VA House Stops Democrats From Putting A Right To Partial-Birth Abortion In The State Constitution

VA House Stops Democrats From Putting A Right To Partial-Birth Abortion In The State Constitution

Republicans in the Virginia House defeated a Democrat effort to change the legislative body’s rules and put an amendment on the ballot that would have codified legal protections for abortionists in the commonwealth’s constitution.

In a final vote on Feb. 23, Republican delegates voted down a rule change to resurrect the radical “Right to Abortion” Amendment, proposed by House Democrats earlier in the 2023 session.

The amendment would have sanctioned the killing of the unborn in the Virginia Constitution, legalized abortion up to and during birth, made possible taxpayer-funded abortion, and inhibited the passage of future laws to protect the unborn.

The amendment itself never mentions abortion or women at all, instead defining a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” as being inherent in every “individual.”

As seen in a candid 2022 Senate bill, however, the amendment would have legalized disturbing procedures to kill and extract a full-term baby from a woman’s body. These techniques include “electrical vacuum aspiration,” “intact dilation and extraction” (or partial-birth abortion), and “intrafetal injection” of poisonous chemicals.

That bill would have given abortionists license to choose an alternative method of killing through a provision of “Method not listed” with almost no limitations. The so-called Right to Abortion Amendment would have made unborn babies vulnerable to these assaults up until birth. Advocates made no apologies for their gruesome stance.

It was a week of “hysteria, manipulation and lies,” said Virginia Society for Human Life President Olivia Gans-Turner.

Democrat delegates declared that Republicans supported the death of mothers by removing access to abortion on demand. They claimed Republicans wanted to enter a woman’s “bedroom” by enacting laws to protect unborn babies.

Del. Candi Mundon King, D-Prince William, testified that Republicans sought to “control” women’s bodies.

Meanwhile, Del. Kathy Byron, R-Bedford, referred to the pro-abortion argument as “manipulative and misleading” because it aims “to hide just how extreme this [amendment] proposal is.” In her Feb. 22 testimony, she noted the “offensive” testimony from Democrats who favored the amendment. They consistently refused to use the word “baby” in making their arguments, and “infant, child, and mother haven’t received much notice either,” she said.

“Let us be honest and direct about exactly what this proposed amendment to our constitution would do,” Byron said:

It would remove all restrictions on abortion including the parental notification requirement and prohibitions on taxpayer funded abortions. It would allow abortion on demand up to and including the moment of birth. That makes it violently more extreme than Roe, which at least acknowledged the child was entitled to protections in the third trimester of pregnancy. The amendment being offered offers no such protections. That is the most extreme position on abortion anyone can take.

Republicans on the House Courts of Justice Subcommittee killed the amendment on Feb. 17 in a partisan 5-3 vote, but pro-abortion delegates attempted to force a second vote on the legislation by a rule change, which would have brought back the amendment that failed to clear committee earlier in the session.

Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, organized the required five days of testimony to bring the amendment to a second vote on the floor before the session came to a close. Republicans stopped the rule change, eliminating the possibility of a new vote on the amendment in a 50-45 vote along party lines.

Limitless Abortion

Current Virginia law prohibits abortion in the third trimester with limited exceptions. According to a recent poll by The Wason Center, most Virginians do not want women and the unborn to suffer more abortions.

But Democrats continue to unabashedly argue for increased, nearly limitless abortion in the commonwealth. And they are not primarily concerned with the health of mothers, as shown in their effort to discard human rights laws for abortion survivors. During the 2023 regular session, Democrats also voted down bills to provide for the publication of a free, informational website that would list assistance options for mothers and require doctors to obtain written, informed consent from a woman before an abortion.

Elections and the Future of Abortion

In Virginia, two successive General Assemblies, with House elections between them, must pass a constitutional amendment for it to go to the voters as a ballot referendum. In Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, right-to-abortion amendments to the states’ constitutions have blocked or stripped pro-life legislation, Gans-Turner said.

“This is a hive mentality, and it is deadly,” Gans-Turner said. “The only successful way for us to block it is to ensure we have a strong pro-life majority in both chambers.” 

This November, all 140 seats in the Virginia legislature will be up for a vote.

“Pro-abortion proponents in the legislature this session reminded us how important it is to have in place at least leadership who respects human life,” said Del. Dave LaRock, R-Loudoun. “The general public does not agree with very late-term abortion, but if voters don’t get in the game we will be ruled by people who make decisions that are not reflective of our people

Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband.


Armageddon – Part 2: Lessons from the Cold War and the Birth of Cold War II

This is the second of a three-part series inspired by the novel Armageddon by Leon Uris (1963). A remarkable, fictional story based on actual history, from the American perspective, of the end of WWII in Germany with particular focus on the administration of Berlin.

If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us!
But passion and party blind our eyes,
and the light which experience gives us
is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind.
~ Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772 – 1834)

The Declaration of the Cold War

The Berlin Airlift was a resounding success! It was an outstanding achievement, but the Cold War was born. When we think of the Cold War, I guess most of us think of the territorial divisions that defined the ‘East’ from the ‘West’. These terms are still with us today, particular the phrases ‘Western Democracies’ and ‘Western Culture’.

We think of Russia and China as the world’s communist stronghold in the case of Russia, and the fascist dictatorship in the case of China, balanced against the western nations’ democracies. Then we think of the arms race and the nuclear threat, hence the term the ‘Cold War’, and the passionate hope and prayer that the opposing nuclear deterrents will be enough to keep either side from repeating the nuclear devastation unleashed on Japan to end World War II.

But let me take you back to the Berliners in the late 1940s. They did not really see any of these physical manifestations of communism that we recognise today. Rather, they would have sensed the psychological warfare raged against them — they were the heroes of the Cold War by their resistance against the communist agenda, their recognition of the threat and their willingness to sacrifice dearly for the prospect of freedom and liberty.

Imagine the culture of the time. Each of these points is a lesson for us today:

  1. The world that survived WWII were on food rations, crippled with grief for lost loved ones. Therefore, they could hardly ever lift their heads above the parapet and look out at other parts of the world. They were simply in survival mode and coming to terms with their own post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. With the trauma of WWII and the wounds still open and weeping, who could have imagined the emergence of a new enemy, especially one from within their own ranks of the Allied powers? The natural instinctive reaction would simply be one of denial. They may have seen some ‘news’, but it would not have fitted into their existing paradigm, so they could not have made any sense or order out of the events unfolding around them.
  3. The Russians had marched through eastern Europe and ‘assimilated’ nation after nation on their westward march. But they were halted in Berlin. To their surprise, they met resistance. Not so much a military resistance, but a resistance from the civilian Berliners. Their tried and tested methods sprang into action, and wave upon wave of psychological warfare was unleashed on the Berliners by the Soviets. One example will suffice. They claimed that only they could ensure the permanent defeat of the Nazi threat. They claimed that the western powers were simply a cover for the re-emergence of Nazism.
  4. The Berliners were the new frontline against the new enemy. As a people utterly devasted by defeat and slaughter, they could still see through the communist lies and propaganda. I take my hat off to the Berliners! Arguably, they were the ones who ‘won the peace’ after WWII. They were the ones who fought for the freedom of thought and liberty of allegiance.
  5. From the start of the Cold War, there was intense pressure to conform to the communist vision. Many of the western Allied soldiers’ families wanted to leave and return home. They saw that the Russians had the upper hand, therefore resistance was futile. Back in the United States, federal parliament was bitterly split. The battle for hearts and minds was fierce, and in the end was resolved by courageous leadership.

The Birth of Cold War II

I would now like to suggest that we are witnesses to the birth of the Cold War II in our day and generation.

  1. I think we are in a war, a largely psychological war, but there are military manifestations in various pockets around the world. Perhaps the seeds of this idea were sown for me by Douglas Murray’s The War on the West (2022). Murray identified the enemy of the West as being from within the West. The enemy is a traitor among one of our own, just as the Russians in the late 1940s turned on their ‘own’, their fellow Allies. I see these internal forces as just as determined to enslave us and strangle the life out of our democracy as the communists did at the height of the first Cold War.

  1. The enemy’s tactics within the Cold War II, being primarily psychological at this stage, have most certainly taken ground, as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of people still look to their governments and authorities to ‘look after them’, to subsidise their back-to-work initiatives, and to build artificial price caps on energy costs to cushion us from hyperinflation created by them. Yes, the enemy’s tactics are working in the production of a compliant, submissive populace, willing to do their master’s bidding.
  2. Today, just as in 1948, the majority of us are still traumatised from the Covid panic years and the wounds are still open and weeping in many places, though it’s remarkable that it’s so easy to forget some of the pain, as we were effectively conditioned into acceptance of the pain for ‘the greater good’. Therefore, how can we expect people to put their heads above the parapet and look out across the nations of the world to identify a new threat; surely, we have had enough troubles in recent times, we are not looking for another!
  3. The new frontline against Cold War II can be found all around the world. We are connected digitally in contrast to the tangible community that the Berliners knew in the aftermath of WWII. Yes, the new frontlines are drawn by those people who can see the threat and are prepared to take a stand against it. In this context, I take my hat off to the thousands who have lost their jobs as a result of their stand, and to the thousands whose families and communities have been shattered by division and breakdown in relationships, and to the thousands who have literally lost their lives already in Cold War II.
  4. The battle lines are drawn today between those who recognise the threat of Cold War II and those who don’t. The latter can’t see that there is anything to fear — they simply say, ‘We are all in this together, we must make sacrifices for the common good when called to do so.’ I find that the division is largely one of silence and an unwillingness to name the elephant in the room. This is in stark contrast to 1948, when heated debates were common.

I do not see a new ‘Berlin Wall’ being built, but I do see the new ‘prisoner-of-war-camps’ being commissioned all around the world, to corral agitators, protesters, and rebels. There seem to be all the hallmarks of ‘walls’ around these camps to keep the renegades in; in contrast to the Berlin Wall’s design to keep their own in, preventing them from defecting to freedom.

Whichever way we look at it, division and segregation can never spell freedom and liberty of thought and allegiance. Openness, tolerance, and mutual respect are the qualities of a community I want to leave as a legacy for my children. These characteristics are all built upon personal responsibility and small government, as opposed to the abrogation of responsibility to big governments and global big businesses.

The Cold War II’s Agenda

I have reflected deeply on the nature of this agenda. I believe the mastermind to be the devil and his angels. His fingerprints are all over it:

Therefore, Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10: 7-11)

I believe there are many ‘diversionary tactics’ that distract, divide, dilute and dilute our attention. But if we look at the devil’s core values, stealing, murder and destruction, this will help us identify the true nature of his agenda. This is in direct contrast with Jesus’ agenda to bring life and life to the full. It is interesting that Jesus is the ‘gate’, not the devil. It is Jesus that decides who may come in and go out, and who may find pasture.

Who is the devil using to outwork his agenda? First of all, stealing. Sadly, I suspect there will be much more overt manifestations of theft to come, but so far, we have seen soaring fuel prices and artificial scarcity of sources of energy, resulting in inflation fuelled by planned irresponsible government spending over the past three years. So, the first agent of the devil’s agenda, national governments, in perfect harmony across the world.

Secondly, murder. The perpetrating and legitimisation of abortion, the murder of infants:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Leviticus 20: 1-2)

Yes, child sacrifice has been known for thousands of years, but God plainly abhors it, and notice He holds ‘the people’ responsible for its eradication. I believe we are responsible for allowing the practice of and legitimisation of abortion. So, in this context, our governments who have sanctioned the practice and our healthcare system that carry out the practice are responsible, but we have not stopped them.

Further, evidence of murder would be the administration of un-tested, unsafe, and ineffective medication resulting in sudden adult death syndrome (SADS), increased numbers of miscarriages and the potential for future infertility. All these measures being the responsibility of the global pharmaceutical industry and our healthcare systems overseen by our national governments. This strategy of the devil has been working very well at depopulating the world, with the immediate focus being the western nations.

Thirdly, destruction. War meets this criterion and is the most obvious evidence of the work of the devil. But destruction can be evidenced in a wide array of phenomena. I would illustrate this with wildfires. It seems to me that many wildfires have been fuelled by Green agendas that have left forests untended for too long, resulting in dangerous levels of tinder for fires to consume.

I also note that some catastrophic floods have been exacerbated by the cessation of preventative dredging of tidal estuaries and the indiscriminate land clearing that has denuded the landscape of vegetation, that would otherwise have captured sufficient rainfall and lessened the destructive floods. In these instances, the responsibility for the destruction would again be the Green agendas that have failed to recognise the biodiversity of different habitats. Then in turn, Green agendas have been incorporated into ‘both sides’ of politics, who in turn bear the responsibility for the destruction.

Here I have sought to illustrate the work of the devil under the three headings of stealing, murder and destruction. Naturally, this is a gross simplification of the nature of the fallen world — in reality it is much more complex; but I have found this rationale a helpful vehicle to seek to understand the nature of Cold War II.

We Ignore Cold War II at Our Peril

Just as in the days of the first Cold War, many could not see it at first. There were intense debates on how best to respond. Let us learn the lessons from history and not be caught out in Cold War II. I believe that the writing is on the wall for us all to read.


Photo by Pixabay.

Thank the Source

Major Doctors’ Organization Publicly Embraces Dismembering Babies Until Birth

A majority of Americans, 7 in 10, according to a recent poll, want significant limits on abortion, but the nation’s second-largest physician group is officially embracing Democrats’ abortion-on-demand talking points following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision allowing states more freedom to set abortion law.

In its latest policy brief, the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced its official stance on abortion is that “individuals have the right to make their own decisions, in partnership with their physician or health care professional” without legal consequences.

The ACP also used the brief, which was designed to “expand” on the organization’s 2018 policy, to formally condemn life-saving pro-life laws for banning the barbaric practice of in-utero dismemberment abortion and punishing anyone who illegally ends unborn lives. The ACP declined to immediately respond to The Federalist’s questions about whether the organization believes in any limits on abortion “given the tight turnaround.”

The language in the policy, however, is clear that the ability to continue living outside a mother’s womb is no longer the standard to use when determining limits on abortion because it “means different things to different people and health systems.”

“Each pregnancy is different, and a viability determination can only be made on a case-by-case basis between a physician and their pregnant patient,” the ACP brief states. Even if viability is universally determined by physicians instead of legislators, as the organization demands, the ACP still says it “is a deficient public policy standard for the legal regulation of abortion.”

Instead, the ACP says every woman should be able to get an abortion, travel to get an abortion outside of her pro-life state, and receive fatal abortion drugs in her mail “without undue government interference.” In fact, the ACP wants policymakers to “explore ways to support people who need assistance to be able to travel to obtain reproductive health care services due to a lack of available services in their region.”

Any effort to criminalize the ending of unborn lives the ACP condemns as a “threat to patient access to care and physician practice of medicine” that infringes on the network’s commitment to providing “equitable care.” It’s unclear whether the ACP will force out pro-life physicians who disagree with this extremist policy.

Just last month, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists banned pro-life doctors from sharing science-based information about life in the womb at their annual conference. In response, four Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, formally asked their colleagues in Congress to decline meeting with ACOG unless the organization reverses its decision.

“As Members of Congress, we call on ACOG to end its discrimination against pro-life doctors, and we will press for immediate changes to this unacceptable behavior—whether that means taking ACOG to task in meetings or refusing meetings until they change course—and encourage other Members to do the same,” the legislators wrote.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Report: Whistleblower Says FBI Used Threat Tag Created After Dobbs Ruling to Focus on Pro-Lifers

Report: Whistleblower Says FBI Used Threat Tag Created After Dobbs Ruling to Focus on Pro-Lifers

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) allegedly used a threat tag it had initially created to track threats to the Supreme Court to focus on pro-life individuals, an FBI whistleblower told the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

FBI Special Agent Garret O’Boyle, who worked from the Wichita Resident Agency in the Kansas City Field, said the threat tag, “THREATSTOSCOTUS2022.” which was made after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, was “legitimate” because “threatening a Supreme Court official is a violation of a federal crime,” according to portions of a transcripts of O’Boyle’s Feb. 10 interview with the panel, obtained first by Fox News.

O’Boyle said the threat tag soon “shifted and began focusing in on pro-life adherence,” according to the report. 

“When this threat tag came out, it was like, why are you focusing on pro-life people?” O’Boyle’s transcript allegedly reads. “It’s pro-choice people who are the ones protesting or otherwise threatening violence in front of Supreme Court justices’ houses.”

O’Boyle said the FBI wanted agents to “look into” pro-life pregnancy centers, which he said he was confused by because pregnancy resource centers were more likely to receive threats following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, according to the report. O’Boyle also allegedly told the panel that he was instructed to ask a confidential human source, who he said was pro-life, “a bunch of questions about the threats to the Supreme Court.” 

O’Boyle reportedly said “I do,” when the panel asked if he believe the FBI was creating threat tags in a politicized way, the report states. He also reportedly told the panel that the FBI had him divide one domestic terrorism case into “four different cases.”

“O’Boyle said the division of one case into multiple separate cases gave the FBI the opportunity to go to Congress and say, ‘look at all the domestic terrorism we’ve investigated,’” according to the report. 

He claimed the the agency suspended him for making protected disclosures to Congress and said he was even prevented from gathering his personal belongings. O’Boyle told the panel the agency is “weaponized” against agents and anyone who tries to expose “malfeasance inside the agency prior to this.”

The FBI told Fox News Digital that the agency “[does] not conduct investigations based on a person’s political or social views.” The agency also said it had “no comment on particular threat tags” but noted that a tag is “merely a statistical tool to track information for review and reporting.”

“The creation of a threat tag in no way changes the long-standing requirements for opening an investigation, nor does it represent a shift in how the FBI prioritizes threats,” the agency told the outlet. 

The FBI also denied that it “manipulated statistics on domestic terrorism,” said that it will “never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity,”  and denied retaliating against whistleblowers.

The report notes that O’Boyle’s interview occurred as the subcommittee investigated whether federal law enforcement agencies were allegedly misusing domestic violent extremism resources for “political purposes.”

News of the whistleblower’s allegations also comes after United States Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more pro-life activists than pro-abortion extremists following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision, even though the FBI estimated that 70 percent of abortion-related violence was aimed at pregnancy resource centers and churches.

Garland blamed the timing of the alleged crimes for the prosecution discrepancy, claiming that pro-lifers have been easier to track because “those actions are taken with photography at the time, during the daylight, and seeing the person who did it is quite easy.”

“Those who are attacking the pregnancy resource centers, which is a horrid thing to do, are doing this at night, in the dark,” Garland told told Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “We have put full resources on this. We have put rewards out for this. The Justice Department and the FBI have made outreach to Catholic and other organizations to ask for their help in identifying the people who are doing this.”


Speak Up for Babies Born Alive in Abortion

Statistics suggest that every year in Australia, over 100 babies are born alive during failed abortion attempts and then left die. Please speak up for them.

Last year, George Christensen drafted the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, in an effort to protect babies born alive as the result of a failed abortion attempt. While he was not able to see this Bill introduced to Parliament before his retirement, Senators Alex Antic, Matt Canavan and Ralph Babet have vowed to continue his fight.

The Bill will now come before the Senate and is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. This inquiry provides a vital opportunity for members of the Canberra Declaration community to have their say on legislation that could save the lives of hundreds of Australian babies.

Making Your Submission

Your submission could be a page long or even just a paragraph. Politics is a numbers game, so it is far better to make a brief submission than not make one at all for fear it won’t be comprehensive enough!

The Parliament of Australia recommends that when writing a submission (even a short one), you should briefly introduce yourself, keep your points simple and concise, highlight your own perspective, and focus on how problems can be addressed. (Read more on making a submission HERE).

Fortunately, it has never been easier to make a submission with the Canberra Declaration. Use our online submission form HERE.

Submissions are due at the end of business next Friday 10th March, so don’t delay!

The Canberra Declaration has drafted its own 14-page submission which you can view HERE. What follows is a summary of our submission: what we believe are the strongest points to be made in favour of the Bill that could guide your submission. You may like to pick just one heading or even one dot-point as the basis of your submission. The important thing is that you don’t just copy and paste, but customise and personalise what you say.

Children are Being Left to Die

  • 396 babies survived abortion in Victoria and were left to die in the years 2010–2020.
  • 328 babies survived abortion in Queensland and were left to die in the years 2010–2020.
  • The Queensland Termination of Pregnancy Guidelines state: “If live birth occurs… do not give life-sustaining treatment… document date and time end of life occurs.”
  • Babies who survive abortion in Queensland and Victoria have no legal rights. Most other states and territories are similar.
  • It is reasonable to infer from available data that at a minimum, 100 Australian children are left to die every year following a failed abortion.

Unwanted Babies Also Possess the Right to Life

  • A 2018 doctoral study found that 95 per cent of biologists agree: “a human’s life begins at fertilization”.
  • Due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is biologically, genetically and scientifically human.
  • Since unborn babies are human beings, they possess the same inherent human rights as every other member of the human family.
  • “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” — Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” — Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Australia’s International Obligations

  • In 1990, Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states, “every child has the inherent right to life” (Article 6).
  • Under that Convention, Australia has committed to ensure “to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child” (Article 6).
  • Under the same Convention, Australia recognises “the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health,” and has committed “to strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services” (Article 24).
  • Under the same Convention, Australia has committed to “take appropriate measures” to “diminish infant and child mortality” (Article 24).
  • In 1980, Australia ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, agreeing: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” (Article 6).
  • Australia is currently in breach of its international obligations. The Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 will resolve that breach.

Public Support for the Bill is Strong

  • In a 2021 YouGov poll, 56 per cent of Australians said that babies who survive abortion should be given the same medical care as any other premature baby.
  • In the same poll, only 18 per cent of Australians said that babies who survive abortion should be left to die.
  • Three times as many Australians support medical care for babies who survive abortion as those who oppose such care.

Also: A Petition to Sign

Please take a few minutes and make your submission using the Canberra Declaration’s online submission form HERE.

Finally, there is one more important thing you can do that will take less than a minute: please sign Senator Alex Antic’s petition supporting the Bill HERE.

Thank you for your partnership in standing for LIFE in Australia.

Image via Unsplash.

Thank the Source

Merrick Garland Says DOJ Has Prosecuted More Pro-Lifers Because Attacks Occurred ‘During the Daylight’

United States Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted that the Department of Justice [DOJ] has prosecuted more pro-life activists than pro-abortion extremists following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, but blamed the timing of alleged crimes for the discrepancy.

“I will say, you are quite right: there are many more prosecutions with respect to blocking of the abortion centers. But that is generally because those actions are taken with photography at the time, during the daylight, and seeing the person who did it is quite easy,” Garland told Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) during a Wednesday Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. He went on:

Those who are attacking the pregnancy resource centers, which is a horrid thing to do, are doing this at night, in the dark. We have put full resources on this. We have put rewards out for this. The Justice Department and the FBI have made outreach to Catholic and other organizations to ask for their help in identifying the people who are doing this. 

Garland’s comments were in response to a question by Sen. Lee asking if the DOJ has unevenly invoked the FACE Act to go after pro-life activists in the wake of the Dobbs decision — despite the fact the most abortion-related attacks following the decision have been against pro-life organizations and churches. Lee posed the question:

In 2022, and for the first couple of months of 2023, the DOJ announced charges against 34 individuals for blocking access to or vandalizing abortion clinics. And there have been over 81 reported attacks on pregnancy centers  — 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the Dobbs decision, and only two individuals have been charged. So how do you explain this disparity by reference to anything other than politicization of what’s happening there? 

Garland further told Lee that the FACE Act, which outlaws “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services,” applies equally to pro-life pregnancy resource clinics and abortion clinics.

“We will prosecute every case against a pregnancy resource center that we can make. But these people who are doing this are clever and are doing it in secret. And I am convinced that the FBI is trying to find them with urgency,” he added. 

Lee’s line of questioning came after America endured a “Summer of Rage,” which included — according to estimates by CatholicVote —130 attacks of Catholic Churches and 81 attacks against pregnancy centers and pro-life groups since the leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Many of the attacks, which included fire-bombings and vandalism, were claimed by a group called “Jane’s Revenge.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray previously admitted during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing in November of 2022 that approximately 70 percent of abortion-related threats of violence in the United States since the Dobbs decision have been against pro-life groups. However, he too denied that the FBI and DOJ are unevenly enforcing the law. Wray said:

We don’t have the time for me to tell how frustrated I sometimes get by some of the news reporting about our work and the misreporting of our work. The circumspection that we display with regard to discussing our investigations is based on rules and practices that are important to people having confidence in the integrity of our work and go back decades, multiple administrations.

The FBI notably waited several months after a wave of attacks against pro-life pregnancy centers to offer $25,000 rewards to anyone who can provide information leading to arrest and conviction of suspects.


American College Of OB-GYNs Bans Pro-Life Doctors From Conference After They Show Up

American College Of OB-GYNs Bans Pro-Life Doctors From Conference After They Show Up

The nation’s largest obstetricians and gynecologists professional organization can’t defend their pro-abortion positions against public opinion or science, so they banned pro-life doctors from sharing science-based information about life in the womb at their annual education conference.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) confirmed to The Federalist on Tuesday that it barred members of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) from hosting a booth at the former’s conference this week because of the pro-life doctors’ belief in the equal sanctity of all human life.

The incoming president of AAPLOG, Dr. Christina Francis, announced on Monday that, despite 15 years of hosting a booth at the ACOG’s Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology meeting, AAPLOG was denied entry upon their representatives’ arrival.

AAPLOG booked their conference booth through the ACOG last year but it wasn’t until after the pro-life doctors arrived in Maryland this week that ACOG informed them their exhibit was canceled.

“Despite multiple requests for an explanation as to why, the only explanation we’ve received is a vague explanation that we disagree with ACOG, presumably on the issue of abortion,” Francis explained in a video outside of the conference venue on Monday.

Only doctors who share ACOG’s views, ACOG spokeswoman Rachel Kingery told The Federalist, are granted permission to participate as exhibitors.

“ACOG members are welcome to register for and attend ACOG meetings. At the CREOG – APGO Annual Meeting, ACOG also welcomes exhibitors that align with ACOG’s and APGO’s shared commitment to the advancement of evidence-based, scientific information,” she said.

When pressed on whether AAPLOG was stripped of its booth this year because ACOG does not believe its pro-life views fit that commitment, Kingery replied “yes.” The pro-life doctors’ organization says it provides “an evidence-based rationale for defending the lives of both the pregnant mother and her pre-born child.”

The theme of ACOG’s conference this year is “Building Bridges: Creating Connection in Medical Education.” But, Francis noted, ACOG expressed “no desire to build bridges with those of us who disagree even a little bit with them on their position on abortion.”

“Scientific advancement is made through the free exchange of ideas, and through critically looking at both sides of an issue and deciding which the evidence better support,” Francis explained. “However, ACOG obviously is afraid for students and residents and for their medical educators to be exposed to any other position on abortion other than their radical position.”

Even though 86 percent of U.S. OB-GYNs say they do not wish to abort babies in the womb, ACOG declares that its OBGYNS believe that “defending” and “expanding” who can give and get an abortion “is essential health care.”

The organization maintains that babies in the womb do not feel pain until at least 24 weeks gestation. Yet studies show that pain receptors begin forming in preborn infants as early as 10 weeks of gestation and the nerves in a child’s spine required to signal the brain are fully formed by 15 weeks old.

ACOG also dissuades its members from using more than a dozen scientifically accurate terms such as “unborn baby,” “elective abortion,” “womb,” and “abortion-on-demand” to describe the realities of ending life in the womb.

The deeply unpopular decision to end a baby’s life in the third trimester, ACOG claims, should be called “Abortion later in pregnancy” instead of “Late-term abortion.” Pointing out babies born alive “partial-birth abortions,” ACOG says should be avoided because it is “graphic” and “inflammatory.”

To ACOG, “Heartbeat bills,” which are responsible for saving thousands of babies’ lives, are “Gestational age bans.”

Even though there’s an endless stream of scientific evidence confirming the presence of an unborn baby’s beating heart very early in pregnancy, ACOG says “It is clinically inaccurate to use the word ‘heartbeat’ to describe the sound that can be heard on ultrasound in very early pregnancy” because what “pregnant people may hear is the ultrasound machine translating electronic impulses that signify fetal cardiac activity into the sound that we recognize as a heartbeat.”

Francis recognizes that ACOG’s stances are out of touch with the public and unscientific. She says that is why she invited ACOG CEO Dr. Maureen Phipps to debate her “on the impact of elective abortion on the health of women.”

“I will meet her anytime, anyplace so that we can present both sides of this issue and allow not only the general public, but also the next generation of physicians to decide for themselves what the evidence supports,” Francis concluded.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


A ‘National Divorce’ Is An Understandable Desire But A Recipe For Disaster

A ‘National Divorce’ Is An Understandable Desire But A Recipe For Disaster

A national divorce is impractical, and the prospect of a civil war, which is what happened last time it was tried, is horrible. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman, is a terrible messenger for the idea. Thus, it is no surprise that her tweet about the need for a national divorce brought a cavalcade of criticism upon her, including from fellow Republicans.

Yet for all the problems with the proposal — to say nothing of the often-stupid responses — there are good reasons why the idea is alluring to some on the right. Acknowledging these points is not an endorsement of a national breakup, and ignoring them will not make them go away. 

The first of these truths is simple: The moral and cultural divisions in our nation are probably as deep as those preceding the Civil War. There is a multitude of polling and punditry on our polarization, but it can perhaps be best summed up by noting that we can’t even agree on what a woman is — the Biden administration, along with many blue states, is literally putting male criminals in women’s prisons on the theory that trans women are women, full stop. This level of disagreement, which is mirrored on many other issues, does not lend itself to easy coexistence or political comity.

Of course, this division applies to both sides, which brings us to the second point, which is that the culture war has a persistent aggressor on the left. This is not to say conservatives never counterattack. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the cultural left has successfully remade social and legal norms around the basics of life, such as sex, marriage, and childbearing. And they keep pushing the envelope; we went from “be nice as Bruce becomes Caitlyn” to “trans the preschoolers” almost instantly. 

Furthermore, because the left styles these campaigns as the moral equivalents of, and successors to, the civil rights movement, they believe themselves justified in using the expansive government power used to break Jim Crow against, say, Christians who do not want to participate in promoting and celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Additionally, the left favors bigger government, which is inimical to pluralism, especially when it lacks generous accommodations for dissenters and minorities. The more control the government has over everything from education to health care, the less space there will be for nonconformists. This, in turn, reveals a practical problem with the federalist solution to our nation’s divisions, which is that only one side is amenable to it. If the right shows more interest in national divorce, it is because they are constantly being attacked by the left.

This brings us to a third truth, which is that there is an asymmetry of power in the culture war. The dominance of cultural leftism within institutions and industries, from academia to the entertainment industry to Big Tech, allows leftists to achieve major cultural victories even when they lack political power.

As the left seizes control of cultural and economic hubs of power, the economic interests of much of red and blue America are diverging, leading to a merger of the class war and the culture war. Among the obvious examples of this dual polarization are the many attempts by Big Business (encouraged by the corporate media) to impose economic sanctions on conservative states that defy cultural leftism. The efforts by Big Tech to suppress conservative views and outlets (sometimes even coordinating these efforts with left-wing government officials) are another.

The attraction national divorce has for some on the right is explained as much by the left’s aggression paired with its cultural and economic power as it is by the extent of our divisions. The cultural left impinges much more on even very conservative parts of red states than the right does on the most liberal areas in blue states. For the left, these are righteous victories, and they feel no need to apologize for them, but they are a persistent source of resentment on the right.

Nonetheless, the first point may provide the hardest challenge for those who insist that national divorce is not just undesirable but impossible. Put simply; there are limits beyond which pluralism becomes unstable and unsustainable. There are differences that cannot be bridged, even with a smaller government and more federalism. These are divisions over which there is no political compromise that will avoid one side feeling oppressed by the other. 

Transgender ideology has proven particularly potent at creating such conflicts. For instance, is it illegal and harmful discrimination to keep males who declare themselves “trans women” out of female locker rooms and showers, or is letting them in a violation of the rights of women and girls? Likewise, with regard to children who claim to be transgender: Is it abuse to transition them, or abuse not to?

A multitude of such issues is being piled on top of older bitter disputes, such as whether abortion is a human right or an inhumane wrong. And it is impossible to formulate compromises, or live-and-let-live policies, for them all. One side wins, and the other loses. As these issues proliferate, living under the regime of the other side will seem increasingly intolerable.

This does not mean we are headed for national divorce. But it is all too easy to envision a lawless sort of federalism in which the uniform rule of law is replaced by competing jurisdictions engaged in de facto nullification along with a dose of anarcho-tyranny. Nullification is once again being preached from the floor of the Senate, and there are plenty of recent examples of officials refusing to enforce some laws and applying others only to their opponents. And that, combined with our deep divisions, could functionally break our nation, even if it is nominally united.

But conservatives should not quit the work of preserving and restoring our nation. The empire of wokeness is powerful but fragile. It does not have majority support, and it can be defeated and beaten back. There are reasons for hope, from so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion programs being the first to go when businesses need to cut costs to GOP governors and legislatures, led by the example of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, growing spines and beginning to govern their states in the interests of the voters, not just their campaign donors. These leaders have learned that the key to winning enduring victories is to dismantle the institutional power of cultural leftism and dry up its funding.

Culturally, the time may also be right for a conservative renewal because cultural leftism is ineffective and immiserating. From public safety to racial harmony, cultural leftism is not keeping its promises. Indeed, it can’t even deliver on its signature issue of sexual satisfaction — it turns out the conservative norm of the natural family is good at distributing sex and companionship across a population.

It is understandable that conservatives want to get away from those who are attacking our way of life, but our knowledge of better ways to live should give us hope that we can win.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)