5333 private links
The contrived and partisan battles that transpire in the Judiciary Committee do little to inform us as to what type of justice the nominee to the bench might be and instead serve as grotesque works of performance art for the individual senators who are merely auditioning for their eventual presidential campaign.
Hearing the nine justices actually quizzing the attorneys charged with arguing the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization enlightened us profoundly on their intellect, empathy, and abilities to carry out the critical job they've been given for the rest of their lives.
In some cases, the level of banal and insulting queries mixed with political pontifications left quite a bit to be desired (looking at you, wise Latina). However, some of the justices rose to the occasion of the historic day this may very well turn out to be.
Toward the very end of the arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh succinctly articulated exactly what today's discussion is really all about:
SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
·
Dec 1, 2021
Replying to @SCOTUSblog
Kavanaugh presses Prelogar about the argument that the Roe/Casey framework accommodates both the interests of pregnant people and the interests in protecting fetal life. Kavanaugh is openly skeptical that it's possible to balance both interests.
Kavanaugh: “You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time. And that’s why this is so challenging.” //
Hugh Hewitt
@hughhewitt
Justice Kavanaugh (doing great work for public and media here) reviews the interests of the fetal life. “You have to pick. one interest has to prevail over the other at a point in time. And the question becomes: What does the Constitution say about that. Why should Ct decide?” 👏
11:49 AM · Dec 1, 2021 //
There's no way to know how the Court will decide, and we will probably have to wait six excruciating months to learn of the decision. What we do know is this all boils down to the fundamental conundrum Kavanaugh articulated:
You have to pick one interest over the other; they can't both prevail. So... what does the Constitution say?
If they truly rule based on that simple question, they must come down on the side of life.
On a plane returning from a four-day trip to Budapest and Slovakia, the Bishop of Rome took questions from the press.
As reported by the Catholic News Agency, he spoke of respect:
“Abortion is more than an issue. Abortion is murder. Abortion, without hinting: Whoever performs an abortion kills. You take any embryology textbook of those students that study in medical school. At the third week of conception, at the third, many times before the mother notices, all the organs are already there. All of them. Even the DNA. […]
“It’s a human life, period. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear.” //
“To those who can’t understand it, I would ask two questions: Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically, it is a human life. Second question: Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? I said this publicly […] when I did, I said it to (Spanish radio station) COPE. I have wanted to repeat it. … Scientifically, it’s a human life. The textbooks teach us that. But is it right to take it out to solve a problem? This is why the Church is so strict on this issue because accepting this is kind of like accepting daily murder.”
It profits a man nothing to gain the world if he loses his soul—and the deal is even worse if the earthly gain is just a chance at the fleeting respect of a few law professors. Nonetheless, that is how the left is hoping to tempt Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court considers a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
Writing at National Review Online, Ed Whelan observes that such a sales pitch from Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman “isn’t subtle.” //
The justices should do their duty and follow the law and Constitution to the best of their abilities. In the case at hand, this means overturning Roe and Casey, which are legal abominations, exercises of raw power divorced from the text and history of the Constitution. //
The most important consideration is the wickedness of the radical regime of abortion on demand established by Roe and confirmed by Casey. In the age of ultrasound, we know what abortion is, and who it kills. The images eagerly shared on social media and stuck to the fridge condemn the atrocity of our abortion regime, in which the child whose features can be seen on the screen, and whose movements can be felt in the womb, has less legal protection than livestock.
This acceptance of, and reliance on, the violence of abortion poisons society. It turns what ought to be the loving, primordial union of mother, father, and child into a battleground of selfish interests. Abortion hardens the hearts it doesn’t stop.
Overturning Roe will not in itself end these evils, for the justices are unlikely to extend 14th Amendment protections to the unborn, although there is an originalist case for doing so. Abortion policy would therefore return to the states, leaving the pro-life movement to face a grueling state-by-state fight. But at least our democratic victories will no longer be overridden by the caprice of federal judges. //
Millions of voters have supported the conservative legal movement on the promise that it would fight to get courts out of the abortion business. Thus, if the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 Republican-appointed majority, voted to uphold Roe and Casey, the decision might well blow up the conservative legal movement for good. Most of the voters who care about the courts are not interested in Chevron deference or other (to a layperson) esoteric legal doctrines. Rather, they want Roe overturned.
The slogans they yell the loudest are the ones they believe the least. We’ve noticed that recently. Volume is inversely proportional to sincerity. You scream it because you don’t really believe it. How do we think this? Here’s why. //
The very same people who’ve told us for decades that it’s “my body, my choice,” and seemed to mean it— those people — immediately abandoned their own argument when COVID arrived. Suddenly they were demanding that we wear the mask and get the shot.
These weren’t optional suggestions. They weren’t deeply personal decisions to be made according to the dictates of individual conscience, after consulting with family, physicians, and clergy. Not at all. These were mandates. All of a sudden Democrats were arguing that actually, politicians do get to decide what we do with your bodies — it’s their choice, not yours:
“Inject these powerful drugs whether you want to or not because we own you.”
Whatever else that is, that is not a pro-choice position, to put it mildly. So as we watched this happen we wondered: what are these people going to say the next time so-called abortion rights are challenged in court? Now we know the answer. //
Reporter: The law signed by Gregg Abbott bans abortion after a so-called fetal heartbeat is detected – usually around six weeks.
“So-called fetal heartbeat.” Democrat hypocrisy at its finest: embrace “the science” when it fits the narrative; ignore the science when it destroys the narrative.
“They didn’t tell you why it’s so important to stop fetal hearts from beating,” said Carlson. “They just asserted that it is.” //
Intentionally stopping a person’s heart from beating is the definition of killing. Government has a right to regulate that. Deciding when it’s OK to kill a person is, on the most basic level, the whole reason we have laws in the first place. So whether it’s right or wrong or whether you like it or not, it’s not a crazy statute. It did however drive the media crazy.
ACLU
@ACLU
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has not responded to our emergency request to block Texas’ radical new 6-week abortion ban, SB8. The law now takes effect.
Access to almost all abortion has just been cut off for millions of people. The impact will be immediate and devastating.
1:15 AM · Sep 1, 2021
In what way is it devastating for a baby to get a chance at life instead of being killed in the womb? And given the argument for abortion is often economic regarding future life choices, how is it immediate?
A woman who wants an abortion and can’t get one because of this law can eventually put her child up for adoption. On the other hand, an abortion can not be undone once performed. That life can not be untaken. Thus, even on non-moral grounds, it makes no sense to block the law as litigation continues.
But to the ACLU and so many others, life in the womb is meaningless and holds no value. Just like those who supported slavery, they’ve made the arbitrary decision to deny personhood to a segment of humanity they find inconvenient and detestable.
Richard Hanania
@RichardHanania
You can’t screen for Down syndrome before about 10 weeks, and something like 80% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted. 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.
12:39 AM · Sep 2, 2021
Children with disabilities are some of the most joy-producing humans on the planet, both for themselves and others. Why would anyone be concerned that a lack of abortion might result in more of them? But for too many, they become numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s a symptom of just how sick as a nation we’ve become.
Others compared pro-lifers to the Taliban because everything is stupid. But honestly, if the Taliban are more moral than the American left on abortion, maybe that should be a sign something is wrong? The Taliban are also against cannibalism. That doesn’t make cannibalism a right and just choice. //
The moral depravity on display over this Texas law is just astonishing, and it continues to be a minor miracle that we can exist as a country at all while one side continues to stump for the genocide of children. God forgive us for ever becoming desensitized to it and allowing abortion to become so pervasive in the first place.
On Monday, Judicial Watch and David Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released the details of a $3 million grant the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave the University of Pittsburgh to create a fetal “Tissue Hub” to dismember and distribute the organs of full-term aborted babies, selected by race, for inhumane experiments.
As if that wasn’t appalling enough, new evidence points to the University of Pittsburgh harvesting organs from born-alive babies as a real possibility—meaning the babies would have died while researchers dissected their bodies for kidneys and other organs.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently handed over the documents thanks to a lawsuit Judicial Watch filed last year on behalf of CMP when the agency failed to deliver records CMP requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Last month, Daleiden’s group exposed the University of Pittsburgh’s work to graft the full-thickness scalps of unborn babies onto the backs of rodents in a study funded by Anthony Fauci’s NIAID office. The records released this week reveal this wasn’t a one-off incident, unearthing an agreement between NIH and the university to fully operationalize a grotesque baby organ bank funded by federal taxpayers.
As just discovered this week, the specific terms of the grant were to “develop a pipeline to the acquisition, quality control and distribution” of human babies from all levels of development right up to the age of birth. The University of Pittsburgh’s grant application to the NIH requests funding to “generate an ongoing resource” to fetal tissue from babies 6 to 42 weeks old by establishing itself as the “Tissue Hub and Collection Site” for the “GUDMAP” project. The project supplies researchers across the country with aborted kidneys, bladders, and other organs for experimentation. //
The NIH project admitted it used inducing labor as a procedure, almost surely meaning babies who could survive outside the womb were harvested by a barbaric—and illegal—late-term abortion method.
On Friday, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops voted by a 168-55 margin to proceed with drafting a document on “Eucharistic coherence” to be debated and voted on at the November meeting of the USCCB. This document, as currently discussed, would encourage priests to refuse Communion to Catholics who they know to be in a state of mortal sin.
This is a battle that has been brewing for a couple of decades, and it is only the insertion of Joe Biden into the presidency that has brought it to a head.
The significance of 75% of US bishops agreeing to move forward on an issue vehemently opposed by the progressive caucus is hard to overstate. The hard work to develop such a statement remains ahead, but the fact that a body that is usually timorous at the mere mention of anything that is not consensus is little short of amazing.
The horrors of experimentation on aborted babies are too easily purged from our thoughts, but they should stoke our national conscience. //
Child sacrifice strains the limits of moral relativity, yet too often abortion gets a pass. There are various arguments why, but at least it’s a debate. In contrast, most Americans are only semi-conscious of the use of aborted babies for medical experiments. Our tax dollars pay for it through the National Institutes of Health, but more often than not, we never hear about it.
In a recent Newsweek editorial, David Daleiden reminded the public that scientists at the University of Pittsburgh have been taking five-month-old aborted infants, cutting out their body parts, then grafting their scalps onto mice, or otherwise harvesting their organs for medical use. Our natural response is revulsion. For the sake of sanity, though, our momentary outrage is usually followed by forgetfulness.
Meet Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood as we all know, murders over 300,000 children in the womb every year.
Of those, the Family Research Council using CDC data reports, 36 percent are Black //
How did we get to this point? It starts with Margaret Sanger and her belief in — nay, active promotion of — eugenics. Her stated desire was the same as a certain well-known Austrian Corporal. According to a number of quotes laid out in, The Strange World of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review: Part I.
Her aim was to prevent the procreation of those she deemed unfit “To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds.”
https://www.hli.org/resources/sangers-birth-control-review-part-i/#_edn4 //
audax
a year ago edited
Something I wrote a few years ago:
Someone asked me to "pass on" a meme about "Assisted Dying Laws" because "it is so easy"! Let's put the "people in pain" out of their misery!
It has ALL happened before! This Eugenics philosophy thing. It sounds so "gentle", this killing. I certainly hope I never become one of these "Lebensunwertes Leben". You don't remember the "Lebensunwertes Leben"? You don't remember the past? Well, you are on the road to repeat it. Because this ALL happened before, the old, the sick, those in "pain"...all became the "Lebensunwertes Leben"...."The Life Unworthy of Life".
The first of the "Lebensunwertes Leben" were the people in pain and the "erbkraken", those with congenital, cognitive, and physical disabilities like the feeble-minded, the epileptic, the schizophrenic, the manic-depressive, the cerebral palsied, those with muscular dystrophy, the deaf, the blind, the weak, and the insane.
Up next, were the degenerate's and the homosexuals.
After that, they came for the idle, the dissident's, and the prisoners.
Then the Roma (Gypsies), the Slavs, and the other peoples of color, had their turn....
....and finally, they came for the Jews.
Yes, all of the above started out as the "Lebensunwertes Leben"...."The Life Unworthy of Life"...who became the "Untermensch", the "Subhuman Creatures", the "Lesser Men", and it all started with the people in pain....so when you "pass this on" because "it's so easy" remember...it has all happened before! We didn't like how it turned out in the 1930's and '40's and we won't like what it turns into now - Gregory Wilson aka audax
Today the US Supreme Court announced it would take up the issue of abortion in the upcoming fall term in a case that promises to be significant.
The case is called Jackson Women’s Health Organization vs. Dobbs. //
This could very well be the most important abortion decision of the past 10 or so years because even though Mississippi’s appeal included three questions:
(1) Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional; (2) whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Planned Parenthood v. Casey‘s “undue burden” standard or Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt‘s balancing of benefits and burdens; and (3) whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that protects women’s health from the dangers of late-term abortions.
the Supreme Court is only going to hear arguments on issue #1. This is not an argument over procedure; it is a question that will frame the abortion debate in the future. If the Court agrees with Mississippi, then the door is open for those states that wish to regulate all abortions. If the abortion industry wins, then all “pre-viable” babies can be killed without mercy. As Jeanne Mancini of March for Life observes, “the United States is one of only seven countries – including China and North Korea – that allows abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that this goes way too far, in fact 70% think abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy.”
The CCP virus death toll in the United States is now, May 20, 2021, by one count, 593,419. Another has the count at 601,969. The New York Times reports 587,499. The variation among the counts is not great; the magnitude is clear.
Although there has been much agonizing over differential death rates among different races or ethnicities, allegedly due to “structural racism,” in fact the death toll has tracked population percentage quite closely. The 60.1 percent of whites in the population have suffered 60.7 percent of the deaths; the 18.5 percent of Hispanics in the population have suffered 18.6 percent of the deaths; the 13.4 percent of blacks in the population have suffered 14.8 percent of the deaths; and the 5.9 percent of Asians in the population suffered 3.9 percent of the deaths. If wealth and poverty are held constant, the differences between the races would more or less disappear.
There is a substantial differential death rate associated with sex. Males have suffered 314,875 deaths, in comparison with the 259,170 deaths of females. So far we have heard no accusations of “systemic sexism,” because, you know, “the future is female.” //
Annually, the better part of a million American babies are killed by abortion. The figures from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute are 874,100 American abortions for 2016 and 862,300 abortions for 2017. Guttmacher collects its statistics directly from abortion providers. (CDC figures, around 200,000 lower, suffer from non-submission of statistics by New Hampshire, Maryland, and California.) //
According to the relative percentages in the (underestimated) CDC figures, abortions by race and ethnicity in 2018 were as follows:
Non-Hispanic white women: 239,782 estimated abortions
Non-Hispanic black women: 208,183 estimated abortions
Hispanic women: 123,918 estimated abortions
Others: 47,709 estimated abortions
These figures show that black women, at 13 percent of the female population, account for 34 percent of the abortions, while white women, at 60 percent of the female population, account for 39 percent of the abortions. Hispanic women, at 18.5 percent of the female population, account for 20 percent of abortions.
Abortions of black babies are almost three times higher than the black population, which is why the percentage of black Americans gradually shrinks over the years. Abortions of Hispanic babies matches the population percentage of Hispanics. Abortions of white and other babies are much lower than their percentage of the population, one reason that the percentage of whites does not shrink. //
The number of American babies killed in the womb (or after birth) does not tell the entire story. If we consider “years of lives lost,” calculated on the basis of American life expectancy—81 for females, 77 for males, for an average of 79—the 862,300 abortions of 2017 would be a loss of 68,121,700 years of lives lost. Sixty-eight million years of American lives lost! //
The birthrate in the United States has been falling for years. In 2019 it was 1.7, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. In many places across the globe, the birthrate has fallen. //
This seems to happen as modernization and urbanization increase. Children are no longer needed for family productive labor, and become financial liabilities, pets rather than workers.
In America and elsewhere, secularization and the decline of mainline churches has contributed to the decline, as practices once prohibited are now not only accepted, but celebrated.
May 17, 2021 By Jordan Davidson
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a case examining whether Mississippi’s pro-life ban on elective abortions 15 weeks into pregnancy is unconstitutional.
This particular restriction in Missippi was first enacted in 2018 and allowed abortions after the 15-week date for “medical emergencies” and “severe” fetal abnormalities. Lower courts, however, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, blocked the law and ruled that it places an undue burden on women who want to abort their child after the state’s deadline.
By choosing to take up Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, justices on the Supreme Court are teeing up to reevaluate “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional” and potentially change how landmark abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey affect Americans.
Pro-life activists celebrated the decision as a step in the right direction to ban abortion altogether.
New emails uncovered by Judicial Watch’s FOIA request detail how FDA employees were working with buyers to get 'fresh' aborted baby organs for experiments. //
In what should have been a national headline, the exposure of the U.S. government’s involvement in trafficking aborted baby bodies is now even more newsworthy following Friday’s announcement from the White House. At President Biden’s direction, the Department of Health and Human Services reversed the Trump administration’s policy protecting preborn Americans from the callous dehumanization of organ harvesting and further desecration of their bodies in research disguised as “science.”
This sickening decision now gives license to our “best and brightest” government researchers and agencies, those in charge of steering the country towards medical breakthroughs and scientific progress, to use the skin, brains, and eyeballs of children in research that affects all of us and is funded by our money. For this very reason, we must know the full extent of how federal agencies traffic aborted baby body parts. //
FDA Requested Boy Organs to Create Humanized Mice
The FDA went so far as to request organs from baby boys to use in “very important and … challenging” surgeries to create humanized mice. ABR responded that they would do their best but could make no promises due to the “nature of termination procedures,” which mutilate a baby’s body beyond physical recognition. //
If you’ve managed to read to the bottom of this list, you’re no longer wondering why the federal government covered up these documents for so long. But you may be wondering why this story isn’t a national headline and why journalists, many of whom claim to be uncovering humanitarian abuses, still choose to ignore it.
There may be mainstream media silence and gaslighting by medical experts who tell us there’s nothing to see here, but the American people know better. We are no longer immune to the utter depravity of our federal government’s partnership with the corporate abortion cartel and their cowering beneath the guise of science. The truth is on the fighting side.
April 16, 2021 at 6:42 p.m. CDT
The National Institutes of Health on Friday removed restrictions that the Trump administration imposed on research using fetal tissue, allowing university researchers and government scientists freer rein to use material from elective abortions when studying diseases and possible treatments.
A brief update for outside scientists from the NIH director’s office said the Department of Health and Human Services was reversing a 2019 decision that had required applicants for federal grants and contracts involving fetal tissue to undergo an extra layer of review by an ethics advisory board.
In a separate notice emailed Friday, NIH told its internal scientific and clinical directors that it was lifting a Trump-era ban on using federal money to buy human fetal tissue for biomedical studies by government employees.
Americans should be outraged their government participates in the wide-scale human trafficking operation that created a market for harvesting the organs of murdered infants. //
Last week, legal accountability group Judicial Watch dropped a bombshell: a nearly 600-page report proving the U.S. government has been buying and trafficking “fresh” aborted baby body parts. These body parts, purchased by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “humanize” mice and test biologic drugs in scientific experiments, came from babies up to 24-weeks-old gestation, just weeks from being born. //
Recent emails uncovered by Judicial Watch between FDA employees and the California-based Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) prove the agency spent tens of thousands of dollars buying aborted babies for unethical scientific experiments between 2012 and 2018. In 2018, the Trump administration terminated the contract, halting government fetal tissue research due to concerns the contracts were unlawful. Judicial Watch’s new FOIA Request adds 575 pages of records to its existing 2019 lawsuit against the agency. //
When an ABR employee reassured the FDA they were working with doctors who performed late-term abortions, he admitted some tissue was unusable from a procedure that injects a poison called digoxin into the baby, destroying its cells and tissues. Once the chemical has done its work, an intact, dead baby is delivered. This method makes fetal tissue specimens unusable in experiments; with digoxin off the table, the likelihood partial-birth abortions were used is sickeningly high.
These conversations should shock even those who are pro-abortion, most of whom believe in significant term restrictions. Babies at this level of development possess all characteristics necessary for surviving life outside the womb and premature children born as young as 21 weeks go on to lead healthy, thriving lives.
An Atrocity Against Human Dignity
These gruesome excerpts are just a sample of records substantiating the 2019 lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against HHS, which houses the FDA. In March this year, a federal court ordered the agency to release records it withheld about purchasing organs of aborted babies, saying it found “reason to question” the transactions violated federal law.
The court’s decision found that the U.S. government bought second-trimester livers, thymuses, brains, eyes, and lungs for hundreds of dollars apiece from ABR, stating ABR could collect “over $2,000 on a single fetus it purchased … for $60” and “the federal government participated in this potentially illicit trade for years.”
Americans should be outraged their government participates in the wide-scale human trafficking operation that created a market for harvesting the organs of murdered infants. In no humane society could such a violation of the human body and dignity occur, in which babies’ eyes are “harvested immediately upon death,” organs marketed based on sex, and personhood attributed to mice but not children.
Rep. Lauren Boebert
@RepBoebert
And the gun grab begins. This week, Biden...
-nominated a gun control lobbyist for ATF director
-pushed red flag laws
-created a plan to seize lawful property
-proposed 6 gun control executive actions
The Second Amendment is being trampled, and I won’t stand for it.
Molly Rogers
@JollyMollyRoger
Your gun should be at least as well-regulated as my uterus.
Dana Loesch
@DLoesch
I can take my uterus on a plane, my county courthouse, I can’t ever forfeit carrying it, I don’t have to pay a fee and ask the government if I can carry it concealed — and other people don't pay for my range time or firearm accessories. //
Ditzy feminists are freaking out and Karening in my timeline because I mocked one of the dumbest analogies of all time. It deserved to be ridiculed and I’ll do it again. Stop making stupid comparisons. https://t.co/IUs2U2S3Nm
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) April 8, 2021
If a GOP politician can’t stand up to prevent physical abuse of children, then that person doesn’t have any business being a Republican at all. //
I believe Hutchinson is term-limited for governor in Arkansas, but if he had any aspirations of jumping to the Senate, those are over. His career was effectively ended during this interview. //
Rachel Bovard
@rachelbovard
Hutchinson making a totally straight faced appeal to the "limited government principles" of Reagan and Buckley as a justification for allowing children to chemically castrate themselves show you how just how intellectually hollow the the GOP has become. //
What’s so nuts about Hutchinson’s reasoning is that he’s effectively making a pro-abortion argument. If he believes that he can’t involve his state in certain “medical” procedures, he’s endorsing the excuse given by the left to justify killing children in the womb. Further, what he’s saying is nonsense anyway. The state absolutely has a duty to protect kids in society and already does so on a variety of levels. By Hutchinson’s logic, why have child labor laws? Why have child abuse laws at all? Preventing children from being shot up with hormone blockers and chemically castrated is not government overreach. It’s common sense, and it’s completely consistent with being a conservative.
But Hutchinson thinks you’re an idiot, which is why he tries to hide behind the ghost of Ronald Reagan.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson died in 2011. Formerly an atheist, because of his embrace of Life, he befriended the Catholics he once demonized, and ultimately was baptized into the faith. Robert P. George eulogized Nathanson in The Public Discourse, and talked about a discussion he had with Dr. Nathanson about how he came to believe in Life. Dr. Nathanson said that it was his embrace of The Truth that brought him to his embrace of Life. George came to this conclusion:
“Our task is less to defeat our opponents than to win them to the cause of life. To be sure, we must oppose the culture and politics of death resolutely and with a determination to win. But there is no one—no one—whose heart is so hard that he or she cannot be won over. Let us not lose faith in the power of our weapons to transform even the most resolute abortion advocates.”
It seems reasonable to conclude that hormone treatments—pricey as they are—now contribute materially to Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.
In another act of Big Tech censorship, YouTube has banned the popular pro-life website LifeSiteNews from its platform and completely removed all of the videos posted on its channel.
“YouTube just completely removed the LifeSiteNews YouTube channel. This isn’t a temporary ban; every single one of our videos is completely gone,” LifeSiteNews reported Wednesday.
“Thankfully, we have backups of all our videos, but this means hundreds of thousands of people have lost access to our truth-telling content,” staff writers said in an article describing what happened