VIDEO If Unborn Babies are Not Human Beings, Why Do Scientists Want Their Body Parts for Research? -‘We Want to Avoid Having the Info on the Fetal Cells Floating Out There’ In Pfizer Vaccine (Project Veritas)

 Brad Mattes  |   Aug 13, 2021

By now you may have heard about the atrocities committed at the University of Pittsburgh.

Harvesting body parts from aborted babies for experimentation is not breaking news. However, some of the lows to which this university has descended are.

I also want to share the things we can do to help counter this barbarism.

The only way those who traffic in human body parts succeed is if we remain silent. They don’t want their atrocities revealed to the American public. So, here is a well-documented layman’s summary that can be used to expose their vile and possibly illegal activities to people you know.

The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and Judicial Watch teamed up to access government documents related to the trafficking of human body parts at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt).

Pitt submitted a $3 million grant application to the government’s National Institutes for Health (NIH) to fund its GenitoUrninary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Progect (GUDMAP). This is research focused on the kidney and lower urinary tract.

In the application, Pitt shared certain assets that they felt would enhance their success in securing the grant. These included:

  • Pitts location to be a “distribution hub” that “can be significantly ramped up” for providing body parts of aborted babies to NIH researchers.
  • Its over 18-year experience with securing aborted baby body parts.
  • Their short ischemia time, that is the limited time period the body parts are without blood circulation to “ensure the highest quality biological specimens.”

The records also show that Pitt had racial quotas for procuring these body parts. They requested that 50% of the mothers and children be minorities, and that a full 25% of them must be Black.

Kidneys are the primary organ of choice for GUDMAP research, and just like any organ procurement, they want blood circulation up to the point of harvesting, which means the baby’s heart must be beating. Their use of labor induction abortion ensures that the live baby is in one piece.

Pitt has admitted to the media that the kidneys and other organs are procured while the baby’s heart is still beating, which limits the ischemia time. The cause of death for the children is organ removal. It is likely as excruciatingly painful as it is brutal.

recent video from CMP reveals damning evidence for Pitt, Planned Parenthood, and NIH:

  • Abortionists at Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania provide body parts of aborted babies to the University of Pittsburgh.
  • Pitt uses its access to the body parts of aborted babies to acquire major grant money from the National Institutes of Health.
  • Pitt sends major kickbacks and medical resources back to Planned Parenthood.
  • Funding for these atrocities is coming from the National Institutes of Health, specifically, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID office.
  • Researchers from Pitt literally scalped five-month-old unborn babies and grafted them to rats in labs. Images are available at the link.

How are these barbarisms different than the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis during World War II?

IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW LIVES IN PENNSYLVANIA please contact the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Health Committee and urge them to stop these brutal atrocities being conducted at the University of Pittsburgh.

Whether or not you reside in Pennsylvania, PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE.

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group.

Project Veritas: Pfizer Whistleblower Reveals Internal Emails Discussing Covid Vax, ‘We Want to Avoid Having the Info on the Fetal Cells Floating Out There’

By Cristina Laila October 6, 2021

Project Veritas on Wednesday released a video featuring a sit-down interview with a Pfizer whistleblower who went on the record with internal emails showing the pharma giant scrambling to hide information about their Covid vaccine.

In the last two weeks Project Veritas has released four under cover videos exposing the truth about Covid vaccines.

  • Part One: HHS whistleblower goes public with secret recordings: ‘Govt doesn’t want to show the vaccine is full of sh*t’
  • Part Two: FDA on under cover video: ‘Blow dart African American’ and wants ‘Nazi Germany registry for unvaccinated’
  • Part Three: Johnson & Johnson: ‘Kids shouldn’t get the f*cking vaccine’ because of ‘unknown repercussions’
  • Part Four: Pfizer scientists admitted natural immunity may be better than the Covid vaccine

Vanessa Gelman, Pfizer’s Senior Director of Worldwide Research said Pfizer is using human fetal cells in their Covid vaccine program and hiding that information from the public.

TRENDING: University of Colorado Hospital System Denies Woman’s Life-Saving Kidney Transplant; Will No Longer Provide Organ Transplants to Unvaccinated Patients

“That is staggering for society because of religious exemptions,” James O’Keefe said to Vanessa Gelman.

  • Vanessa Gelman, Pfizer Senior Director of Worldwide Research “From the perspective of corporate affairs, we want to avoid having the information on fetal cells floating out there…The risk of communicating this right now outweighs any potential benefit we could see, particularly with general members of the public who may take this information and use it in ways we may not want out there. We have not received any questions from policy makers or media on this issue in the last few weeks, so we want to avoid raising this if possible.”
  • Gelman: “We have been trying as much as possible to not mention the fetal cell lines…One or more cell lines with an origin that can be traced back to human fetal tissue has been used in laboratory tests associated with the vaccine program.”
  • Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer Chief Scientific Officer: “HEK293T cells, used for the IVE assay, are ultimately derived from an aborted fetus. On the other hand, the Vatican doctrinal committee has confirmed that they consider it acceptable for Pro-Life believers to be immunized. Pfizer’s official statement couches the answer well and is what should be provided in response to an outside inquiry.”
  • Strickler: “They’re being so deceptive in their emails, it’s almost like it is in the final vaccine. It just made me not trust it.”

VIDEO:

Additional video from Project Veritas in case Twitter deletes:



Related

VIDEO Baby in “Roe v. Wade” Case was Never Aborted and Just Came Out Publicly – Democrats’ ongoing defense of child sacrifice – 180 Movie

By Jim Hoft October 2, 2021

Shelley Lynn Thornton and her mother the late Norma McCorvey

The baby at the center of the controversial Roe v. Wade case was never aborted.

51-year-old Shelley Lynn Thornton just came out publicly and gave her first interview.

Her birth mother Norma McCorvey later spoke out against abortion and even cut an ad against Barack Obama, who in 2012 was the most pro-abortion president in history before Joe Biden.

McCorvey later in life admitted that she was not raped and used that as a reason to push for abortion to be legal.

YouTube flagged the ad but it is still live.

The Daily Mail reported:

The woman whose mother’s wish to abort her became the landmark Roe v Wade case has agreed to give her first ever television interview.

Shelley Lynn Thornton, 51, was born in Texas before her mother, Norma McCorvey, won the right to an abortion.

McCorvey, who died in 2017 at age 69, gave her baby daughter up for adoption as soon as she was born,in June 1970.

McCorvey would win the case at the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973.

Thornton’s story was first told in The Atlantic last month and, on Monday, she will speak for the first time on ABC News.

In a short clip of Monday’s episode, released on Friday, Thornton seemed to remain mum when asked how it feels to be the baby that paved the way for America to legalize abortion nationwide…

…’I want everyone to understand that this is something I’ve chosen to do.’

The Atlantic tweeted the first photo identifying Thornton soon after the story was published and repeatedly through the day.

Thornton, a married mother of three, said her views on abortion are now complex, saying ‘I don’t understand why it’s a government concern.’

But she revealed that, when she fell pregnant at 20, she decided abortion was ‘not part of who I was.’

‘My association with Roe started and ended because I was conceived,’ she told Prager, whose book is published September 14.

Democrats’ ongoing defense of child sacrifice

Exclusive: Barbara Simpson chronicles flip-flopping history of Joe Biden on abortion

October 1,2021

Abortion. It’s a battle that seems to have no end, neither in the realm of the law and the courts nor in the world of morality. It’s an issue filled with lies and deceptions cloaked in claims of self-righteousness.

Advocates insist that abortion is the “right of women” – that if they find themselves pregnant, they have the absolute right to end the pregnancy. To them, it doesn’t matter how long into the nine-month gestation period she finds herself. Whenever she wants the “end” – she has the right to have it done – essentially, have her unborn child killed and removed from her body.

The man, who is the father of the unborn child has no say in this decision nor does her family, and certainly no religious figure has any input. None of them matters. It all comes down to the woman alone and her decision – and of course, the “doctor” abortionist who does the deed.

Example? At a meeting in the U.S. House last week, a Texas abortionist told lawmakers that abortion is a “blessing” and an “act of love.” This individual is Ghazaleh Moayedi. She practices in Texas and was invited by Democrats to testify about the new Texas Heartbeat Law, which forbids abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected – at approximately six weeks.

Life News reported that a pro-life OB-GYN also testified. She spoke of women who have regretted their abortions and those who were physically damaged and died as a result of the supposedly “safe” abortion. Dr. Ingrid Skop shared several heartbreaking stories of such situations – including those where the woman was forced to undergo the procedure by her own mother and/or current boyfriend.

As Dr. Skop said, “How is this a woman’s choice?”

At issue in Washington is the new “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. It essentially would allow abortion in all the states with almost no restrictions, eliminating all state regulations and banning a woman’s right to see the image of her unborn child or hear the heartbeat. It also would allow late-term abortions in the period when the child can feel pain – after 20 weeks.

The Hyde Amendment, which for some 40 years has prevented taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, is in dangerous territory – it was omitted from Biden’s proposed 2022 budget. It remains to be seen how this plays out, especially since a majority of voters support the Amendment.

The attempt to stop the implementation of the new Texas law – S.B.8 – was halted when the appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected – for now at least. The administration is seeking ways to put a halt to Texas’ Heartbeat Law.

The president wants to limit the new law, and he has stated openly that he does not believe that life begins at conception. This, despite that in the past, he has taken the opposing position.

But now, it’s big-time politics, and he is contradicting himself. Biden is contradicting science and the facts of embryology, not to mention contradicting the teachings of his own church, the Roman Catholic Church.

In a vice-presidential debate in 2012, he said, “Life begins at conception, that’s the Church’s judgment, and I accept it in my personal life – I just refuse to impose that on others.”

In fact, the Catholic Church holds abortion to be contrary to moral law and according to the Catechism, carries the penalty of excommunication.

Just a note, the Supreme Court in the next term will be hearing Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – which some have described as the most important abortion case in the last 30 years. As noted in The Daily Signal, the challenged law refers to the development of the fetus, the methods of abortion and the risks to the mother.

Depending on the outcome of this case, Roe and other abortion policies might be in danger of repeal.

As far as the Women’s Health Protection Act is concerned, Nancy Pelosi is a great proponent. It did pass in the House but is unlikely to get the votes need to pass in the Senate.

Pelosi sees the bill as a response to the Texas law, which she claims is “about vigilantes and bounty hunters, and something that is so un-American. … It’s unconstitutional and unjust.”

The whole issue was summed up in an op-ed in the Washington Post by San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. While he didn’t mention any politicians specifically, he was more than blunt in stating that pro-abortion Catholic politicians could face excommunication.

He wrote about prominent Catholic segregationists in the 1960s who in fact were excommunicated.

As for abortion, Cordileone said that it is “the most pressing human rights challenge of our time,” and he called the abortion bill “child sacrifice.”

He continued, “You cannot be a good Catholic and support expanding a government approved right to kill innocent human beings. The answer to crisis pregnancies is not violence but love, for both mother and child.”

“This is hardly inappropriate for a pastor to say. If anything, Catholic political leaders’ response to the situation in Texas highlights the need for us to say it all the louder.”

What’s interesting is that the archbishop noted that, “Texas is providing $100 million to fund pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, and maternity homes while also providing mothers who want to keep their babies with free counseling, parenting help, diapers, formula and job training.”

Funny how that information is missing from all other media coverage I’ve read about the issue.

Nancy Pelosi lives in the Archdiocese of San Francisco and was quick to respond to the archbishop.

She said, “It’s none of our business how other people choose the size and timing of their famiies.”

She spoke of the disagreement she had with the archbishop and that “God has given us free will to honor our responsibilities.”

So there!

There’s no question this issue will continue, and Archbishop Cordileone seems to be the only Catholic cleric to speak so forcefully about it.

I have met him and interviewed him as an in-person guest on my radio program and found him to be a man of honor and principle.

Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden aren’t anywhere near his class.

Stay tuned.

Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.

“180” Movie

Court Asks: Why Is Animal Cruelty Banned but Dismemberment of Unborn Babies Legal? – SCOTUS will hear challenge to Roe v. Wade Dec 1st

Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | Tuesday, August 24, 2021

A tiny baby, CNN Blasted as Propaganda for Claiming ‘It’s Not Possible’ to Know Sex at Birth


A federal appeals court that upheld a Texas abortion restriction last week also dabbled in pro-life apologetics by raising an ethical question: Why is it illegal to dismember an animal but permissible to tear apart an unborn baby?

The case involved a Texas law (SB8) that bans a second-trimester abortion procedure known as “dilation and evacuation” (D&E), which involves ripping apart an unborn baby, limb by limb in the womb to prevent a live birth. The pro-life community calls it “dismemberment” abortion.

Although a lower court judge struck down the law, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-5 ruling, upheld it.

A group of abortion clinics and doctors had sued the State, seeking to have the law overturned.

Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Don R. Willett, who co-wrote the majority decision, noted: “It is … illegal to dismember living animals. … The State urges that SB8 would simply extend the same protection to fetuses.”

Judge Priscilla Owens, who voted with the majority in the judgment, made a similar argument in a concurring opinion.

“The State has expressed its interest in prohibiting the dismemberment of a living fetus,” Owens wrote. “This is congruent with the widely accepted principle that dismemberment of living mammals should be prohibited. For example, unwanted dogs, cats, puppies and kittens in shelters must be humanely euthanized under Texas law.”

Owens then quoted Texas saw, which says dogs and cats in the custody of an animal shelter must be euthanized by sodium pentobarbital.

A D&E abortion, Owens said, is “abhorrent.”

The majority opinion had argued that pregnant women who receive D&E abortions “are not being told what is going to happen to the fetus.” For example, a typical form does not tell the patient that “‘the pregnancy tissue will be removed during the procedure’ and does not explain that the fetus’s body parts – arms, legs, ribs, skull, and everything else – will be ripped apart and pulled out piece by piece,” the majority argued.

Owens and Elrod were nominated by President George W. Bush. Willett was nominated by President Donald Trump.

Photo courtesy: ©Getty Images/Kieferpix


Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Postthe Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/court-asks-why-is-animal-cruelty-banned-but-dismemberment-of-unborn-babies-legal.html


Supreme Court announces it will hear challenge to Roe v. Wade; stage set for potential landmark ruling

By Dillon Burroughs, The Western Journal September 20, 2021

The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for Dec. 1 regarding a Mississippi case that seeks to overturn the long-standing Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The Mississippi case will serve as the first major abortion-related case to be heard in the Supreme Court under the new conservative 6-3 majority following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

The case will address Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act passed in 2018. The act, blocked by two federal courts, generally prohibits abortion after 15 weeks, allowing exceptions only in the case of “medical emergencies or for severe fetal abnormality.” As ABC noted, it has no exceptions for rape or incest.

The brief in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization argued that Roe v. Wade and another landmark abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were erroneously decided.

“Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes. Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion,” read the introduction to the brief, filed by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch.

After some technical discussion, it reiterates the point.

“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition …

Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”

It dealt with the complications the court’s previous rulings have imposed.

“Abortion jurisprudence has placed this Court at the center of a controversy that it can never resolve,” the brief added. “And Roe and Casey have produced a jurisprudence that is at war with the demand that this Court act based on neutral principles.”

The Wall Street Journal noted in July, when Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, that the state had originally argued the law did not violate court precedents, “suggesting that Roe be overruled only if the court found no other way to uphold the state law.”

In its actual argument to the court, however, it was much more direct. And abortion activists were

“​​Mississippi just said the quiet part out loud,” a statement from Planned Parenthood Action read, according to a July 23 report in The Washington Free Beacon. “This was always their end game: to have the Court overrule 50 years of precedent and allow states to ban abortion.”

“If Roe falls, half the states in the country are poised to ban abortion entirely,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-abortion group representing Jackson Women’s Health Organization, The Wall Street Journal reported in July.

“Women of childbearing age in the U.S. have never known a world in which they don’t have this basic right, and we will keep fighting to make sure they never will.”

Pro-life groups, meanwhile, see the case holding the potential for a major victory.

In August, the Supreme Court rejected a request to stop an anti-abortion law in Texas from going into effect Sept. 1. The controversial law bans most abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, generally at around six weeks of pregnancy.

The court’s decided 5-4 not to intervene.

Several pro-abortion groups have appealed to Joe Biden and lawmakers to intervene. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will push for a vote on a new federal-level pro-choice bill later this month.


Related

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/court-upholds-texas-ban-on-dismemberment-abortions-says-its-self-evidently-gruesome.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reps-greene-dingell-get-into-shouting-match-on-capitol-steps

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/24/house-democrats-pass-national-abortion-bill-allowing-gruesome-killings-up-to-and-including-when-a-mother-is-in-labor/

Doctor brags of breaking new law, gets serious surprise about his medical license – Half of abortionists at Texas chain quit – Missouri to introduce TX heartbeat bill

‘Necessary to prevent him from further illegal conduct’

By Bob Unruh Sept 20, 2021

A Texas abortionist, Alan Braid, went to the Washington Post to boast in a commentary over the weekend that he broke Texas’ new pro-life law banning abortions after about six weeks.

Now he’s finding himself on the wrong end of a campaign calling on the state to suspend his medical license.

NPR reported Braid bragged of breaking the law which was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to stand.

It is unique is that most pro-life requirements are enforced by a government. But not Texas’ S.B. 8, which allows that anyone who aids anyone else in getting an abortion “runs the risk of being sued for at least $10,000,” NPR said.

Braid, in the article, boasted he performed an abortion despite the state law on Sept. 6, which prompted the pro-life Operation Rescue organization to file a complaint with the Texas Medical Board.

“Because Braid publicly admitted guilt in violating Texas law by killing a baby whose life was protected by that duly enacted law, Operation Rescue has filed a complaint with the Texas Medical Board seeking an immediate emergency suspension of Braid’s Texas medical license,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The emergency suspension is necessary to prevent him from further illegal conduct and to ensure the protection of innocent lives.”

Braid runs the Alamo City Surgery Center, an abortion business in San Antonio.

He admitted breaking the Texas Heartbeat Act just days after it took effect. He’s also part of a group challenging the law itself.

Braid’s statement included, “On the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

Newman explained, “Braid was clear about his vested interest in challenging the law. He is losing money. He says clearly that he has lost eighty percent of his business due to the new law. That makes the illegal killing of that innocent baby all about making sure his pockets continue to be lined with blood money.”

The complaint charges: “The intentional taking the life of an innocent child whose life is under the protection of the law is a permanent and egregious loss that cannot be restored. It cannot be rectified. It cannot be undone. That human being is lost forever, and that loss represents a grievous crime that cannot be tolerated in the name of civil disobedience, political theater, or financial profit. It would certainly not be tolerated at any other stage of life in Texas.”


Half of abortionists at Texas chain quit

Rest remaining ‘if legal counsel is pre-emptively secured’

By WND News Services September 21, 2021

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Live Action News.]

By Anne Marie Williams, RN, BSN
Live Action News

Nine out of 17 abortion providers on staff with Whole Woman’s Health abortion chain in Texas quit when the Heartbeat Act went into effect on September 1, according to the Guardian.

As is common in many states, the “vast majority” of Whole Woman’s Health abortion providers were ‘circuit rider’ abortionists who did not reside in Texas, hailing instead from different parts of the country. For most of them, the stakes simply became too high to continue working in Texas.

Whole Woman’s Health’s CEO and founder, Amy Hagstrom Miller, lamented that “Just because we are complying with SB8 doesn’t stop extremists from saying that we are defying SB8. Even with compliance, there is a reasonable amount of threat that our staff and our doctors have to weigh. There is still so much risk to [the abortionists].”

The Guardian reports that of the eight remaining providers, “[j]ust one of them has agreed to stay on with no questions asked” and “the remainder have agreed to stay on, but only with modifications to their schedules and if legal counsel is pre-emptively secured.”

The national abortion chain’s four active locations in Texas include Austin, McKinney, McAllen, and Fort Worth, where abortion providers hustled 67 abortion patients through in just 17 hours — an average of one abortion performed every 15 minutes — an act applauded by the abortion industry. Besides losing abortion providers themselves, several of the Texas WWH locations have experienced manager resignations as well because of the Heartbeat Act.

Marc Hearron, senior counsel for the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights that is challenging the Heartbeat Act in court, commented that fear of litigation is a powerful motivator for Texas abortion providers when considering whether to keep practicing or pack up. He said, “Even if abortion providers win in every single case brought against them [under SB8], that burden of having to have a lawyer to defend yourself, traveling all over the state to do so – that alone threatens to shut down abortion providers.”

The Guardian article contained two ironic references when it comes to the gruesome reality of abortion and the longstanding safety issues that have plagued Whole Woman’s Health affiliates in Texas.

WWH founder Amy Hagstrom Miller was quoted as saying, “Our physicians and staff are thinking about what might be done to them and what they might have to defend. It’s cruel.” The irony of the objective cruelty of destroying an innocent, defenseless preborn person in an abortion apparently escaped her. Second, the providers who opted to stop practicing in Texas were described as no longer feeling that “they are able to continue safely providing this care in Texas.” While the abortion providers themselves may no longer feel able to ‘safely’ perform abortions, in reality women seeking abortion care at WWH affiliates have not been safe for a long time, as these affiliates have repeatedly failed to educate staff on proper sanitation and sterilization procedures for surgical abortion instruments, failed to ensure that staff are CPR-trained, failed to properly store hazardous materials, failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment, and failed to adequately follow-up with abortion pill patients. And though abortion advocates cheered the 80-year-old abortionist at the Fort Worth location who committed 67 abortions in 17 hours before the Heartbeat Act took effect, there was much that was unsafe about such an action.

The Guardian story noted that Planned Parenthood, the other major abortion provider in Texas, had not experienced the abortion provider defection rate that Whole Woman’s Health did, though the reasons for this discrepancy were not explored.

Predictably, as the population of women legally qualified to access abortion under the law has shrunk, so have calls for ‘assistance’ at groups like The Lilith Fund and the Texas Equal Access (Tea) Fund that provide financial aid and/or transportation to women seeking abortions, which will now be largely funneled to Texas women seeking abortions out-of-state. As Live Action News previously noted, in recent months Texas has bolstered its safety nets for pregnant women in crises, and pregnancy care centers across the state stand ready to aid women and families in need.

Organizations like And Then There Were None have long understood that abortions cannot happen without abortion workers. Undoubtedly, many preborn lives are being saved each day in Texas when abortion providers choose to pack up shop and work elsewhere.


Lawmaker in another state plans to duplicate Texas Heartbeat Act

‘I am absolutely going to file a bill as soon as I can’

By WND News Services September 19, 2021

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Live Action.]

By Nancy Flanders
Live Action

A Missouri pro-life legislator has announced she plans to introduce a bill similar to the Texas Heartbeat Act. The unique Texas law empowers citizens to enforce the state’s restriction on abortion once an embryonic heartbeat can be detected by allowing them to sue abortionists and others who aid in the abortion. The child’s mother is exempt from liability.

Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman vowed last week to introduce a version of this Texas legislation that aims to end abortion in Missouri. “I am absolutely going to file a bill as soon as I can,” she said. “We are committed as a group to work together to do absolutely any and all procedural or legal avenues to end abortion.”

Missouri passed a law in 2019 meant to restrict abortion to the first eight weeks of pregnancy, but that law is currently not in force and is tied up in the court system. The Supreme Court is set this fall to hear the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centers on Mississippi’s restriction on abortion at 15 weeks. In the meantime, Coleman and other pro-life Missouri legislators could write a bill similar to the Texas Heartbeat Act and have it signed by Gov. Mike Parson by early next year. They have hope that the law would go into effect since the Supreme Court allowed the Texas Heartbeat Act to take effect, making it the first successful heartbeat act to do so.

But that isn’t to say the bill won’t face challenges. Pro-abortion organizations are already gearing up to fight any and all pro-life legislation. “History continues to show us that this will not remain a Texas problem for very long,” said NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Executive Director Mallory Schwarz. “Given the precedent set earlier this week by the highest court in the land by allowing this law to stand, we anticipate we’re going to see a copycat bill come to Missouri as soon as filing opens.”

NARAL and other pro-abortion groups plan to rally abortion enthusiasts to help fund organizations that pay for abortions in Missouri and Texas as well as to put pressure on Missouri legislators to not pass pro-life laws. But according to NPR, Republican supermajorities are in both houses of the Missouri legislature and are likely to vote pro-life.

“We are absolutely going to do everything we have in power to try to eliminate abortion in Missouri,” said Coleman. “And not just eliminate it, but make it unthinkable.”

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt Signs 9 New Laws to Protect Babies From Abortion


   Mallory Quigley  |   Sep 9, 2021   |    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Today SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser joined Governor Kevin Stitt (R) on the ground in Oklahoma for a ceremony to celebrate the signing of nine new pro-life laws this year to protect unborn children and their mothers in the Sooner State. The new laws will:

  • Protect babies from abortion once the unborn child’s heartbeat is detected.
  • Safeguard women and girls from dangerous chemical abortion drugs.
  • Require regulations on chemical abortion drugs to be processed through the State Board of Pharmacy.
  • Require abortionists to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology.
  • Label abortion under state statutes as a procedure of “unprofessional conduct.”
  • Restore Oklahoma’s prohibition on abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
  • Protect relinquished children by extending the time frame they can be relinquished to rescuers and directs OSDH to award grants for the newborn to be placed into a “Baby Box.”
  • Require birthing centers and other medical facilities to keep a written policy to better honor the remains of a child who was stillborn or miscarried.
  • Prohibit fetal trafficking.

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser remarked:

“Governor Stitt has kept his promise to sign every piece of pro-life legislation that reaches his desk. He is at the forefront of nationwide momentum to challenge the status quo and modernize our extreme abortion laws. Across the nation, pro-life governors are taking bold action to ensure that state laws reflect the will of their constituents and the clear science showing the humanity of unborn children. As radical Democrats in Washington push abortion on demand through birth, paid for by taxpayers, and seek to expand dangerous abortion drugs, strong pro-life leaders in statehouses are critically important – and they are stepping up like never before.

“Life is winning in Oklahoma and across America. I’m proud to stand with Governor Stitt at this historic moment and thank him for his leadership on behalf of pro-life Americans.”

Governor Stitt added:

“I promised Oklahomans I would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that came across my desk and I am proud to keep that promise. As a father of six, it’s an honor to be the most pro-life governor in the country and I will always step up to protect the lives of unborn children.”

Stitt recently joined 11 other pro-life governors in submitting an amicus brief supporting Mississippi in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization late abortion case, calling on the Supreme Court to return the abortion issue to the states.

Michelle Malkin: The Coming Abortion Insurrection

 By Michelle Malkin | September 9, 2021


Pro-abortion activists host a rally. (Photo credit: TAMI CHAPPELL/AFP via Getty Images)

Pro-abortion activists host a rally. (Photo credit: TAMI CHAPPELL/AFP via Getty Images)

I told you it was coming. Back in May, on my show, “Sovereign Nation,” I chronicled significant signs of pro-life progress that were driving death-lobby Democrats mad — and I warned of a wave of intolerant tantrums to come as we hurtle into autumn. It’s here.

In a 5-4 ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to strike down the Texas heartbeat law protecting unborn babies as early as six weeks of age. This follows nationwide adoption of heartbeat laws and other abortion restrictions in so many state legislatures that the left-wing Guttmacher Institute apocalyptically reported that “2021 is on track to become the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.”

Extremist pro-abortion ghouls immediately lamented in early September that more innocent human lives with detectable heartbeats in the womb will be saved thanks to the decision. Richard Hanania, a former Columbia University research fellow, complained that “if red states ban abortion, we could see a world where they have five times as many children with Down syndrome, and similar numbers for other disabilities.”

Saved lives: horrors!

That callous response was tame compared with the unhinged rantings of actress Bette Midler, who called on all women to “refuse to have sex with men” in protest of state abortion restrictions. (I’d venture a guess that plenty of men would not consider abstaining from sex with Bette Midler a punishment, but I digress.)

The mayor of godforsaken hellhole Portland, Ore., Ted Wheeler, indignantly proposed a resolution banning city trade and travel with Texas until the state withdraws the law or it gets overturned in court. (I’d venture a guess that very few Texans will consider Portland’s abstinence and withdrawal from the Lone Star State a punishment, but again, I digress.)

A literal Satanic Temple announced plans to defy the law and assist any woman who “wishes to undergo the Satanic Abortion Ritual within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.” Meanwhile, web-hosting company GoDaddy showed its Satan-sympathizing colors by yanking down a whistleblower website run by Texas Right to Life that aimed to support enforcement of the heartbeat law.

Pro-abortion bigotry is similarly out in full force in the tech and entertainment industries. Standing up against the homicidal cancellation of unborn life will get you canceled by Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

The Food Network denounced former show host Josh Denny over his support for the Texas law, declaring that “his views do not reflect our company values and we regret giving him a platform.”

Denny, God bless him, did not back down.

“If you regret having ever given me a platform,” the actor and comedian retorted, “how about you send me a check for the (tens) of millions of dollars my show made for your network(s)?…You knew my views and my style of comedy when you hired me. My views represent the beliefs of half of this country.”

Indeed. Those views are also shared by John Gibson, who proclaimed publicly on Twitter that he was “proud” of the U.S. Supreme Court for affirming the Texas law protecting the unborn. “I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer.” Gibson was the co-owner of Tripwire Interactive, a Georgia-based video game developer and publisher, and until Sept. 6, he was the CEO.

Throwing their own leader under the bus, Tripwire’s top brass wrote that they “are deeply sorry and are unified in our commitment to take swift action and to foster a more positive environment.”

“Sorry” for allowing diversity of opinion to rear its terrible head!

This is all but a prelude to the real abortion insurrection. On Oct. 2, two days before the new Supreme Court term kicks off, militant feminist leaders are planning the mother of all pro-abortion Women’s Marches in Washington, D.C. These are the types of women who have turned up at past protests dressed as v…. and v…., howling at the tops of their lungs while vandalizing public facilities with sanitary napkins and storming the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court steps.

Very rich, isn’t it, coming from the same people who’ve been weaponizing Nov. 3 and Jan. 6 to cast their political opponents as the most dangerous public safety and homeland security villains. May I remind you that each and every one of the heartbeat laws and pro-life protections adopted in 2021 came about peacefully and lawfully. Pro-lifers didn’t have to shut down highways, burn down businesses, or incite violence like Women’s March allies in Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They worked through the system — and it’s still unacceptable to the mob.

Watch who abides by the rules of civility — and who breaks the rules when they don’t get what they want. History already shows us that some Capitol takeovers are more protected and equal than the others. I guarantee you that all the incessantly repeated narratives about “white supremacists” (like brown-skinned me) and Trump supporters being the real threats to democracy will be thoroughly debunked when the aggrieved abortion vigilantes in pink hats and raised fists return to Washington. Mark my words.

Michelle Malkin is a conservative blogger at michellemalkin.com, syndicated columnist, author, and founder of hotair.com. Michelle Malkin’s email address is MichelleMalkinInvestigates@protonmail.com.

https://cnsnews.com/commentary/michelle-malkin/michelle-malkin-coming-abortion-insurrection


Pro-Lifers Celebrate SCOTUS Decision on Texas Abortion Law, Abortionist plot

By Stephanie Martin -September 2, 2021

texas abortion law
A pro-life activist stands in front of the Supreme Court at the 2020 March for Life

In an unsigned 5-4 ruling late Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted not to block a Texas abortion law that effectively bans most abortions in the state. The ruling doesn’t address the constitutionality of the law, which represents the tightest restrictions on abortion since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The Texas law, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed in May, bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually at about six weeks, before most women even know they’re pregnant. The ban’s unusual enforcement provision, which grants power to civilian whistleblowers, intentionally makes court challenges difficult.

Texas Abortion Law: Pro-Lifers Declare Victory 

After the ruling was announced, many pro-life advocates and Christian leaders expressed joy and relief, calling it a major win. “What an amazing victory!” tweeted Abby Johnson, the subject of the anti-abortion movie “Unplanned.” “Babies win! Life wins!” The pro-life organization Live Action calls the ruling “a monumental, encouraging step forward for human rights!”

Outreach Magazine editor-in-chief Ed Stetzer tweets: “Today is a safer day to be an unborn child in Texas” and “It’s time to overturn Roe v Wade. It’s bad law, bad for the unborn, & bad for women. Justice matters.”

Southern Baptist Convention President Ed Litton calls the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene “such an encouraging development” but warns “the fight for life is by no means finished.” And Southern Baptist theologian Al Mohler describes the ruling as “a milestone in the battle for life” and a “massive” development that has left abortion advocates in “shock.”

With the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority, Wednesday’s ruling is raising hopes—and concerns—that Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy.

How the Justices Ruled on the Texas Abortion Law

All three justices appointed by former President Trump (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) voted in the majority, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Joining the three liberal dissenters (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor) was Chief Justice John Roberts, who says lower courts need more time to determine if “a state can avoid responsibility for its laws” by delegating enforcement to citizens.

The most harshly worded dissent came from Sotomayor, who (along with Breyer) omitted the customary modifier “respectfully” between the words “I dissent.” Calling the Texas abortion law a “breathtaking act of defiance,” Sotomayor accuses the majority of opting to “bury their heads in the sand.” By failing to block the abortion ban, she writes, SCOTUS “rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on…women seeking abortions in Texas.”

In her dissent, Justice Kagan emphasizes a woman’s “federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during that first stage” of pregnancy. But as Mohler points out, that “artificial right” was “invented” through the Roe ruling, and “every single precedent stands until it doesn’t.”

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who labels abortion a means of eugenics, has said Roe was decided incorrectly. But Chief Justice Roberts remains a wildcard. As law professor Steve Vladeck notes, Roberts’ dissent is “a pretty powerful sign that he, at least, is not ready to overrule Roe. But the million-dollar question that [Wednesday’s] 5-4 vote raises is whether, when the time comes, any of the other conservatives will join him.”

Biden Criticizes the Texas Abortion Law, Promises Federal Fight

President Biden, who supports abortion rights despite being a Catholic, pledges to lead a “whole of government” effort against the Texas ban, calling it a “bizarre scheme” with the potential to unleash “unconstitutional chaos.” Regarding its enforcement provisions, Biden says, “Complete strangers will now be empowered to inject themselves in the most private and personal health decisions faced by women.”

In a statement about the Texas abortion law, Biden says, “My administration is deeply committed to the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago and will protect and defend that right.” Communities of color and people with low incomes will be particularly affected, the president says, because they don’t often lack resources to travel out of state to obtain an abortion.

Challenging those assertions, Mohler argues that willfully terminating an unborn life isn’t a necessary healthcare service. And raising concerns about race and income is essentially “political signaling,” he adds.

Abortion Access Now Drastically Limited in Texas

As a direct result of the new ban, most abortion providers in Texas have stopped scheduling the procedure for patients who are more than six weeks pregnant. Whole Woman’s Health, which unsuccessfully sued to prevent the law from taking effect, says its four Texas clinics will now provide abortions “only if no embryonic or fetal cardiac activity is detected in the sonogram.”

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, which also has stopped scheduling abortions beyond six weeks of pregnancy, tweets: “The conversations happening in health centers in Texas today are devastating.” According to some estimates, 85% of abortions previously performed in the state now won’t occur.

As news broke of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the hashtag #TexasTaliban started trending, as did comparisons to the oppressive society depicted in the TV show “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Beto O’Rourke, a former Democratic presidential candidate, tweeted: “The Texas abortion law is an attempt to legalize harassment. It is as cowardly as it is unconstitutional.”

Whistleblowing Component Under Fire

Texas lawmakers intentionally crafted the abortion ban to make court challenges difficult. Typically, challenges involve suing the government official charged with enforcement. But Texas places enforcement powers with citizens, including those with no vested interest in a particular individual’s effort to seek an abortion. As a result, anyone who helps finance the procedure or drives someone to a clinic may be liable. Informants who sue successfully can be awarded at least $10,000.

whistleblower website now accepts “anonymous tips” related to the Texas ban. Some abortion advocates are encouraging people to submit false information there to “help crash this website.”

Although a dozen other states had passed early-pregnancy abortion bans, courts had blocked them all. In a statement praising the Texas ban, the Pro-Life Action League encourages “the other 49 states to catch up with Texas and continue this historic expansion of human rights.”

On social media, Ed Stetzer offers this reminder: “The US has some of the most extreme abortion laws in the world, aligned w/ only 6 other nations,” including North Korea and China. He links to a Washington Post fact-check report, confirming that America is one of only seven countries that permit elective abortions after the 20-week pregnancy mark.


Related

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-admin-sues-texas-for-law-protecting-unborn-babies-with-heart-activity-clearly-unconstitutional

Satanists Admit They Are Making Child Sacrifice Through Abortion an Official Ritual by the Satanic Temple

By Jim Hoft September 6, 2021

Photo via Satanic Temple Detroit

As The Gateway Pundit has previously reported — Satanists have supported abortion rights and Planned Parenthood for years.


They held a satanic milk bath protest in 2015 in support of Planned Parenthood

In 2015 Satanists raised cash to support the Democrats’ abortion-on-demand policy.

In 2017 Planned Parenthood teamed up with satanists to expand their Missouri abortion business.

In 2019 Virginia Governor Ralph Northam promoted killing live babies following a botched abortion.

In 2020 Satanists confirmed that abortion is a “satanic ritual” and should be protected under religious freedom laws.

And last week the Satanic Temple attacked the Texas abortion law arguing that it violates their freedom to perform “abortion rituals.”

Abortion is a sacrament to the Satanists.
It’s all out in the open today.

Via Jack Posobiec.


Texas Heartbeat law survives first challenge at SCOTUS by 5-4 vote – AZ Planned Parenthood Chair Calls For Riots

While Wednesday’s decision stressed that it wasn’t a ruling on the merits of the law, many pro-lifers have taken the majority’s willingness to let the law stand even temporarily as an encouraging sign.

Featured ImageWashington DC.,USA, January 22, 1989. Hundreds of thousands of people participate in the Annual Right to Life March as it passes in front of the United States Supreme Court.Mark Reinstein / Shutterstock.com


Calvin Freiburger Thu Sep 2, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Supreme Court formally denied the abortion lobby’s request to block the Texas Heartbeat Act Wednesday evening, voting 5-4 to let the historic law take effect while arguments on the constitutional merits of abortion restrictions work their way through the judicial system.

Signed in May by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the Act requires abortionists to screen for a preborn baby’s heartbeat and prohibits abortion if a heartbeat can be heard (generally as early as six weeks), with exceptions only for medical emergencies.

The law relies on a unique enforcement mechanism. Instead of having the state prosecute violators, it “exclusively” empowers private citizens to bring civil suits against abortionists, punishable by a minimum of $10,000 in statutory relief per abortion plus whatever additional injunctive relief is deemed “sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter.”

Texas Right to Life (TRTL) has set up a website where concerned Texans can anonymously report abortionists who commit abortions after finding a heartbeat or without testing for one.

Abortion organizations including Planned Parenthood Center for Choice and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance filed emergency motions with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay on enforcing the law. But last Friday night, the court canceled a hearing on the matter that had been planned for Monday, then denied the motions on Sunday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit’s denial cleared the way for the law to take effect Wednesday, September 1, which it did when the Supreme Court declined to intervene Tuesday evening in response to an emergency petition from the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

Now, the Court has formally weighed in, ruling 5-4 that while CRR and its allies “have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” they also presented “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”

“For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves,” wrote the majority, which consisted of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. “And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention…The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly.”

“Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law,” the Court continued. “Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application. 

The justices closed by stressing that they were not hinting at any long-term resolution to “any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, joined the Democrat-appointed Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent, writing that the “statutory scheme” of the Texas Heartbeat Act “is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” and that he “would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws” by delegating enforcement to private citizens.

Breyer, meanwhile, reiterated his view that a “woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during” the “first stage of pregnancy.” Sotomayor attacked her colleagues for supposedly “bury[ing] their heads in the sand” when “[p]resented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny.” And Kagan blasted the law as “patently unconstitutional’ for empowering “private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf.”

While the Court’s final judgment on the Texas law remains to be seen, the justices are already expected to offer a more comprehensive treatment of abortion in their upcoming hearing of a Mississippi law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities.

Various pro-life public officials, scholars, and activists have filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to not merely uphold the law but take the opportunity to directly overturn both 1973’s Roe v. Wade and 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which opened the door to some abortion regulations while reaffirming the “right” to abortion itself). 

Many pro-lifers see the case as the greatest test yet of the current justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents yet have still disappointed pro-lifers and conservatives on various occasions.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas is explicitly on the record as anti-Roe, and only he and Justice Samuel Alito have established consistently conservative records over a significant period of time. Many have placed a great deal of hope with former President Donald Trump’s appointees, though conservatives have also been alarmed by Justice Neil Gorsuch voting to redefine “sex” in federal civil rights law last year, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voting not to hear several cases of concern to religious, conservative, and/or pro-life Americans.

While Wednesday’s decision took pains to clarify that it wasn’t a ruling on the merits of the Texas Heartbeat Act, many pro-lifers have taken the majority’s willingness to let the law stand even temporarily as an encouraging sign.

In the meantime, the new law has already begun to save lives. NBC News reported Tuesday evening that “all 11 of the Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas” have “stopped scheduling visits after Sept. 1 for abortions past six weeks of pregnancy,” and that Whole Woman’s Health claims that its “four clinics in Texas will also comply with the law and prohibit abortion at seven weeks or less depending on the ultrasound results and if cardiac activity is detected.”

AZ Planned Parenthood Chair: Calls For Riots After SCOTUS Ignores Abortion Emergency Request “BE READY TO BREAK SOME S**T”

By Jordan Conradson September 1, 2021

The Chairwoman of Arizona’s Planned Parenthood Action chapter, Chris Love called for riots after SCOTUS ignored emergency requests to block the Texas Heartbeat Law.

The “heartbeat” law will effectively outlaw abortions in the state after 6 weeks and it also gives any citizen – including those outside Texas – the right to take legal action against anyone who ‘aids and abets’ the termination of a pregnancy after the cut-off point.

Love was absolutely triggered that SCOTUS had the gall to prevent unborn babies from being slaughtered.

Love: I mean, what exactly did you all expect? You’re devastated, but you consistently ignored every single sign. I’ll write something coherent in the morning, but just know that fighting back doesn’t mean pussy hats or petitions. Be ready to break some shit.

If you went to bed early last night, you’re waking up to news that SCOTUS did not to intervene in Texas, so SB8, a bill that bans abortion at 6 weeks, is now law. If you’re like me, your timelines is awash with folks being all varieties of upset as Roe is essentially done.

EZAZ.org called on patriots to counter these radical demands and those who made them in a peaceful way.

Planned Parenthood Action & Arizona Radical Left Elected Officials Call for Rioting

photo_2021-09-01_10-24-44.jpg
Chandler School Board member’s sister, Chris Love, Chair of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, tweeted out a call for rioting over SCOTUS not intervening on the Texas heartbeat bill. Love tweeted, “Be ready to break some sh*t.”

Rep. Daniel Hernandez (D-2) amplified the tweet with a LIKE, followed by Rep. Diego Rodriguez (D-27) retweeting the tweet thread.

Hernandez is running for Congressional District seat two, and Rodriguez is running for Arizona Attorney General.

diego hernandez.png

The call for rioting comes at a suspicious time as Biden’s DOJ is pursuing a punitive investigation against the Phoenix Police for stopping riots, and violent crime continues to surge.

Contact these radical left officials and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona and tell them Hands Off Arizona! NO RIOTS!

Email Planned Parenthood Action

(602) 277-7526

Email Rep. Hernandez

602-926-4840

Email Rep. Rodriguez

602-926-3285

Email Minority Leader

602-926-3132

The radical left is calling for violence because they cannot kill babies with beating hearts.

These people are disgusting.


Nancy Pelosi Arrests Pro-Life Americans Protesting Her Plan to Fund Abortions

Pro-life advocates were arrested Thursday for peacefully protesting against taxpayer-funded abortions on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Stanton Public Policy, the advocacy branch of a pro-life women’s healthcare group, and its Purple Sash Revolution led the protest in support of the Hyde Amendment, according to a press release from the organization.

President Joe Biden and Democrat leaders in Congress are trying to get rid of the long-standing amendment and force taxpayers to fund abortions. The Hyde Amendment prohibits taxpayer funding for elective abortions in Medicaid and other federal programs.

One of the pro-lifers who was arrested was Danielle Versluys, chief operating officer for Stanton Public Policy.

“Last week, Cori Bush was allowed to protest [the eviction moratorium] and camp out for several nights on the Capitol steps. The U.S. Capitol Police stood by and watched …” she said in a statement. “Yesterday, Stanton Public Policy members took our message to the very same public platform as Congresswoman Bush, asking Congress to protect our most vulnerable citizens — babies in the womb.”

The pro-life advocates carried signs that read “Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for abortion violence,” “Pro-life for the whole life,” “Hyde saves human lives” and “Birth is a human right.” In less than 10 minutes, however, she said they were arrested by Capitol Police.

“We were peaceful, respectful, and asking simply for the same rights afforded Ms. Bush. Instead, our message was swiftly silenced,” Versluys said.

The pro-life organization is discussing its legal options after the arrests.

Stanton Public Policy slammed the U.S. Capitol Sergeant at Arms and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a pro-abortion Democrat, for trampling on their First Amendment rights by allowing some people to protest their causes on the Capitol steps while prohibiting others from doing the same.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, chief strategy officer for the pro-life organization, warned Americans of the implications of such treatment by America’s top leaders.

“America and freedom are endangered when political elites can arrest citizens in the public square just because they disagree with their message,” Stanton said.

Pelosi and other Democrat leaders are trying to get rid of the Hyde Amendment in federal spending bills and force taxpayers to pay for the killing of unborn babies in elective abortions.

Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has saved an estimated 2.5 million babies’ lives, including about 60,000 each year, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Polls consistently show that most Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions.