’t feel welcomed or reflected by the march.”

“We didn’t take this decision lightly and really thought about all the ramifications of both walking and not walking,” she said, “but we stand by our decision.”

The boycott campaign began after Women’s March organizers indicated on the event’s Facebook page that attendees will be subject to search by police.

“Due to the projected size and scope of the 2018 Women’s March on Philadelphia on January 20th, 2018, the City will be implementing some additional security measures in order to ensure the safety of all in attendance,” according to the Facebook page. The organizers listed prohibited items,
including weapons, fireworks, drones and “illegal or illicit substances of any kind.”

Organizers are expecting more than 50,000 people to march on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway on the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s inauguration.

In response to questions about the boycott campaign, Philly Women Rally, the committee behind the Women’s March, released a statement Thursday morning directing all inquiries regarding safety and security to the city. The statement did not directly address the boycott campaign.

“The City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Police Department are committed to facilitating and protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens, regardless of race, cultural background, age, gender identity and sexual orientation,” city spokeswoman Ajeenah Amir said in a statement. “For the safety of all in attendance, event-goers can expect to encounter security protocols similar to those in place at other large-scale outdoor events, concerts, festivals, etc. In no way will the Philadelphia Police Department, or any other city agency, limit the ability of attendees to lawfully and peacefully participate in this event.”

Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Wilson said rumors that police would be “stopping and frisking” attendees were not accurate, adding: “We’re not infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights in any way.”

The protocols are not dissimilar to those in place during the NFL draft in April. When the city played host to the draft, police set up a secure perimeter around the event and established multiple security checkpoints.

City officials say they have been working with Philly Women Rally to establish safety protocols. The event is being evaluated based on its location, projected attendance, timing, traffic hazards and potential threats of violence or terrorism.

Gwen Snyder, a longtime Philadelphia activist and organizer who is white, said she attended last year’s Women’s March on Philadelphia, but won’t be attending Saturday, citing “distrust in some communities of color around police presence in general.” She said that of dozens of protests she’s organized over the last two decades — including a 6,000-person “Tax March” last April — she’s never worked with police to set up security checkpoints.

“I think it sets a dangerous precedent,” Snyder, 32, said. “Today it might be they’re searching folks for knives and spray paint. But if they’re doing that, it’s just as likely it becomes the norm for protesters to be searched.”


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Ruth Marcus loves the taste of babies in the morning.

 UPDATE 10/27/17: 
THE ORANGE ASSHAT'S REGIME DID INDEED INTEND TO APPEAL BUT THE ACLU (GO RED DEVILS!) LAWYERS ARRANGED FOR THE KID

 TO BE WHACKED AT 4:30 AM, BEFORE THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED. TO SOME PEOPLE, CHILD MURDER IS THE HIGHEST GOOD.

La Marcus continues her crusade to put a butchered kid in every pot.

Don't worry, you baby-eating ghouls. You and the blood-soaked Marcus got your most fervent wish today. The child was chopped to pieces, Hoovered out of her (Yes! You'll never hear it from Ruthie and her ilk, but folks with vaginas get chopped up too.)  mommy's womb, and tossed into some gringo's trash can.

The whole "Orange Clump is gonna shut down the babytoirs!" meme is bullshit. I'll bet A Cockjerk Orange has paid for more abortions than Ruth Marcus can shake her broom at. It promised to appeal this to the Supreme Court this morning and...well, what's one more dead Mexican kid when there are tweets to write?


From Washington's other other newspaper:

The Trump administration is holding a teenager hostage over abortion ...


All the Trump administration/“Handmaid’s Tale” comparisons seemed overwrought. Then came J.D.

She is a 17-year-old detained by federal authorities after illegally crossing the border in Texas without her parents, who she claims abused her. She is also pregnant — 15 weeks and counting — and wants an abortion. In fact, she’s been seeking one for nearly a month.

J.D., short for Jane Doe, isn’t asking the federal government to pay for an abortion; she just wants the government not to stand in her way.

Instead, federal officials required J.D. to undergo counseling at a religiously affiliated, antiabortion center. Although J.D. said that when her older sister became pregnant in her home country her parents beat her so badly she miscarried, U.S. authorities contacted J.D.’s mother to inform her of the pregnancy. They also threatened to revoke federal funding for the shelter where J.D. is living if it let her leave to obtain an abortion.

In effect, J.D. is being held hostage by antiabortion zealots running the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees unaccompanied minors. The director of the office, E. Scott Lloyd, came to the job with scant experience in refugee issues but a long track record opposing abortion rights.

An HHS spokesman compared Lloyd’s role of counseling pregnant minors in his custody to that of a “foster parent,” adding: “He is going to make choices that he thinks are best for both the mother and the child.” But J.D., with the help of a group called Jane’s Due Process, has already convinced a Texas judge — Texas! — that she is mature enough to make the choice herself.

The Trump administration has tried to dissuade other minors from having abortions as well. According to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on J.D.’s behalf, in March, another minor at a different shelter obtained judicial approval and took the first medication to induce an abortion — at which point officials intervened to force her to go to an emergency room. The abortion was eventually allowed to proceed.

The government insists J.D. has options that turn out to be no option at all. If J.D. wants an abortion, they say, she is free to leave to return to her home country. Except, as a government lawyer acknowledged last week to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, J.D.’s home country — its identity is under seal — does not permit abortion.

Alternatively, the government says, J.D. could be released to the custody of a sponsor in this country. Except a sponsor has not been found, and the process of finding someone suitable could take weeks or months, by which point J.D.’s effort to secure an abortion would be moot. Indeed, every day that goes by makes the abortion more complicated, especially because Texas requires that J.D. obtain counseling and then wait 24 hours before proceeding. If her pregnancy proceeds beyond 18 weeks, she would have to travel 250 miles to San Antonio and undergo another round of counseling plus a sonogram including a state-mandated description of the fetus.

People of goodwill are entitled to believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, and work to prevent it. But government officials of goodwill must recognize that the Supreme Court has decided and reaffirmed that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to make that decision for herself. They don’t have to pay for abortions, and they can institute policies that encourage women to choose childbirth over abortion. They just can’t stop them from exercising their constitutional rights.

Even if the women are not here legally. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Texas and seven other states made the audacious assertion that “the Constitution does not confer on Jane Doe the right to an abortion.” But the federal government does not go that far, and for good reason; it has long been clear that the “persons” protected under the due process clause include anyone present in the United States, lawfully or not.

If due process protections did not apply to undocumented immigrants, as D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett pointed out, “they could be forced to have abortions. They could, if raped by government officials who hold them in detention, then be forced to carry any pregnancies to term.”

The government’s argument boils down to asserting that it should not be required to “facilitate” an abortion. But as Millett noted, “there is nothing for it to facilitate” besides simply letting the procedure take place.

Millett’s two colleagues on the panel sided against her , giving the government until the end of the month to find a sponsor for J.D. This is wishful thinking taking precedence over constitutional law. The ACLU has asked the full appeals court to intervene.

Donald Trump’s America is not Margaret Atwood’s Republic of Gilead. But it is nonetheless chilling how far this administration is prepared to go to compel J.D. to continue her pregnancy against her will.


Seriously, how damaged must a woman be to cheer for the slaughter of every child possible?


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Ever wonder how a dumbass from bucolic Amishland sounds?

Just like the dumbasses in your neighborhood.

Sorry. SORRY!

That was uncharitable of me. Let me try again...

We can do that madam. We have that right. Did you ever hear of a Constitutional Convention?

I double-dog dare you and your totalitarian friends to call one. PLEASE CALL ONE. Then you will reap what you have sown.



From the paper that dares not speak its own name:

 Put gun control to a national referendum | Letters To The Editor ...


This gun control issue has gone beyond the ridiculous. The gun lobby seems to have a (rather personal) grip on our representatives in Congress that defies reason and common sense.

Here’s my idea: We hold a national referendum (put it to a countrywide vote) to decide the issue.

I haven’t talked to anyone who thinks assault rifles and other military-style weapons should be in the hands of ordinary, or not-so-ordinary, citizens. But apparently there are those who will release them only when their hands are cold and dead.

Just think about the weapons of choice in the 1770s when the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution: flintlock rifles, pistols, blunderbusses. They unfortunately failed to be more specific in writing the Second Amendment, and this has fueled a centuries-old debate. But for sure, in their wildest dreams they couldn’t have envisioned these weapons we have designed for mass destruction to be necessary to defend life and limb.

For heaven’s sake, let’s move into the positions other developed countries have adopted and finally do something sensible about this once and for all.

Lillian Hill
Marietta, PA

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

ATTENTION ALL HYTERICAL NINNIES. HERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT GUNS IN AMERICA.

Of course, these facts are not for you gun-grabbing fascists. You know our guns are for shooting you when you come to take every last bit of our freedom.

From Washington's other other newspaper:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise...


Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

People who care enough to learn the truth about these things have been reading similar research since the 1980s. The bottom line is this: Guns are tools. Like hammers. An evil son of a bitch with a hammer can murder too. Let's concentrate on helping our neighbors refrain from becoming evil sons of bitches.

(All emphasis below is mine. - F.G.)


Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.


When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

With friends like Tim Murphy, babies don't need enemies.

Everybody's a sinner, Timmy, but a lying, cheating, hypocrite? That's a job for a politician. Get right with God and your wife while you can you fool.



From TribLive.com:

Scandal-plagued Congressman Tim Murphy won't seek another term ...


U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy announced Wednesday that he will not seek a ninth term in Washington as a marital scandal envelops him, including allegations that the married, pro-life Republican asked his mistress to get an abortion.

“After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek re-election to Congress at the end of my current term,” Murphy, 65, of Upper St. Clair, said in a statement.

“I plan to spend my remaining months in office continuing my work as the national leader on mental health care reform, as well as issues affecting working families in Southwestern Pennsylvania,” Murphy added.

Murphy said in the brief statement that he planned to take personal time in the coming weeks “to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing.”

Murphy admitted last month to having an extramarital affair with a friend. The affair became an issue in the ongoing divorce case of Murphy's mistress, Shannon Edwards, 33, and Jesse Sally, 36, both of Pittsburgh.

In a court order last month, Murphy was directed to produce a record of communications he shared with Edwards, including emails and text messages. 

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Tuesday that text messages showed Murphy asked Edwards to get an abortion when he thought she was pregnant; she turned out not to be. Murphy also claimed that he never personally wrote the anti-abortion messages he delivered at annual March for Life rallies in Washington. Rather, he said staffers did and he “winced” upon reading them.

“We're discouraged and shocked. We expected better of him,” said Mary Lou Gartner, secretary of LifePAC, a political action committee in Southwestern Pennsylvania that endorses candidates with pro-life voting records and beliefs.

Gartner said LifePAC endorsed Murphy in the past, and the congressman has had a “100 percent pro-life voting record” during his time in Washington. 

Murphy voted Tuesday for a House bill that he cosponsored to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

“I always considered him to be honorable,” Gartner said. “If the comments he made are true, it discredits him.” 

Murphy is such an entrenched incumbent in his heavily Republican congressional district that Democrats didn't even mount a campaign against him in the past two elections. None of his six contested races was close — he won by 16 percentage points in the narrowest victory. 

His district includes parts of Allegheny, Westmoreland, Washington and Greene counties.

“Something like this is a political earthquake,” Democratic strategist Mike Mikus, who lives in Murphy's district, said of the scandal. 

“Voters tend to forgive politicians for certain indiscretions, but the biggest issue here is the hypocrisy on the abortion issue,” Mikus said. “He's always worked hard, had a voting record that reflected his district in some ways and was one of those elected officials who seemed to be everywhere. All of that is broken now.” 

The divorce case involving Murphy continued Wednesday in Allegheny County Court.

Sally's attorney, Dorothy Wolbert, said the congressman still had not appeared for a deposition despite repeated attempts to schedule one. He was supposed to have been deposed by Sept. 29. 

Edwards' attorney, Timothy Gricks, said he is appealing parts of the case to a higher court, saying Murphy should not have to be deposed since he has already admitted to having a sexual relationship with Edwards. 

Gricks said court records in the case should not be made public, saying the records were being sought only for “scandalous” purposes.

“I believe that the depositions are not in the interest of justice in this case,” Gricks said.

Wolbert said the deposition was still needed, citing differing accounts from Edwards of what exactly happened between her and Murphy.

Judge Kathryn Hens-Greco said she did not believe Gricks had grounds for an appeal.

Attorneys for Edwards and for Murphy scheduled a date for the deposition but did not make the date public.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

It is evil and ignorant enough to be a Gloria Steinem quote...

...but it isn't. However, it is weirdly appropriate. Murder is murder, kiddies, whether you use a gun or a scalpel or a brick.

Actually, the ancient commie cow "borrowed" it from some asshole's Facefuck page a couple of years ago and now it is hers. You have probably seen it in the digital cesspool acting as the fascist alternative to thought:


"I want any young men who buy a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion. Think about it: a mandatory 48-hours waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, traveling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protestors holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protestor who call him a murderer. After all, it makes more sense to do this for young men seeking guns than for young women seeking an abortion. No young woman needing reproductive freedom has ever murdered a roomful of strangers."




It is baby-eating agitprop no matter what fascist wrote it. Let me explain it to you gun-grabbers and baby-eaters. When millions of real men buy guns, they don't use them to murder innocent people. Only assholes like that asshole in Vegas do that. (And goat rapists, too.) EVERY TIME a woman has an  abortion, an innocent baby is chopped to pieces and thrown in the trash. I know that is way too complicated for brains clogged with the effluvia of fascism to comprehend but I had to try.

One more thing, kiddies. In many states, it is possible for an underage girl to get an abortion without telling her parents, let alone getting their permission. In many of those states, it is illegal to get a tattoo until you are eighteen. If you think that's progress, you're a dumbass.

Please, people, think for yourselves. Try this little thought experiment:

Pretend you are in your mommy's tummy (no Freudianism allowed here) and the stork is about to drop you off. Imagine some paid ghoul who calls himself a doctor reaches in and chops you to pieces. You wouldn't like that, now would you?

Of course you wouldn't, because you were a baby once and babies aren't vegetables. Babies are people just like country music fans...and Gloria Steinem is too...all too human.

Gloria Steinem Did Not Say Quote About Abortion, Gun Control - The Cut

No, that viral quote you keep seeing is not from Gloria Steinem

This Gloria Steinem "Quote" About Abortion & Gun Control Didn't ...

That viral quote about gun control and abortion is not from Gloria ...

Gloria Steinem Is Not the Person Behind Viral Abortion Vs. Gun ...

The Gloria Steinem Quote Circulating on Social Media is Fake ...

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Meanwhile, if you want to kill your kid yourself, just move to Oregon and the suckers/taxpayers there will pay for it.

From Washington's other other newspaper:

Correction: Abortion Bill-Oregon story -

In a story July 6 about an abortion bill in Oregon’s Legislature, The Associated Press reported erroneously how the bill would pay for reproductive health care for people in the US illegally and for others who are uninsured. The care would be paid from Oregon’s general fund, not the state’s Medicaid program, and would apply only for women in the US illegally who qualify by income and are of reproductive age.

A corrected version of the story is below:



A sweeping new bill passed by Oregon lawmakers will force taxpayers to assume some of the costs of abortions, even though many oppose the procedure, anti-abortion campaigners said Thursday as a legal expert predicted the measure will draw lawsuits.

The bill passed Wednesday by the Legislature requires insurance companies to cover abortions at no cost to the patient. Those in the country illegally, who because of their immigration status are ineligible for Medicaid, would be able to have costs of abortions and other reproductive health care services paid by the state.

Oregon already had some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country. The new measure was introduced in response to federal attempts to curtail reproductive services.

“Health care has been one of the biggest battlegrounds in the fight between federal and state sovereignty,” said Bruce Howell, a professor who teaches health law at Willamette University College of Law. “I’m sure there will be lawsuits involving this.”

Howell said most Americans are insured through their employers, and most employer plans abide by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and “do not have to listen to state law.”

The bill was expected to be signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown, whose office exclaimed “Yes! Yes! Yes!” Thursday on Twitter, referring to the bill’s passage.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon also praised the bill.

However, David Kilada, political director of Oregon Right to Life, said Thursday the measure will lead to an increase in abortions.

“We’re concerned with the fact that it provides for free abortions for a whole new group of people and will result in more abortions, including late-term,” Kilada said in his group’s offices in a Salem suburb.

He said there were no immediate plans by Right to Life to sue but noted that insurance companies wanting to enter Oregon after 2017 might sue if they are locked out of the market because they don’t cover abortions.

Under the bill, insurers would be prohibited from shifting costs from those mandates to enrollees’ deductibles, coinsurance or copayments, although the measure offers some religious-based exemptions.

As the Trump administration and some other states try to restrict abortion services, Oregon went in the other direction when the state Senate passed the bill 17-13, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. The bill previously passed the House, mostly along party lines.

Kilada said the bill will force taxpayers to assume some of the cost, whether or not they oppose abortion.

“The bill expands abortions, and that’s why we’re against it,” he said. “I think it makes it easier for a person to kill an unborn child.”

The Oregon branch of the National Organization for Women said the bill establishes comprehensive coverage for reproductive health services, including family planning, abortion and postpartum care for all Oregonians, “regardless of income, citizenship status, gender identity or type of insurance.”

“This legislation ensures that all Oregonians are able to decide if and when they have children based on what’s best for them and their family’s circumstances,” the group said.

Check out the next two paragraphs. Why are they there?

President Donald Trump earlier this year signed legislation allowing states to withhold federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. In May, the Texas Legislature approved new abortion limits.

Last month, a federal judge blocked parts of a new Indiana law that would make it tougher for girls under 18 to get an abortion without their parents’ knowledge.

Oregon’s legislation was introduced in March largely in response to Republican congressional leaders’ earliest attempts to repeal former President Barack Obama’s health care law, which includes minimum coverage requirements for birth control and other reproductive services.

The Oregon bill would also allocate almost $500,000 over the next two years to expand cost-free reproductive health coverage, including abortions, to immigrants who are otherwise ineligible under the Oregon Health Plan — the state’s Medicaid program that currently spends nearly $2 million a year to pay for roughly 3,500 abortions statewide

"Your Blood Money Hard At Work."

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

HOLY FUCK!!! EVEN THE ORANGE MENACE IS NICER TO KIDS THAN THOSE VILE ENGLISH PERVERTS AND THEIR "HEALTH" SYSTEM!*

Not to mention their "Justice" system. Not only is Dred Scott still a slave, he belongs to the government and NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO EVEN TRY TO SAVE HIS LIFE!

No wonder we threw off their wretched yoke.


Trump, Pope Francis offer to help terminally ill baby - CBS News...

President Trump offered to help a terminally ill British baby on Monday, saying on Twitter that "if we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so."

The child, 10-month-old Charlie Gard, suffers from a rare genetic condition and is unable to breathe unaided. He also can't see, hear, move or cry, and is thought to be one of only 16 children in the world with this condition, CBS News' Charlie D'Agata reports.

Last week, his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, lost a legal battle to take him to the U.S. for experimental therapy. His parents and a London children's hospital said Friday that the boy will be given "more time" before life support is withdrawn.

THAT is what passes for humanity these days.

White House spokeswoman Helen Aguirre Ferre said that members of the Trump administration have spoken to Gard's family.

"Although the president himself has not spoken to the family, he does not want to pressure them in any way, members of the administration have spoken to the family in calls facilitated by the British government. The president is just trying to be helpful if at all possible," she said, calling the situation "heartbreaking."

There is little Mr. Trump can do to help, because U.K. and European courts have deferred to the hospital's decision not to allow Charlie to be sent to the U.S. for experimental therapy.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie is being treated, say there is no cure and the child has no chance of survival, the BBC reported. The condition is called mitochondrial depletion syndrome which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

Last Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Charlie's parents and agreed with the hospital that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm."

According to the BBC, the court said further treatment would result in Charlie "being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress" and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success... would offer no benefit."

Pope Francis on Sunday called for Gard's parents to be allowed to do everything possible to treat their child.

In a statement, the Vatican press office said Francis "is following with affection and sadness the case of little Charlie Gard and expresses his closeness to his parents. For this he prays that their wish to accompany and treat their child until the end is not neglected."

With their legal appeals exhausted, the family says they're slowly getting ready to say goodbye to their son.

Almighty God will have mercy on Charlie, but those who have condemned him to death will burn in Hell forever. Shame on us all for permitting shit like this to happen to an innocent child.

* "Coming soon to a hospital near you!"

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Never be afraid to stand up to them, kiddies. (WARNING: THIS ADVICE MAY NO LONGER APPLY ONCE THEY STARTING SHOOTING FOLKS LIKE YOU.)

From Philly.com:

In flap over free speech, Kutztown University loosens sidewalk 'chalking rules ...


Chalk it up to a lesson in free speech: Kutztown University has changed its policy on sidewalk chalk messages after an antiabortion group protested what it called “censorship by scrub brush.”

The episode began in March when a chapter of Students for Life of America used colored chalk to write antiabortion messages on sidewalks at the rural Berks County university, which is part of the Pennsylvania state system of higher education.

After university employees washed away the messages on two consecutive days, the student group turned to a conservative nonprofit legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom. It sent a letter to the university president, accusing the school of unconstitutional censorship and demanding a revised chalking policy.

In a statement issued Monday, the university said the March incident “was simply a misunderstanding as the messages were erased during campus cleaning.”

That's plausible. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were quite fastidious.

When exactly does "campus cleaning" become brainwashing? Or worse?

“When the university administration became aware of the situation, the group was immediately informed that it had every right to chalk its messages on our campus,” the statement said.

The chalking guidelines were revised in April to “better reflect our support of free speech,” the statement added. The revision scrapped a section on message content that required messages to be “educational or informative in nature,” and prohibited messages deemed to have “a clear and present potential hazard of interfering with the process of the university.”

In a statement Monday, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Travis Barham said: “No public university can silence student speech simply because officials don’t like what the students are saying. We commend Kutztown University officials for revising their policy to respect freedom of speech for all students.”

Around the country, “chalking” has long been a cheap, easy way for students to advertise campus events. But in recent years, a number of schools have had flaps over politically charged messages. Last year at Emory University outside Atlanta, for example, chalk declarations supporting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump prompted a protest demonstration; the university president issued a bulletin affirming the value of “vigorous debate, speech, and protest” as well as “civility and inclusion.”

Last month in California, Alliance Defending Freedom and Students for Life decried the erasure of antiabortion chalk texts at Fresno State University. But in that case, a professor and his students scuffed out messages for which the university had given permission, according to alliance lawyers.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Hollyweird eats kids.(When it isn't sodomizing them, that is.)

Our moral and intellectual superiors are at it again. I find it interesting how the world rewards murderous perverts and throws kids in dumpsters. Does Chuckles Lorre really think he's a good Jew?

Why do people watch this sort of mind-numbing crap, anyway?

Question asked and answered.


'Mom' Trades Emmy Campaign for $250 K Donation to Planned Babykilling - Variety


Producers and stars of the CBS/Warner Bros. TV sitcom “Mom” have decided to make a $250,000 donation to Planned Parenthood rather than mount an Emmy campaign this year.

“Mom” star Allison Janney and series co-creator/exec producer Chuck Lorre on Thursday launched the effort to raise awareness of the threat to Planned Parenthood funding as the Republican-backed American Health Care Act makes its way through Congress. Janney and Lorre are expected to appear on “CBS This Morning” to encourage fans to donate to the non-profit family planning and health care org through a special link established as part of the “Mom” campaign.

“In Los Angeles County alone, we answer approximately 2,000 calls each day from people asking us for help,” said Sue Dunlap, president-CEO of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. “Across the country, millions of women and men are relying on Planned Parenthood health centers for their basic care — like birth control, life-saving cancer-screenings, and STD testing and treatment. We are committed to being here for them, no matter what. Generous support from our community fuels this work, and we are honored that the team behind “Mom” is launching this campaign at this critical time.”

Support for Planned Parenthood has become a rallying cry for activists and others who are organizing to fight aspects of the Trump administration’s political agenda. Planned Parenthood’s role as a provider of birth control and abortions has made the org a target of anti-abortion activists and some conservative lawmakers. The health care bill designed to repeal Obamacare would also bar access to Planned Parenthood services by anyone receiving Medicaid, a crippling blow to those in need of low-cost birth control options and women’s health services.

“Mom” stars Janney and Anna Faris as a mother and daughter who are both recovering from alcohol and drug abuse and other challenges. The show is known for its bold mix of comedy and drama in tackling real-life issues faced by people from all walks of life. Janney won back-to-back supporting comedy actress Emmys for her work on the show in 2014 and 2015. “Mom” was renewed in March for a fifth season.

Janney has long been an active supporter of Planned Parenthood. Lorre, one of TV’s most successful producers, has a record of supporting public health organizations including the Venice Family Clinic, where he established the Robert Levine Family Health Center in his father’s name. Faris is a champion of the Global Alliance to Prevent Premature and Stillbirth (GAPPS), a org devoted to preventing premature births and stillbirth.

Planned Parenthood serves some 2.5 million people a year, more than half of them in rural communities and areas underserved by affordable health care facilities.

The “Mom” team’s move to forgo traditional kudos campaigning in favor of social activism recalls the decision in February by UTA to table its Oscar-night party in order to make a $250,000 donation split between the ACLU and the refugee-oriented International Rescue Committee.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

LOOK OUT, BABYEATERS! THERE ARE WITNESSES!

Of course, the whole baby-chopping exercise is designed to wipe out those witnesses...


It Turns Out Fetuses Can Recognize Faces - Inverse

Scientists have long known that babies tend to turn their attention toward faces (or objects shaped like faces), but research suggests that fetuses in the third trimester of development could be able to recognize faces from inside the uterus.

In a study published Thursday in the journal Current Biology, researchers in the United Kingdom explain that fetuses prefer looking at face-like shapes, even through the uterus. Vincent Reid, a psychology researcher at Lancaster University and lead author of the study, says this research supports the idea that babies develop a preference for faces before they ever have any direct experience with them. This may sound strange, but it’s not far-fetched. After all, humans develop the skills to do many things long before we actually need to use those skills.

Reid likens this developmental pattern to the period when babies learn to crawl. Balance is required for crawling, but we learn how to balance before we learn how to crawl. The same, it seems, is true for recognizing people’s faces.

Research on infant facial recognition preferences suggests that babies respond to the general shape of the face, which is top-heavy, Reid tells Inverse.

Reid and his colleagues used techniques similar to those that would be used for tracking vision in infants but adapted them to the special conditions of the uterus.

“I’m actually not a fetus person,” says Reid, explaining that he usually works with infants.

To track fetal vision, the researchers shined a fairly dim light on the abdomens of 39 pregnant women in their third trimesters. They used 2D ultrasounds to identify where the fetuses’ faces were, to ensure that the light was being placed within their visual fields. Researchers presented the light stimulus as a triangle of dots, either pointing up or down, and each subject received both orientations of light. The researchers moved the trio of lights across each mother’s abdomen at the same speed that infants have been shown to track movement.

Researchers shined small triangles of light (A and C) on the abdomens of pregnant women. Once the light filtered through the mother's tissues and into the uterus, it looked more like B and D.
Using 4D ultrasound, the researchers found that fetuses turned their heads toward the top-heavy, face-like light stimulus much more often than the inverted one. This suggests that infants and late-term fetuses share a preference for top-heavy shapes over the same shapes when they’re inverted. Not only that, but it also shows that the uterus lets in much more light than previously suspected.

Researchers used 4D ultrasound technology to track fetuses' head motions as they shined lights through the uterus.

Reid suspects that the facial shape preference has to do with the uterine environment. In a 2013 study of fetal mice, researchers found that pregnant female mice who lived in the dark gave birth to offspring with malformed eyes. This showed that light is required for the eye to fully develop, and he suspects that something similar could be happening with humans.

His second hypothesis is that the facial shape preference comes from the broken light pattern shining through the mother’s ribcage and the unbroken pattern shining through the uterus, a non-uniform pattern that is top-heavy.

“This is conjecture here,” Reid warns. And of course, both of these suspicions require further research to confirm. But with this research, scientists now know that fetuses toward the end of gestation already exhibit facial recognition habits similar to newborns. And it may go without saying, but Reid asks that you please don’t try using a flashlight to perform this experiment at home.

Abstract: In the third trimester of pregnancy, the human fetus has the capacity to process perceptual information. With advances in 4D ultrasound technology, detailed assessment of fetal behavior is now possible. Furthermore, modeling of intrauterine conditions has indicated a substantially greater luminance within the uterus than previously thought. Consequently, light conveying perceptual content could be projected through the uterine wall and perceived by the fetus, dependent on how light inter- faces with maternal tissue. We do know that human infants at birth show a preference to engage with a top-heavy, face-like stimulus when contrasted with all other forms of stimuli.

However, the viability of performing such an experiment based on visual stimuli projected through the uterine wall with fetal participants is not currently known. We examined fetal head turns to visually presented upright and inverted face-like stimuli. Here we show that the fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy is more likely to engage with upright configural stimuli when contrasted to inverted visual stimuli, in a manner similar to results with newborn participants. The current study suggests that postnatal experience is not required for this preference. In addition, we describe a new method whereby it is possible to deliver specific visual stimuli to the fetus. This new technique provides an important new pathway for the assessment of prenatal visual perceptual capacities.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE! (Except you, you, and you. And you over there. Yeah, you...the one who believes in God.

Parkland students demand to form anti-abortion club | lehighvalleylive ...


Ah, fascism...thy name is headline writing...

See, kiddies? People who don't want babies to be chopped to pieces and thrown in the trash are always "anti-" and they dare to "demand" their rights to assemble and speak freely.

Golly, fascism sure does suck.


A pair of Parkland students are demanding the high school allow them to create an anti-abortion club, after initially being denied.

District spokeswoman Nicole McGalla said the district Wednesday received a letter from the pair's attorney, demanding the club be allowed to form.

The district was consulting with its solicitor, but McGalla said because it is a legal matter, the district would not have a comment at this time.

Senior Elizabeth Castro and junior Grace Schairer proposed a student group called Trojans for Life, a branch of Students for Life of America, a nonprofit organization based in Virginia whose stated mission is to abolish abortion.

The teens said they approached the high school's administration about starting the club, and were told they would need an adviser and would have to submit a club proposal.

The girls found an adviser and submitted their proposal in March, but said the proposal was denied by Assistant Principal Jude Sandt, who reportedly said the group was too "political" and "controversial."

Baby eating sodomite.

Sandt did not immediately respond to a phone message asking about the proposal.

Schairer said she sent an email in April asking what the group could do to overcome the denial, but allegedly received no response.

"As a club, our purpose is to create a life-affirming culture at our school, educate our peers on the issue of life, hold diaper drives to support pregnant and parenting students, and become a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves," Castro said in a news release. "The school is not only denying our right to start a group but also denying the opportunity for others at our school to learn about the greatest human rights social injustice of our time."

The students are now represented by the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm. Their attorney says the school's denial is unconstitutional, violating the group's First Amendment rights.

A letter that demands the club be permitted was sent Wednesday to Superintendent Richard Sniscak and high school administrators:

Thomas More Society letter to Parkland officials by Anonymous arnc2g2N on Scribd

The Thomas More Society is always on the side of the angels and deserves your support.

Thomas More Society | a National Public Interest Law Firm

About the Thomas More Society Mission. The Thomas More Society is a not-for-profit, national public .. .	Thomas Olp Thomas Olp earned his undergraduate degree from ...
Attorneys	The Board
Contact Us	Sir Thomas More Thomas More Society celebrates the life of its namesake, Sir ...
More results from thomasmoresociety.org »

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Somewhat anti-babyeating Dem stabbed in back; Sanity is D.O.A.

For a second, I almost knid of maybe hoped there might be a miniscule chance the Party of Blasphemy, Buggery, and 'Bortion would put down their knives and forks and stop eating kids.

I am a sentimental old fool and they are diabolical ghouls.



Jean Stothert re-elected Omaha mayor after abortion debate - Fox News


Republican Jean Stohert was re-elected to a second four-year term as mayor of Omaha, Neb. Tuesday, defeating a Democratic candidate whose anti-abortion views had become a flashpoint for an ongoing internal party battle. 

Stohert, a 63-year-old former nurse and Omaha city council member, defeated 37-year-old Heath Mello by just under 6,500 votes out of more than 96,000 cast. 

"I’m thrilled,” Stothert told the Omaha World-Herald. “We’ve worked very hard the last four years, not just during the campaign."

Moderate Democrats had cast the Catholic Mello as an independent, next-generation Democrat who could win high office in GOP-dominated Nebraska. However, his pro-life stance drew backlash from abortion activists.

During his eight years in the Nebraska legislature, Mello voted to support half a dozen bills restricting abortions. 

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez skipped a rally for Melo last month that would have been part of his multi-state unity tour. 

"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices," Perez said at the time, calling on Democrats to speak with "one voice" on the issue. 

However, Perez's comments drew a backlash of their own, this time from moderate and pro-life Democrats who said the chairman's abortion litmus test was damaging to a party struggling to gain traction after the 2016 election defeat.

"Requiring everybody to fit some purity test is a recipe for disaster," Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio said at the time. "There are going to be people who are Democrats who may not check all the boxes. But they are with you 80 percent of the time and can win in tough places."

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders did campaign for Mello, calling on voters to "change one-party rule in Nebraska." 

Stothert also called on national political figures for help, bringing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to one of her rallies.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.