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
Westlake Legal Group > Pro-Life (Page 8)

Democrat Governor Roy Cooper Sides With the Abortion Lobby, Vetoes NC ‘Born Alive’ Bill

Westlake Legal Group coexist_anti_abortion_poster-e1555162133918 Democrat Governor Roy Cooper Sides With the Abortion Lobby, Vetoes NC ‘Born Alive’ Bill roy cooper Pro-Life Politics North Carolina infanticide Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

As predicted, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) today has vetoed NC’s proposed Born Alive bill:

Gov. Roy Cooper on Thursday vetoed legislation that would have required doctors to provide the same care to an infant that survives an abortion as they give any other newborn.

“Laws already protect newborn babies, and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients,” Cooper said in his veto statement. “This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other health care providers for a practice that simply does not exist.”

Brent Woodcox, staff attorney for NC Senate Republicans, explained why this rationale made no sense:

He also took off after Politifact’s North Carolina division over a very misleading and thinly-sourced fact check on a key claim made about the bill:

I countered some of the claims from a related fact check, too. Specifically this one:

Claims about New York’s law have been exaggerated.

The NC House recently passed a resolution in response to a new New York law, known as the “Reproductive Health Act.”

Republicans who wrote the NC resolution described the NY law as “an extreme abortion-on-demand policy that establishes an unfettered right to abortion … the RHA authorized abortion up until the moment of birth.”

A viral Facebook image made a similar claim: that, under the new NY law, it’s legal to “murder” a baby a minute before it would be born. PolitiFact rated it False.

See this also, which I wrote in February:

**NY’s Updated Abortion Law Means Man Won’t Get Charged In Murder Of Unborn Child**

As I noted last week, Cooper is beholden to the abortion lobby and the extreme left in this state, so it wasn’t shocking that he vetoed the bill. But there is the question of the timing of Cooper’s veto. The bill passed two days ago, and he performed his veto just this morning. Alexandra DeSanctis speculates as to why:

An attempt at burying the story in the midst of a super-heavy national news cycle?

What remains to be seen at this point is whether or not Republicans have the votes to override Cooper’s veto. They no longer have a veto-proof majority so they’d have to bring a few Democrats on board to help them with an override. That’s a tall order.

Stay tuned.

————–
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 Democrat Governor Roy Cooper Sides With the Abortion Lobby, Vetoes NC ‘Born Alive’ Bill appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group coexist_anti_abortion_poster-300x204 Democrat Governor Roy Cooper Sides With the Abortion Lobby, Vetoes NC ‘Born Alive’ Bill roy cooper Pro-Life Politics North Carolina infanticide Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ted Cruz Has Some Uncomfortable Questions for Twitter and Facebook- About Mother Theresa

Westlake Legal Group ted-cruz-has-some-uncomfortable-questions-for-twitter-and-facebook-about-mother-theresa Ted Cruz Has Some Uncomfortable Questions for Twitter and Facebook- About Mother Theresa twitter Ted Cruz Social Media saint theresa Pro-Life mother theresa hate speech Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Censorship Allow Media Exception Abortion

Recently, representatives of Facebook and Twitter testified before Congress. This subcommittee on the Constitution was specifically on the subject of censorship in technology, and Congressman Ted Cruz had some questions that made the social media giants pretty uncomfortable.

In the exchange, Cruz asks why this quote by Mother Theresa (now Saint Theresa of Calcutta), which reads “abortion is profoundly anti-woman” was taken down (the tweet was then restored after complaints were made).

Cruz said:

It is fairly remarkable that Mother Theresa is now deemed hate speech.

The senator asked “Do either of you agree with the proposition that Mother Theresa is issuing hate speech?” There was complete silence for six seconds as neither answered. Cruz asked again “Is this hate speech?” which was followed by another four seconds of silence before Carlos Monje Jr., Twitter’s director of public policy and philanthropy, redirected the question, saying that he wanted to take a step back and say that the tweet was from the Susan B. Anthony List, which is currently an advertiser in good standing on their platform.

Cruz didn’t let the question go.

“You’re very good at not answering questions,” Cruz responded. “Is this hate speech?”

“Every tweet has a context behind it,” Monje insisted.

“That’s a full tweet. There’s no more context. This is it,” Cruz replied.

“Um… I can tell you that we have actioned tweets on both sides of this debate,” Monje added.

In the end, neither the representative from Facebook nor Twitter was willing to answer the question. It is a strange world, indeed, when we can’t all agree that, at the very least, Saint Theresa of Calcutta doesn’t engage in hate speech.

The post Ted Cruz Has Some Uncomfortable Questions for Twitter and Facebook- About Mother Theresa appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cruz-300x147 Ted Cruz Has Some Uncomfortable Questions for Twitter and Facebook- About Mother Theresa twitter Ted Cruz Social Media saint theresa Pro-Life mother theresa hate speech Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Censorship Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

When Did He Stop Being a Choice?

Westlake Legal Group when-did-he-stop-being-a-choice When Did He Stop Being a Choice? Pro-Life pro-choice Ohio Human Rights Heartbeat Bill Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Culture choice Allow Media Exception Abortion

Westlake Legal Group coexist_anti_abortion_poster-e1555162133918 When Did He Stop Being a Choice? Pro-Life pro-choice Ohio Human Rights Heartbeat Bill Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Culture choice Allow Media Exception Abortion

I awoke early today. Though it’s Saturday and I didn’t need to be up yet, I have a lot on my mind (work-related) and knew I wouldn’t be able to get back to sleep. I attempted to clear the cobwebs from my pre-caffeine-fueled brain by browsing Twitter. (I know, that’s probably not the best approach.)

As I did, I happened upon a thread in which a woman was responding to Ohio’s recent passage (and Governor Mike DeWine’s signing) of a “heartbeat bill,” which prohibits abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected — typically around the sixth week of pregnancy.  Ohio joins several other states which have recently passed heartbeat bills — Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi. Missouri’s House passed a similar bill in February, prohibiting most abortions after eight weeks, which is now being debated in the Missouri Senate. These bills, of course, stand in contrast to some of the most recent abortion-related legislation being passed out of New York, Virginia, etc., loosening abortion restrictions to allow for late-term (and some would argue post-term) abortions.

The thread in question detailed the woman’s personal experience with both abortion and motherhood. She described having undergone three abortions — one, when she was quite young, two when she was older — and having one child, a little boy, whom she loves dearly. I don’t doubt that at all. Her comments were articulate, emotional, and compelling. And I’m certain many who read them will applaud and cite them as persuasive argument in opposition to legislation aimed at limiting abortions.

I’m not going to call her out by name or share her tweets as what I’m about to say isn’t aimed at calling the wrath of the Twitter mob down upon her individually.  But as compelling as her story was, I was struck by the cognitive dissonance she so blithely displayed. In one breath, she described her rationale for “choosing” to have abortions because she simply “wasn’t ready.” In the next, she spoke of her “choice” to have her son. And it made me wonder: When did he stop being a choice?

Was it when she saw his heartbeat for the first time? Was it when she shared the happy news with friends and family? Was it when she learned he was a boy? Was it when she first started showing? Was it when she first felt him kick? Was it when she picked out his name? Was it when she had a baby shower? Was it when she went into labor? Was it when she first held him? Was it when she decided she was ready?

When did she decide she was ready? Is that what made her wonderful little boy a person, not just a choice?

I don’t know that I’ve written about it here at RedState but I used to be “pro-choice.” I’d like to share something I wrote about the topic a few years back:

I wasn’t always pro-life.  As I’ve mentioned previously, I was raised a liberal and remained so until roughly 8 years ago.  I have, at times, discussed the various reasons for my “conversion.” The stories of Rick Santorum’s little girl call to mind one of the keys.

Though my family was liberal and held most of the traditional liberal views, we never really discussed abortion. I, without being willing to examine the issue overly closely, simply characterized myself as someone who was pro-choice, even though I would never personally choose to abort my child.  I maintained that it wasn’t my place to make that decision for someone else, and carefully side-stepped any deeper exploration of the issue.  In fact, I’m somewhat ashamed to acknowledge, I felt smugly superior holding this nuanced and “enlightened” view of the matter.

I was 6 weeks pregnant when the September 11th attacks occurred.  I’ve detailed my recollections of that horrible day elsewhere, but one of the salient memories of it is coming home to a message on the answering machine from my doctor’s office — my hormone levels were low, and I was at risk for miscarrying. They had called in a prescription for me.  When I picked it up from the pharmacy, still numb from the day’s events, I read the warnings, which included possible birth defects, and called the doctor’s office back in a panic. I was assured the benefits outweighed the risks, and it was okay to take the medication.

Fortunately, from that point on, my pregnancy progressed quite smoothly.  When it came time for the 20 week ultrasound, my (then) husband and I were excited.  Even though I never really could make out most ultrasound pictures, it was still fun to see our baby as she developed — and yes, we learned at that point we were having a little girl.  We also learned there might be a problem.  The tech advised us that the ultrasound revealed choroid plexus cysts in our baby’s brain, and left to get the genetic specialist to come talk to us.

Though not definitive, there is thought to be a correlation between the presence of these cysts and a condition called “Trisomy 18”, which is a genetic abnormality in which a third copy of chromosome 18 is present.  We were told that the vast majority of babies with this condition die either before or shortly after birth.  Those who live have severe health problems and a very low life expectancy.  We were told an amniocentesis could verify if, in fact, our baby had this condition.  We were given some time to consider our options.

I was aware that amniocentesis carried with it its own risks — I recalled reading that there was a 1 in 200 chance it could cause a miscarriage.  As my husband and I discussed it, I kept thinking to myself, “So what am I going to do if the test confirms she has this?”  And I knew — in a heartbeat — I knew there was no way I would ever opt to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of what the tests showed.  So there was really no point in taking the added risk of the amnio.

Thankfully, though my daughter had some other complications due to arriving 6 weeks early, she did not, it turned out, have any genetic defects, and is, today a healthy, happy, almost-10 year old.  But the experience of being faced with that choice — even theoretically — was a crucial step in my journey towards becoming pro-life. Yes, it was my baby I was considering, and yes, I’d always thought I’d never choose to terminate a pregnancy. But being forced to think about it in more concrete terms also forced me to think about what it meant for others. It wasn’t so easy to keep it in the realm of the abstract anymore.

As I read about the Santorums and their Bella, I am inspired by their devotion to their children and to life, even in its most complicated and trying forms.  My heart goes out to them, and to all families with a child who is seriously ill. God bless them for choosing to love their daughter unconditionally and for unapologetically embracing life. I think Rick Santorum put it best:  “While Bella’s life may not be long, and though she requires our constant care, she is worth every tear.”

My daughter was never a “choice.” She was — and is, even when her 17-year-old self is challenging my patience mightily — a wondrous gift.

The woman sharing her story on Twitter clearly has given a great deal of thought to abortion and what it means to her both as a societal issue and personally. As I said, I don’t doubt at all that she loves and adores her son. But I do wonder if she’s ever thought to ask herself: When did he stop being a choice?

 


Follow Susie on Twitter @SmoosieQ

The post When Did He Stop Being a Choice? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-7-300x200 When Did He Stop Being a Choice? Pro-Life pro-choice Ohio Human Rights Heartbeat Bill Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Culture choice Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

SICK: NC Abortion Provider Tweets Vile Excuse for Why Infants Should Not Be Considered Legal Persons at Birth

Westlake Legal Group sick-nc-abortion-provider-tweets-vile-excuse-for-why-infants-should-not-be-considered-legal-persons-at-birth SICK: NC Abortion Provider Tweets Vile Excuse for Why Infants Should Not Be Considered Legal Persons at Birth Social Media republicans progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NARAL Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Conservatives Allow Media Exception Abortion

Westlake Legal Group naral-shirt-SCREENSHOT-620x339 SICK: NC Abortion Provider Tweets Vile Excuse for Why Infants Should Not Be Considered Legal Persons at Birth Social Media republicans progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NARAL Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Conservatives Allow Media Exception Abortion

North Carolina legislators have been considering a pro-life bill this week that would provide legal protections for babies born alive from botched abortions.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act aims to not only protect babies who survive abortions, but would punish any medical care professional who knowingly fails to perform life-saving procedures. The bill states:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of North Carolina and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

It also states that the mother of the born-alive child would not be held criminally liable in the event the baby dies as a result of deliberate inaction on the part of the medical care professional(s).

As expected, pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL oppose this proposed legislation because they view it as a back door way to restrict a woman’s right to choose.

Of note: Sen. Terry Van Duyn, a Democrat running for Lt. Governor, made it clear that she stridently opposes this bill.

One prominent abortion advocate, NARAL NC board member Calla Hales, expressed her opposition to the bill yesterday and suggested that because babies couldn’t be added to wills until 30 days after birth that they shouldn’t be considered legal persons in the event they survived an abortion attempt.

The tweet was deleted but National Review‘s Alexandra DeSanctis grabbed a screen shot of it:

Twitter users were quick to respond:

Hales locked her Twitter account down after others started responding to her, but The Blaze caught another tweet of hers in which she tried to justify her comments:

She went on to call the contrast “incredibly hypocritical,” before claiming that she was merely “pointing out a legal inconsistency.”

Hales is also the director of four abortion clinics in North Carolina and Georgia.

The North Carolina General Assembly is controlled by Republicans, so passage of the bill is likely. But Governor Roy Cooper is a Democrat who is beholden to pro-abortion special interest groups, so expect him to veto it if it lands on his desk. Republicans no longer have a veto-proof majority, so they would not be able to override a Cooper veto.

That said, the optics on a veto would be interesting in light of the backlash Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam received over his comments on infant abortion survivors.

Stay tuned.

————————————–
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 SICK: NC Abortion Provider Tweets Vile Excuse for Why Infants Should Not Be Considered Legal Persons at Birth appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group naral-shirt-SCREENSHOT-300x164 SICK: NC Abortion Provider Tweets Vile Excuse for Why Infants Should Not Be Considered Legal Persons at Birth Social Media republicans progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NARAL Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Conservatives Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Is there a No Republicans Need Apply sign in Academia?

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-math Is there a No Republicans Need Apply sign in Academia? University of Colorado The Blog same-sex marriage Pro-Life MARK KENNEDY Academia

For at least a few hours, Mark Kennedy looked like a shoe-in for the job of president at the University of Colorado. After a lengthy search, the regents unanimously selected the outgoing University of North Dakota president as their only finalist for the position. At that point, however, someone must have done a Google search and discovered Kennedy’s disreputable past as … a Republican Congressman from Minnesota.

Grab the fainting couch!

University of North Dakota President Mark Kennedy is the sole finalist in the University of Colorado system’s presidential search.

The Board of Regents voted unanimously to choose Kennedy, a Republican, as the finalist during a special board meeting Wednesday morning, and members of both parties have praised his bipartisanship and unique experiences.

However, some aren’t happy with his conservative voting history while serving as a Minnesota congressman from 2003 to 2007.

“I really question whether or not he has the qualifications to lead as exemplary a university as the one in Colorado and whether he has the best interests of students at the forefront,” said Carol Napier, who lives in Atlanta, Ga. Her daughter is a freshman at University of Colorado Boulder. “I would just encourage the Board of Regents to reconsider this choice, because I think it will be harmful.”

One of the regents tweeted out shortly afterward that “concerning” information had emerged after the vote that might require more action:

MPR’s Bob Collins reports that regents got “bombarded” by complaints on Twitter over Kennedy’s status as a finalist. The issue isn’t malfeasance or unethical behavior, but Kennedy’s record as a conservative representative from MN-06. Collins seems mystified why the regents didn’t anticipate the issue:

That information appears to be Kennedy’s voting record while representing Minnesota in Congress, a record that shouldn’t have been much of a secret to the regents in the first place, but apparently was. …

Regent Smith told the Boulder Daily Camera that Kennedy’s voting record never came up during a two-hour interview.

So why is it a possible deal-breaker now?

“I imagine that will be a question when he goes to forums, and I want to see how he responds and in return how the community responds to his responses,” Smith told the paper. “I want to make sure we have a fair process.”

Kennedy hasn’t been in office for over a dozen years. He gave up his MN-06 seat to run for the US Senate in 2006 against Amy Klobuchar and got buried. Michele Bachmann took over in MN-06, and now Tom Emmer represents the district. Kennedy was a solid conservative representing a solidly conservative district, including holding pro-life and pro-traditional marriage positions. At the time Kennedy held the latter, by the way, so did Barack Obama, who only “evolved” on same-sex marriage after winning a second term as president.

All of that is beside the point. Those were mainstream positions at the time as well as now. Kennedy was never an extremist politician on any issue, but more to the point, he’s had an entirely different career since January 2007. What relevance does Kennedy’s voting record in Congress from over a decade ago have to running the University of Colorado today? If the regents found him to be the most qualified candidate for the position before the subject of his votes from over a decade ago came up, why would those votes reduce those qualifications — except to the extent that they offend the partisan feelings of some regents a dozen years after the fact?

If the University of Colorado rejects Kennedy at this point for those reasons, they may as well hang a sign outside the campus that reads, “No Republicans Need Apply,” either for jobs or for admission. It would only reinforce the perception that this sign exists all through Academia, especially after Smith has publicly and explicitly made Kennedy’s political beliefs a hiring issue.

The post Is there a No Republicans Need Apply sign in Academia? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-math-300x162 Is there a No Republicans Need Apply sign in Academia? University of Colorado The Blog same-sex marriage Pro-Life MARK KENNEDY Academia   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com