web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester

Westlake Legal Group tg Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester tulsi gabbard trimester third The Blog Pro-Life pro-choice planned parenthood late term Abortion

Via Alexandra DeSanctis, who was the last Democratic candidate for president to support any restrictions on abortion?

I don’t mean this year, I mean any year.

Someone in the 2004 field, maybe? I have no memory of any Dem in recent history with a national future daring to challenge “kill ’em whenever” orthodoxy. Gabbard is breaking new ground, which is also old ground:

Gabbard told Rubin she views abortion in a “libertarian” way, saying she doesn’t think government should be dictating women’s choices. “I think that there should be some restrictions though,” she added. Rubin asked if she had a “cutoff point,” to which she replied: “I think the third trimester. Unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

When Gabbard first became involved in politics in the Hawaii state legislature, she called herself pro-life, but later said having been deployed to Iraq changed her view of the issue. Since becoming a member of Congress, Gabbard has maintained a 100-percent rating from Planned Parenthood. She supports federal funding of abortion, but she did not co-sponsor a Democratic bill in the House that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the direct use of taxpayer funds to cover abortion procedures. She also did not sponsor the Democratic “Women’s Health Protection Act,” a piece of federal legislation that would override state restrictions on abortion.

By no means is she pro-life, she’s just a bit — a meaningful bit — less pro-choice than everyone else. Which is something.

And so we turn again to one of the most confounding mysteries in politics this year: Why is Tulsi Gabbard running for president? What’s her political endgame in taking a position like this, which is welcome to people like me who won’t vote in a Democratic primary and not so welcome to people who will?

The Atlantic mulled Gabbard’s strategy a few days ago and had no more luck than anyone else did in figuring out what she’s up to.

Many high-level Democrats I spoke with for this story, who insisted on anonymity to share their true feelings about her, suspect that Gabbard is up to something other than actually trying to win the party’s nomination—even if they can’t quite identify what her goal is. These are people who have been wary since Gabbard became a Fox News favorite for criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. They believed that their distrust was vindicated when Steve Bannon brought her in for a meeting with then-president-elect Donald Trump just two weeks after the 2016 election, which was one of Trump’s first meetings with a Democrat. To this group, Gabbard looks like Jill Stein, who also talked about progressive politics and peace, but whose 2016 Green Party run was, to them, a self-centered campaign that blew a crucial hole in Hillary Clinton’s chances, eating up money and getting Russian support along the way…

Theories I’ve heard from top Democrats include that Gabbard is trying to get a TV show—“I already know which network: Fox,” one senior Democrat not affiliated with any campaign said, speaking anonymously to remain publicly neutral—and that she’s gearing up for a Trump-benefiting third-party run. “Green Party. Willing to take bets on this,” Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden tweeted last week after Gabbard appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show to trash the Democratic National Committee because she hadn’t qualified for the September debate. Gabbard later tweeted the clip with the banner “No transparency = no trust.” (Gabbard has said publicly, and confirmed to me, that she will run only as a Democrat, but when I repeated that to Tanden, she remained skeptical.)

Is that her game, winning over the hearts of Fox News fans with guest shots on Tucker, broadsides at Kamala Harris, and support for abortion regulations in the third trimester? I don’t know how well a “Tulsi!” show on Fox would fare if Trump ended up bombing Iran after all and the adamantly anti-war Gabbard had to face the Fox audience in “rally ’round the flag” mode. And if ingratiating herself to Fox viewers while damaging her chances at the Democratic nomination is her new aim, she’d have been better off renouncing support for abortion altogether. “I oppose it in the third trimester” is a nice start but still leaves Gabbard in the position of supporting the vast majority of abortions in the U.S.

As far as I’m aware, there’s no meaningful constituency for her position in a Democratic primary. Black Democrats are often called socially conservative by pundits, which may be true relative to the fringy weirdness of leftists on an array of “values” issues. But black Protestants support abortion in all or most cases to the tune of 64 percent, a higher percentage than white mainline Protestants. Overall, 82 percent of Democrats favor abortion rights in all or most instances. Gabbard’s in roughly the same position here as a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights in the first trimester: Most pro-lifers wouldn’t dare vote for that person even though his or her position on the issue is “moderate” since they wouldn’t be able to trust the candidate not to “evolve” further once in office. Likewise for pro-choice Dems who want a president who’ll show indomitable resolve in holding the line on abortion rights against Republicans, I assume. To those people, Gabbard’s a nonstarter.

Increasingly I think she’s just speaking her mind and letting the chips fall where they may, knowing that she has no chance at the nomination and believing/hoping that American politics will catch up with her in a few years. She’d be one of the more compelling politicians in the country if not for her Assad baggage. Maybe she’ll renounce that over the next few years, reposition herself as an unorthodox Democrat, and test her luck in 2024 with the benefit of higher name recognition and a national political scene that seems to be in constant flux. Gabbard’s just 38 years old. Going her own way on issues — within reason — and refusing to apologize for it might build her a base over time.

The post Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group tg-300x159 Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester tulsi gabbard trimester third The Blog Pro-Life pro-choice planned parenthood late term Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007

Westlake Legal Group p-2 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion

An eye-popping trend from Pew, destined to spark a new argument between pro-lifers and pro-choicers about cause and effect.

That is, are lefties radicalizing in defense of abortion rights because righties are becoming more radical in trying to restrict those rights, as with “heartbeat laws”?

Or have righties become more radical in trying to restrict abortion rights because lefty politicians keep growing more absolutist about abortion on demand, even in the third trimester?

Westlake Legal Group 5-3 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion

Pro-choicers will point to the recent upswing in that trend line and lay it at Trump’s feet. How can you blame us for becoming more extreme, they’ll say, when we have a president who may have just assembled a five-vote Supreme Court majority for overturning Roe? It’s only natural that one side’s gains in the abortion war will ignite a backlash in the opposing side. Case in point: This same poll shows opposition to overturning Roe surging to 69 percent in December 2016, a month after Trump’s election, despite barely budging between 2003 (62 percent) and 2013 (63 percent). The out-party inevitably adopts a siege mentality.

And yet … the same phenomenon doesn’t seem to have happened with Republicans during the Obama era. There were minor fluctuations here and there but the share of GOPers who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases is about the same as it was at the end of Dubya’s presidency. So maybe there’s more to the Democratic shift than some quasi-organic partisan backlash cycle.

Another question shows a further asymmetry between the parties. Although conservative Republicans are solidly pro-life, moderate Republicans are actually fairly firmly pro-choice. The GOP skews right overall on abortion because conservatives outnumber moderates but there’s a genuine division within the party. There’s no similar division among Democratic factions:

Westlake Legal Group abortion-3 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion

A different question shows that no less than 70 percent of moderate Republicans oppose overturning Roe versus 61 percent of conservatives who support overturning it. Combine Republican ambivalence about abortion with Democratic unanimity in favor and we’ve reached a modern high in the number of Americans overall who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases — 61 percent.

Imagine what the “siege mentality” numbers will look like if Trump ends up replacing Ginsburg or Breyer on the Court after all. In lieu of an exit question, here’s a choice bit from Dave Chappelle’s new stand-up special on Netflix that veers from pro-life to extremely pro-choice back to pro-life again in less than two minutes. Lots of profanity so take care if you’re listening at work or around the little ones.

The post Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group p-2-300x153 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-620x371 Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special Women Pro-Life men Front Page Stories Featured Story dave chappelle comedy children Abortion

Dave Chappelle’s new comedy special on Netflix is making massive waves, and while I’ve already covered it twice, this moment in his special is one of the ones that really had me paying attention to what he was saying behind what he was saying.

During his set, Chappelle began discussing abortion and began by saying something you typically hear from the left when it comes to making arguments in that if you’re a man, you should stay out of the abortion debate altogether.

Wait for it.

Chappelle doesn’t stop there as many “comedians” do. Instead, Chappelle takes the argument to its logical end and then says something afterward that caught my attention.

“Gentleman, that is fair,” said Chappelle after saying that women shouldn’t have to consult anyone except a physician.

“And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay,” said Chappelle. “That’s fair.”

“If you can kill this motherf***er, I can at least abandon them,” he continued. “It’s my money, my choice.”

Chappelle finished by leaving the crowd and the viewer something to ponder. It wasn’t even a joke, just an interesting thing to say after all of that.

“And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong,” he said.

*Language warning*

Even when agreeing with the pro-abortion argument, Chappelle manages to find a way to make them angry by declaring that if women can be so independent, then so can the men. I should not that I’m personally not in favor of either of these, but it can’t be ignored that women can’t have it so that they can be both unconcerned with what a man thinks but lay claim to his wallet.

What got my attention, however, was the ending phrase. There is no doubt that many women would take exception to his argument about men not having to be responsible for babies they don’t want. If these women are saying that Chappelle is wrong for standing by that philosophy, then they fall into the category about being wrong about abortion altogether.

I should note that as a pro-life man myself, I think fathers should take absolute responsibility for the children they helped create. Fatherless homes create a myriad of problems all on their own, so I’m not in agreement with Chappelle on either point.

But I like the fact that Chappelle leaves the answer open for discovery, claiming that if it’s wrong for him to think that way about the rights of fathers then perhaps he’s also wrong about the arguments toward abortion.

In effect, Chappelle destroys the idea that men shouldn’t be a part of the conversation. He may, or may not have meant to do that, but he tends to do that a few times throughout his special, where he makes the crowd believe he’s going one way, then turns it on them.

If you want to hear further argument as to why you should be watching this Netflix special, click the link below.

(READ: Why You Should Definitely Watch Dave Chappelle’s New Stand-Up Special, And Ignore The Outrage Brigades)

 

The post Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-300x180 Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special Women Pro-Life men Front Page Stories Featured Story dave chappelle comedy children Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourke-APimage1-620x317 Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Media Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Former Democratic Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke waves to the audience as he is introduced prior to an interview with Oprah Winfrey live on a Times Square stage at “Oprah’s SuperSoul Conversations from Times Square,” Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)

This morning I wrote about a campaign appearance 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke made in Charleston, SC on Monday where he was asked by a pro-life voter about his stance on abortions late into the third trimester of pregnancy when the unborn baby is viable.

O’Rourke’s answer was not surprising but was very disturbing nevertheless, and spoke volumes about the left’s ghoulish position on abortion. To quickly recap, here’s an abbreviated version of the transcript:

Voter: And someone asked you specifically, specifically about third trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother. So, my question is this: I was born September 8th, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value.

Beto: Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here. But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same. This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make.

(The College of Charleston crowd uproariously applauds)

We want her to have the best possible access to care and to a medical provider, and I’ll tell you the consequence of this, this attack on a woman’s right to choose …

Voter interjects: But what about my right to life?

Beto:I listened to you and I heard your question. I’m answering it. And the attack on Roe v. Wade, which we thought was the settled law of the land, and lest we had any illusion that the achievements that we’ve made are protected forever, or that progress is inevitable, that has been shattered right now.

As I noted in my post, it was mostly a stock answer he gave on the issue, designed to win applause. But reading between the lines, here’s what Beto was really telling that pro-life voter even though he didn’t actually say the words:

“Yes, I’m glad you’re here but I’m also glad your mother had the right to abort you up to the moment of birth and it would have been ok if she did because it’s legal and we should respect a woman’s decision no matter what it is.”

Unfortunately, O’Rourke doubled down on that position in a tweet posted this afternoon, which includes video of the voter’s question and Beto’s answer:

Several conservative websites have written about this story, but the only mainstream media outlet I’ve seen report on it is Fox News. Don’t look for many – if any – journalists from other major news outlets to write about it, or press him for more specifics on his answer, or ask him if there should be any exceptions for third trimester abortions.

Because when it comes to the so-called “right” to terminate an unborn life up until the moment of birth – and beyond, the mainstream media have made it very clear where they stand: with Democrats.

Sad.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourke-APimage1-300x153 Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Media Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born?

Westlake Legal Group bo-4 Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born? trimester third The Blog Pro-Life Beto O'Rourke Abortion

Via Joel Pollak, a stumper from an event in South Carolina. What’s the politic answer to give here if you’re a modern right-thinking “kill ’em up to the moment of crowning” liberal?

Clearly the answer Beto wants to give, the one that’s consonant with left-wing thinking, is “No, your life had no meaning until you were born.” But that’s a tough thing to say to someone’s face when he’s asking about his own life specifically. The less abstract and more concrete questions about abortion get, the more uncomfortable they are.

So no, O’Rourke won’t say that. “Of course I don’t think” that life has no meaning until birth, he says.

But that places him in the awkward position of arguing that meaningful lives are in fact being snuffed out every day in America’s abortion regime. A pro-choicer who takes the hardline view that fetal life isn’t “real” needn’t contend with the implications of ending that life. Beto’s not taking that view, so he does need to. But he punts: We shouldn’t question what a woman decides to do, he insists — period. If he had been feeling bolder, he might have gone on to compare abortion to justifiable homicide. Every life has meaning, he could have said, but there are certain rare circumstances in which the law subordinates the value of life to some greater interest. You’re allowed to take someone else’s life if they’re a lethal threat to your own. You’re allowed to take a murderer’s life in the death chamber if you’re a state-sanctioned executioner. It simply isn’t the case that “all life has meaning” inevitably leads to the conclusion “and therefore life can never rightly be taken.”

But that wouldn’t work either, since it would lead to another very uncomfortable question: If abortion is justifiable homicide, i.e. the taking of a life to serve some greater end, why don’t we demand that the women and doctors who commit it provide some specific justification for their actions? We scrutinize self-defense claims to make sure that the victim really was the aggressor and genuinely did pose a mortal threat to the defendant. We entitle condemned prisoners to a jury trial, a presentation of mitigating evidence during their sentencing phase, and many long years of appeal before executing them. When it comes to abortion, though, all a woman need say is “I felt like it” and that’s good enough for this clown and his clown party. No “medical necessity” required. Abortion might be the only form of homicide in which unjustifiable reasons suffice as a legal excuse.

This is a guy, remember, who frequently denounces Trump for “dehumanizing” people.

The post Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bo-4-300x159 Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born? trimester third The Blog Pro-Life Beto O'Rourke Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe

Westlake Legal Group planned-parenthood-tx2-620x432 The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe the washington post Steve King sanger Pro-Life pro-abortion Politics political planned parenthood media bias J.D. Vance Gross Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Disgusting democrats Brostoff

The Washington Post is just awful.

If you’d like more evidence of that, here’s a piece they put out today tying pro-lifers to white supremacy and suggesting that J.D. Vance subscribes to the white nationalist replacement theory. The author of the article is someone names Marissa Brostoff, who epitomizes the know nothing nature of so many current journalists.

Her proof of such a stupid, ahistorical claim? That Steve King is pro-life. Really, that’s pretty much what here argument boils down to. I hear Steve King also drives a car, thereby cars are clearly white nationalist garbage.

Last fall, speaking to a far-right Austrian magazine, the Iowa Republican congressman Steve King succinctly laid out his theory of Western decline. The problem, he suggested, was a demographic born at the nexus of reproduction and immigration. “If we continue to abort our babies and import a replacement for them in the form of young violent men, we are supplanting our culture, our civilization,” King said.

King’s views are certainly problematic, especially if you take the worst interpretation of them (to be fair, he doesn’t actually say “white” anywhere in his comments). But King is hardly dispositive that the greater pro-life movement is somehow tied to white supremacy. History tells quite the opposite story.

In fact, Brostoff’s article is an exercise in contradiction. Abortion is a form of eugenics, one she supports. 36% of all babies aborted are black. Planned Parenthood exists today because a founder who sought to use abortion to eradicate minorities founded it. What does any of this have to do with the largely religiously based pro-life movement?

Take this word salad for example.

This juxtaposition has been particularly cruel over the past year, as revelations about the imprisonment of migrant children in concentration camps have coincided with a wave of draconian antiabortion legislation. (Just last week, a federal appeals court approved Trump administration rules cutting off federal funds from health-care providers that offer abortions or even discuss the procedure with patients, effectively slashing the budget of organizations like Planned Parenthood.) But understanding this confluence as ironic can actually mislead us. In fact, as King and his white nationalist allies have become increasingly comfortable admitting, state crackdowns on reproductive and immigrant rights are inextricably linked.

In other words, she’s essentially asserting that Republicans are evil and want to kill everyone, but also they are pro-life and that’s super evil as well. If you are struggling to square that circle logically, don’t be too hard on yourself. It makes absolutely no sense.

Here’s the reality. Being pro-life means eliminating abortion for all races. It means more black and Hispanic babies being born, not less. There is absolutely nothing even resembling white supremacy is such a viewpoint. It’s actually the complete opposite. Pro-abortion advocates, on the other hand, are an ally of the white nationalist movement because they largely target minority women and their unborn children.

To assert that being against abortion is actually helping white supremacists is ludicrous on its face. In short, this writer is attempting to link two diametrically opposed ideas simply to cram the circle of her politics into the square of what abortion actually does and who it affects the most.

As you read Brostoff’s piece, it’s lack of any actual citation for her claims is notable. What she’s attempting to do is claim that because white supremacists are concerned with falling birthrates (of white people), that this means all people encouraging more births (of all races) are white supremacists. This is nonsense. It’s like saying that because the Christchurch shooter was concerned about the environment that environmentalism is therefore white supremacy. An idea can be adopted by bad actors. It does not make the idea defined by those bad actors.

Falling birthrates are actually an issue for economies and we’ve seen countries of all different racial makeups encouraging parenthood. That movement has exactly nothing to do with white nationalism and everything to do with nations acting in their own self-interests. If someone wants to argue for abortion and be against governments encouraging more births, fine. But trying to connect that to white supremacy and then claim pro-lifers are white supremacists is disgusting garbage.

To end her piece, Brostoff then smeared J.D. Vance by claiming he was touting white nationalist replacement theory. This despite him clearly spelling out what he was talking about.

J.D. Vance’s wife is a minority and his children are half Asian. The modern woke movement has no room for critical thinking or facts though, so Brostoff ran with her gross insinuation anyway. The Washington Post has since scrubbed that paragraph and offered a correction, no doubt to avoid being sued. What she had originally written was likely actionable defamation.

I’ll end by reiterating that the modern white supremacist movement, however tiny it actually is, is largely pro-abortion. Richard Spencer, for example, supports abortion. Brostoff, whether she wants to accept it or not, is finding far more common cause with racists than pro-lifers are. Her entire piece smacks of looking in the mirror and not liking what she sees. Instead of reflecting on the immorality of her own views though, she sought to project evil on others via illogical nonsense lacking any and all evidence.

While many conservatives on social media acted shocked that the Post would even publish this, I’m not surprised at all. This is who these people are. This is their agenda. We either push back against it vehemently or we collapse under its weight.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2zr8u6-1-300x201 The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe the washington post Steve King sanger Pro-Life pro-abortion Politics political planned parenthood media bias J.D. Vance Gross Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Disgusting democrats Brostoff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-620x317 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke talks to reporters after the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Tuesday, July 30, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke made a campaign stop in Charleston, South Carolina on Monday where he gave an answer to a pro-life voter’s question on abortion that was so appalling it honestly speaks for itself, and speaks volumes about the left’s ghoulish position on abortion.

Here’s what the voter asked and how O’Rourke answered (transcribed):

Voter: And someone asked you specifically, specifically about third trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother. So, my question is this: I was born September 8th, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value.

Beto: Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here. But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same. This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make. (the College of Charleston crowd uproariously applauds)

We want her to have the best possible access to care and to a medical provider, and I’ll tell you the consequence of this, this attack on a woman’s right to choose …

Voter interjects: But what about my right to life?

Beto: I listened to you and I heard your question. I’m answering it. And the attack on Roe v. Wade, which we thought was the settled law of the land, and lest we had any illusion that the achievements that we’ve made are protected forever, or that progress is inevitable, that has been shattered right now.

And I want to tell you some of the consequences of this. In my home state of Texas, thanks to these TRAP laws that make it harder for providers to offer the full spectrum of reproductive care, more than a quarter of our family planning clinics have closed. And it has made us one of the epicenters of this maternal mortality crisis because not only can you not get safe, legal access to an abortion, you cannot get access to a cervical cancer screening, or a family planning provider, or — in a state that refused to expand Medicaid — any provider at all, and we are losing the lives of women in our state as a result.

I don’t question the decisions that a woman makes. Only she knows what she knows, and I want to trust her with that. So, I appreciate the question. Thank you. (More applause from the crowd)

Watch video of Beto answering the question below:

What will be completely ignored by the mainstream media regarding his answer and largely ignored by pro-choice Democrats and commentators about it is that Beto basically told the voter, “yes, I’m glad you’re here but I’m also glad your mother had the right to abort you up to the moment of birth and it would have been ok if she did because it’s legal and we should respect her decision.”

Seriously. When you take out all the stock answers about so-called TRAP laws, etc., what he basically told this voter is he exists only because his mother chose to have him and furthermore, that that is completely ok, y’all.

Beto, like other Democrats, likes to paint himself as the moral authority when it comes to which lives matter. He’d have you believe that he thinks all lives matter and should be respected. But here’s the reality: That is not who he is, nor is it what his party is.

Because when it comes to life, they’ve made it clear that unborn lives are not as important as a woman’s “right” to terminate them even if she decides to do it moments before birth.

Think about it.

Related/Flashback –>> Video: Rep. Katie Porter Ghoulishly Explains to ‘Squishy’ Bill Maher His Mom Had the Right to Abort Him

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Pro-Life Movement Wins by Showing Compassion, Not by Mocking a Pro-Choice Congresswoman’s Miscarriage

In May 2019, as lawmakers in Georgia and Missouri were debating and passing more restrictive abortion laws (and as Alyssa Milano was losing her ever-loving mind and threatening to boycott a state she rarely visits and in which no one likes her to punish the feeble-minded voters), freshman Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) was one of the go-to Democrat voices on the topic, making the cable news show rounds discussing the topic.

While on the campaign trail Hill had emotionally shared her experience in facing an unplanned pregnancy and how she and her then-boyfriend (whom she married, but is now divorcing), both staunchly pro-choice, struggled with the decision before them, so she wasn’t speaking in hypotheticals. (Hill miscarried around the six-week mark.) In one of her media appearances discussing the Georgia and Missouri bills, on May 17, Hill explained to CNN’s Sunlen Serfaty:

“I felt like, ‘OK, this made the decision for me and it’s not meant to be right now,’ but at the same time, it is a loss. And I think even for women who terminate a pregnancy it’s a loss. I’ve heard that over and over again.”

During the interview, Hill announced publicly for the first time that she was no longer able to have children.

“She and her husband tried to get pregnant again later on, but she said she developed problems with her ovaries and can no longer have children. Even now, Hill thinks back to the pregnancy and struggles with whether she ‘might have missed that window forever.’”

Unfortunately, on the Republican side men like Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt were quite unhelpful in the battle to win hearts and minds with their tone-deaf and heartless comments and proposed legislation. Tinderholt’s bill:

“[W]ould criminalize all abortions, making it possible for women to be convicted of homicide and sentenced to death for having the procedure.

“He has previously said that his proposal would completely remove access to abortions and ‘force’ women to be ‘more personally responsible’ with sex.”

Many on the Republican “pro-life” side agree with Tinderholt’s tactic, believing that their extreme proposals will force progressives who are okay with post-birth abortion to see how ridiculous (and evil) they are. The biggest problem with that tactic is that these inhumane progressives are incapable of seeing how evil they are. The second biggest problem is that Tinderholt’s tactics drive away people who are more in the middle on the issue and now only see two crazy parties instead of one.

Add candidates like Todd Akin, who just don’t understand biology, to the conservative mix and, well, you almost can’t blame people in the middle for believing progressives when they say conservatives are mean, heartless, religious extremists who are dumb to boot.

One such candidate is one of Katie Hill’s GOP opponents, former fighter pilot Mike Garcia. In audio provided to RedState, which was recorded in late May, 2019, Garcia sounded eerily like Tinderholt when he characterized Hill’s comments about her miscarriage as Hill “taking credit for being lucky because of that miscarriage” and that he was going to beat her on the “abortion issue” by “hold[ing] her accountable for those types of words and those types of actions.” He further characterized a video in which Hill shared her story as “part of The Katie Hill Show.”

In this video Hill said (emphasis added):

“We’d been together for about a year when it happened. I was on birth control at the time, but I suddenly found myself pregnant. It was something that I never thought would happen to me, and if it did happen, I thought that I knew what I would do in that kind of situation. I’d always considered myself pro-choice, and I knew we weren’t ready to have kids….

“But what I didn’t know was what it would feel like to actually be faced with that kind of a choice.…In a lot of ways it was exactly because I was the only one who could make that kind of decision that I had never felt more alone.

“So I walked around in a haze for days. I just really didn’t know what to do. I thought that, you know, the rational decision should have been easy, but I didn’t think I could make it. I really thought that, you know, I was going to end up keeping the baby….

Then one morning I woke up and I had severe bleeding and cramps, and I realized I was having a miscarriage. And I started sobbing with simultaneous tears of relief and sadness, and guilt at feeling relief and confusion at feeling sad, and just so much conflicting emotion, and just the reality of having — being faced with that sort of situation when you’re so young.

“No one can really understand what it’s like to be faced with that kind of a choice.”

Does that sound like a woman who’s taking credit for being lucky she had a miscarriage?

Garcia’s comments were in response to a question, apparently by a moderator, at an event, and can be heard here. The crowd’s reaction – fully supportive – was just as disturbing as his comments.


Here is the text of Garcia’s full answer (again, emphasis added):

“So, I’m pro-life. And honestly, the debate – and you can Google this. It’s still online, and if it’s taken down I’ve got it somewhere. I’ll find it.

“There was a debate back in Simi Valley back in September of last year, September 20th of last year….She was asked about abortion, and she started telling her history and how she had the unplanned pregnancy. She still talks about it openly, so this isn’t me digging up dirt, right. This is part of the Katie Hill Show again.

“At the end of her comments she said, “Fortunately for me, I had a miscarriage.” Can you imagine? She was lucky to have a miscarriage. And I don’t care how you feel about abortion, that was a life, and she was taking credit for being lucky because of that miscarriage. And that for me as just an average American and not even an aspiring politician at the time, I just choked on that, and I said I couldn’t believe that that came out of her mouth.

“And that’s the kind of thing that we have not held her accountable for. So when you ask how are we going to win? You hold her accountable for those types of words and those types of actions. There’s a lot of them. Go watch the Katie Hill show. Go online and look at all of her interviews that she’s done. There’s a lot of stuff out there that she’s saying that doesn’t make sense.”

This writer is in agreement with how Stacey Lennox at the Resurgent views the battle:

“Pro-life people of faith and secular pro-life advocates generally agree that this fight needs to put compassion and support at the forefront. And those of faith should be relying on the unending grace of God to heal and reform the hearts of women who find themselves in circumstances where they see no way out in a culture that has laid open a door to regret and heartache.

“It is up to the movement to win hearts and minds. And we are. The ghastly “reproductive health” law passed in New York State and completely shocking comments by Governor Ralph Northam in Virginia already have people who identify as pro-choice re-evaluating exactly what that stance means. Lulled into “Safe, Legal and Rare” during the Clinton years, many did not realize how far the Left had gone. People are waking up.”

They won’t keep waking up if people like Tinderholt and Garcia become the voice of the Republican party on the topic. Lennox continues:

“We have science on our side. The trends are on the side of life. For those of us who know that life begins at conception because the combination of mom and dad’s DNA creates a unique human being, no amount of abortion is acceptable. For those of us who also believe that every child is made in God’s image, a woman’s decision to abort is heartbreaking.

“But stupid battles like the one Tinderholt wants to have will just cause us to lose ground in the war. Don’t give the enemy cannon fodder. Make them look in the mirror. Just like Abby Johnson has.”

Instead of attempting to hold Katie Hill “accountable” for her words (and it’s still not clear what exactly he would hold her “accountable” for), Garcia is the one who needs to be held accountable and who needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

At the very least, Garcia needs to apologize to Katie Hill for his lack of compassion and humanity. No one – man or woman – has the right to pass judgment on another person’s heart or purport to have a roadmap to a woman’s complex emotions after a miscarriage.

Garcia’s comments also demonstrate a lack of judgment, a lack of discernment, and flat-out lack of preparation for the office he seeks. How could he honestly watch those videos and watch Hill choke up and believe she feels lucky? Is that how he feels about all women who have a miscarriage, or are only some worthy of his empathy?

If that’s the GOP battle plan for a pro-life future, just wave the white flag right now. The rest of us will be attempting to show kindness and compassion to our fellow Americans and find common ground.

The post The Pro-Life Movement Wins by Showing Compassion, Not by Mocking a Pro-Choice Congresswoman’s Miscarriage appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Katie-Hill-300x141 The Pro-Life Movement Wins by Showing Compassion, Not by Mocking a Pro-Choice Congresswoman’s Miscarriage Todd Akin The Katie Hill Show Steve Knight Simi Valley Santa Clarita Pro-Life pro-choice miscarriage Mike Garcia katie hill Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Congress CA-25 Alyssa Milano Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Nail Meets Hammer: Dan Crenshaw Sternly Reminds Dems of Their Daily Moral Failure to Consider ‘Born-Alive’ Bill

Westlake Legal Group DanCrenshaw-620x317 Nail Meets Hammer: Dan Crenshaw Sternly Reminds Dems of Their Daily Moral Failure to Consider ‘Born-Alive’ Bill washington D.C. Texas Social Media republicans Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Congress Allow Media Exception Abortion

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, walks through the halls on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

H.R.962, better known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, was introduced in the House on February 2, 2019 by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO). 186 Republicans are co-sponsors. There are 3 Democratic co-sponsors.

The reason for the bill is simple:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

It provides protections for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. It has nothing to do with infringing on a woman’s “right to choose” – as Democrats often wrongly state.

Every day that Congress has been in session since the introduction of the bill, one Republican representative has taken to the floor to ask for unanimous consent so the bill can be debated on the floor.

Each time, that request has been denied.

On Thursday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) took his turn to ask for unanimous consent – the 78th time it has been requested since the bill’s introduction – and was denied:

After Democrats blocked his attempt at UC, Crenshaw had this to say in a statement:

“There are certain moral issues that are not debatable, and this is one of them. Somehow, we as a Congress cannot agree that babies who survived attempted abortions deserve medical care. While House Democrats refuse to give these innocent lives a chance, House Republicans will continue to demand a vote to protect them.”

The freshman Congressman also posted similar thoughts on Twitter about House Democrats and their refusal to allow the bill be debated and voted on:

I pray they never stop asking. Please don’t ever stop asking.

—————-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Nail Meets Hammer: Dan Crenshaw Sternly Reminds Dems of Their Daily Moral Failure to Consider ‘Born-Alive’ Bill appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DanCrenshaw-300x153 Nail Meets Hammer: Dan Crenshaw Sternly Reminds Dems of Their Daily Moral Failure to Consider ‘Born-Alive’ Bill washington D.C. Texas Social Media republicans Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Congress Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AOC: “All people should be free” to enter the US?

Westlake Legal Group aoc-dhs AOC: “All people should be free” to enter the US? The Blog Pro-Life open borders immigration Department of Homeland Security Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Abortion

Point of order on this catch from Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in fact stating current US policy on immigration in this speech from yesterday … with one significant omission. See if the omission is as easy to catch as it appears:

I think migration, to me, is liberation. It’s the ability to move and be — it’s the freedom to be, really, is what we’re talking about.  And I think that all people should be free to here, and in our communities. Because I think that when you start viewing human beings as intrinsically valuable, you feel blessed that they have come to you with their presence. And that’s really the shift I think that we need to make as a country …

People have the “freedom to be” without migration too, but the aspirational parts of this message otherwise have broad consensus in the US. Most Americans see others as blessings, and want people who will build strong ties to their communities. That’s why most people see immigration as a net positive — when it is done legally. And right now, nearly everyone has the ability to migrate to the US through our legal immigration system, which is much more generous than most other nations. It might be a lot more generous if we could secure the southern border and control migration rationally, too.

The fact that AOC’s lecturing on the “blessing” of unexpected and unannounced migrants makes this an obvious plea for open borders and no bar on migration at all. We’ll get back to blessings in a moment, but here’s Ocasio-Cortez making more sense on another topic than perhaps even she realizes:

Saavedra might be tweaking AOC on this, but the consolidation of these agencies into Homeland Security was controversial in 2006, too. Not just a few conservatives warned of the same problems Ocasio-Cortez does in this clip — concentrating too much power into one Cabinet position, as well as having disparate missions lumped together into one umbrella. The Secret Service is also in DHS, transferred out of Treasury despite its still-extant mission to combat counterfeiting. The decision to create DHS came after the 9/11 Commission demanded a superbureaucracy to connect all intelligence agencies and a reshuffling of other organizations around defense of the US “homeland.”

That hasn’t worked out terribly well in practice, but not for the reasons cited by Ocasio-Cortez. The bureaucracy has gotten more complicated around missions such as coastal defense, emergency response, and immigration and customs enforcement. All one has to ask is whether that consolidation actually improved performance, especially on immigration enforcement, to realize that at best it was a sideways reshuffle, and more concerning a distraction and dilution of expertise in the upper structure.

However, if Ocasio-Cortez is truly concerned about creating “very largely unaccountable organization[s],” then perhaps she should explain why she favors Medicaid for All and the Green New Deal, both of which would explode the size of federal government. AOC’s entire agenda is about “consolidating power,” only to use it for her hobby horses rather than Trump’s. It’s rather rich to hear a self-professed “democratic socialist” complaining about large government agencies.

Finally, perhaps Ocasio-Cortez should be praised for this part of her speech:

Because I think that when you start viewing human beings as intrinsically valuable, you feel blessed that they have come to you with their presence.

You know who feels human beings are intrinsically valuable and are blessed by their presence? The pro-life community. Maybe AOC is ready to fight for the unborn and their intrinsic value as human beings?

The post AOC: “All people should be free” to enter the US? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group aoc-dhs-300x162 AOC: “All people should be free” to enter the US? The Blog Pro-Life open borders immigration Department of Homeland Security Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com