Category Archives: law
One reason ostensibly pro-life Republican presidents haven’t been able to do anything about abortion
(In addition to the fact that the party establishment is solidly pro-abortion, that is.)
As Ronald Reagan prepared to deliver the 1987 State of the Union address, his wife, Nancy, reportedly told his advisers, “I don’t give a damn about the pro-lifers,” and demanded that any mention of abortion be removed from the speech. Nancy, who rarely intervened in political matters, got her way, and the speech focused on international affairs, education, and ongoing congressional wrangling over the budget process.
President Reagan, of course, was a vocal abortion opponent; indeed, he was probably the most pro-life president the United States has ever had. But Nancy supported abortion. Although she mostly kept mum in public while first lady, she has since said on several occasions that while she is personally pro-life, “I believe in a woman’s choice.” She has also been an outspoken proponent of embryonic stem cell research.
It would be refreshing to have a Republican presidential nominee—and a president—whose spouse holds deeply pro-life views. Both George H.W. Bush’s wife, Barbara, and George W. Bush’s wife, Laura, support abortion, although they mostly kept their views to themselves during their husbands’ presidencies.
One exception occurred when President George H.W. Bush ran for reelection in 1992. That year, Republicans had written a very strong pro-life platform that Barbara Bush undercut, telling the media she thought the issue had no place in the platform.
She said abortion was “a personal thing” and that “the personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions.” Barbara’s comments came at a bad time for her husband, who was having trouble retaining conservative support then.
Laura Bush stayed silent about abortion during her husband’s presidency. But many suspected she disagreed with her husband’s pro-life views. This was later confirmed in her memoir, “Spoken From the Heart,” in which she wrote, “While cherishing life, I have always believed that abortion is a private decision, and there, no one can walk in anyone else’s shoes.”
And so, hen-pecked, ostensibly ‘pro-life’ presidents have followed their wives’ lead, and done nothing substantive to end abortion while in office, just lip-service, nothing more, really…
The same is true of various Republican candidates in recent years:
Similarly, in 2008, Cindy McCain told Katie Couric that while she is pro-life she supports exceptions for rape and incest and didn’t believe Roe v Wade should be overturned.
1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, was known as a pro-life senator. But she supported federal funding of abortion in certain cases and said abortion should not be a litmus test for judicial appointments.
Then there’s the last prospective Republican first lady, Ann Romney. Alhough pro-life, she seemed uncomfortable talking about the dignity of human life. There were also questions about her having donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994, back when Mitt himself supported abortion.
Now, the author of the piece, Gary Bauer (former presidential candidate, well-known so-con and Zionist lobbyist), is excited because the wives of Rubio and Cruz are pro-lifers. I guess that is indeed a pleasant change. But knowing how pro-choice the party establishment is, and how Republicans have done squat to change things when they’ve had both the presidency and the House, I doubt that will matter much, assuming that either Rubio or Cruz even win the nomination.
Anyway, getting back to the presidents whose wives disagreed fundamentally with them on the issue, does anyone honestly believe that any contemporary American president whose wife is pro-abortion is going to be able to stand up to her and enact measures she would disagree with? None these days have the balls to do so.
Officials in Norway have moved to place five children that were seized from their parents on charges that included “Christian radicalization and indoctrination” up for adoption, reports state. As previously reported, on Nov. 16 and 17, Norway’s child welfare services, the Barnevernet, seized Marius and Ruth Bodnariu’s two daughters, two sons and their baby, Ezekiel.
It’s a sickening truth that in America when women have sex with boys they are treated very differently than men who have sex with boys or girls. Both are equally immoral, but women are given a pass in comparison to what men receive. And it’s UNJUST.
The ex-Baltimore Ravens cheerleader who pleaded guilty to having sex with an underage boy she met on social media was sentenced Friday to 48 weekends in jail. Molly Shattuck, 48, appeared to sob as a Delaware judge ordered that she serve every other weekend in jail for two years. The judge also ordered that Shattuck pay the victim’s family $10,650 and register as a sex offender, according to NBC affiliate WBAL. “I will spend the rest of my life making this right,” she said. The family of the 15-year-old victim told the judge that Shattuck’s actions have been “devastating” for their son, the station…
View original post 66 more words
SEATTLE, Wash. — A federal appeals court has ruled that a pharmacy in Washington state must stock the morning after-pill despite the owner’s beliefs that the item is an abortifacient and thus contrary to his religious beliefs.
As previously reported, in 2006, Ralph’s Thriftway owner, Kevin Stormans, received a call inquiring whether the location sold the morning-after pill. After replying that the pharmacy did not carry it, he began to receive anonymous complaints via phone and email. Ralph’s Thriftway was soon also picketed and complaints were filed with the Washington Board of Pharmacy, who launched an investigation.
The following year, the state passed regulations requiring that pharmacies stock and dispense the morning-after pill, and ADF filed suit on behalf of Stormans and two of his pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, who objected to the requirement because of their Christian faith.
Later that year, a federal court ruled in favor of Ralph’s Thriftway, stating that the new regulations “appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception.”
But the matter soon moved to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the regulations were placed on hold while the matter proceeded in court. On Thursday, the court unanimously ruled that Ralph’s Thriftway must stock Plan B despite his religious objections.
“The rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful and lawfully prescribed medications,” Judge Susan Graber wrote for the panel.
She said that while the pharmacy was willing to offer referrals, doing so is not acceptable due to the urgency a woman might feel to obtain contraceptives.
“Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception and of many other medications,” Graber wrote. “The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs.”
The court also opined that referrals could result in causing women to re-think taking the drug.
“Additionally, testimony at trial demonstrated how facilitated referrals could lead to feelings of shame in the patient that could dissuade her from obtaining emergency contraception altogether,” Graber stated. “In our view, the commission’s decision not to allow facilitated referrals falls within its stated goal of ensuring timely and safe delivery of prescription medications and, accordingly, does not demonstrate discriminatory intent.”
Stormans said that he is disappointed in the ruling and doesn’t believe that she should be forced to violate his conscience.
“The state allows pharmacies to refer for all kinds of reasons. In practice, it only bans religiously motivated referrals,” he said. “With 33 pharmacies stocking the drug within five miles of our store, it is extremely disappointing that the court and the state demand that we violate our conscience or lose our family business.”
“All we are asking is to be able to live out the beliefs that we hold, as Americans have always been able to do, and to be able to refer patients for religious reasons, as the medical and pharmaceutical associations overwhelmingly recommend,” he said.
Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), one of the legal groups that is fighting in defense of the pharmacy, likewise opined that the ruling was unjust.
“No one should be forced to choose between their religious convictions and their family businesses and livelihoods, particularly when the state allows referrals for just about any other reason,” she commented in a statement. “The premier medical and pharmaceutical associations all support the right of a provider to refer patients, and all other states allow such referrals.”
The decison will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thus, we see that it isn’t merely in regards to homosexuality-related issues that progs target Christian businesses, and courts rule against them; whether it’s contraceptives, or the abortion pill, the same thing happens.
(BTW, sadly, Health Canada has just approved RU-486 here, so no doubt Canadian Christian pharmacy owners will end up facing this situation eventually, too…)
If there were a law which required that when a couple divorced they had to return either the gift or its cash equivalent to all who provided gifts one of two things would happen:
1- People would stay married because they wouldn’t want to pay out all that money for gifts or
2- People would insist that their wedding guests bring no gifts.
Either way, the contractual fraud perpetrated by the bride and divorcing groom in connection with gifts given to them based on the premise that they actually loved each other and would remain married till the death of one of them would be eliminated.
America needs this law. Pay attention, politicians. Lot’s of us are tired of financing failed marriages based on everything but true and authentic love and commitment.
In the first case, the woman was found guilty of more things, yet received only half the time! In the latter case, the woman received ‘time served’, i.e. she’ll serve no more prison time, whereas the guy gets 2.5 years.
Naturally, we don’t hear feminists upset at this kind of inequality, wanting the women to receive equal punishment to the men, do we?
Of course not!