Monday, February 25, 2019

A Heartbeat and a Ruling...Planned Parenthood Ain't Happy at All
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”
- Words within Vermont's House Bill H.57

Never did I think that I would be writing another article on abortion yet alone doing so this soon after my two most recent abortion articles Remove Northam...But Not For A 35-Year Old Photo and New York's Descent Into Hell. But it seems abortion is a subject that will not go away, and rightfully so, as abortion has now sadly crossed the line into coldblooded, pre-meditated, and ever so calculated murder of the most helpless amongst us.

Yes murder...and in the state of Vermont it appears to now be outright state sanctioned murder as their newly passed abortion bill clearly states that any interference by “the state, by law enforcement agencies, or by a public entity” to try and stop a women from attempting to “procure or induce” an abortion is “illegal.”

Now expanding Vermont's already existing abortion rights this new bill...H.57...pales even in comparison to New York's and Virginia's abortion bills. Passed last Thursday in Vermont's a vote of 106 to 36...with a Senate vote most likely to pass as Democrats hold a super-majority in Vermont's Senate...the 'Green Mountain State' will now allow abortion to take place at any and all stages of pregnancy and for any and all reasons whatsoever...even giving what amounts to blanket permission for “post-viability” abortion...infanticide if you will. And this bill also gives minors the right to have an abortion with no...I repeat no...parental consent needed. 
Basically for Vermont's minors it's abortion as a means of contraception...what has our beloved America come to? 

And not to be overlooked is the fact that H.57 also contains a provision which actually “dehumanizes” unborn children. Stating that, “A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law,” this abomination of a bill strips unborn children of any rights or recognition of their “personhood.” So if it's not a "person" that is murdered by the very act of being aborted then what the hell is it that's being discarded like yesterday's trash?

And Vermont Gov. Phil Scott...a Democrat of already salivating over his upcoming signing of this bill.

So while Vermont's Republican House members did try hard to at least amend and temper down this monstrosity of a bill...including their wanting a key amendment that would require a woman to receive an ultrasound before aborting their baby in addition to the aforementioned parental consent for minors...their demands of course fell on deaf ears. And why...because Democrats as a whole... both in Vermont and apparently see see a no questions asked no answers needed fundamental right afforded women under Roe v. Wade...instead of what more times than not is a last ditch choice made out of desperation, fear, and hopelessness, coupled with a resounding sense of guilt.

But even guilt cannot alter the facts that as of today, according to recent polls, a full fifty-five percent of Americans consider themselves unabashedly pro-choice, while just 38 percent consider themselves fully pro-life...with the rest making up the remaining seven percent who fall somewhere in between. And I personally seem to fall within that seven percent as I do support abortion in incidents of rape, incest, when the life of the mother is in immediate jeopardy, and when a baby is so medically compromised that it has zero chance of survival outside the womb, yet at the same time I do support the “Heartbeat Law”...a law where once a heartbeat is detected via a vaginal ultrasound...and hopefully except in those four aforementioned cases...abortion would become a no-no.

And why do I support the wanting of a “Heartbeat Law”... a law some on the left claim was solely “designed” to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade which it was not...because the true scientific fact is that without a beating heart a human being is not “alive” per se (I do not believe that life begins at conception)... and if one is not “alive” one is not conscious of nor does one feel pain. But once the heart starts beating we enter another whelm completely and with the human heart starting to beat between day's 18 to 21 after conception so does it become a human being. And while some women don't know they're pregnant that early on they do know when they've missed a period or two, and at that point a heartbeat is well established…no abortion for you...except...and again I the four stated cases.

A “Heartbeat Law” plus specifically laid out “exceptions” seems like a fair compromise to me, and states like North Dakota (the first to enact such a law back in 2012), Arkansas, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi, not only have such a law in place but also ban abortions in full at 20 weeks gestation and later...basically when a fetus becomes “viable” in it can live independently of its mother. 
And both Alabama and West Virginia also entered into the abortion fray when their states respective voters approved ballot measures that amended both their state's constitutions in ways that do not, at this time, change abortion rights in their states but could play a role if by some chance Roe v. Wade were to be overturned...which by the way it won't be as precedence has already been set. In Alabama, for example, the ballot measure gave the unborn protective “legal rights,” while in West Virginia, their state constitution was amended to stress these simple yet direct words, "nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion." 
And right now 14 other states are considering implementing a “Heartbeat Law” including my state of Florida where there is a bill...HB 235...currently being introduced into our state legislature. And while Florida law currently prohibits third trimester abortions except in cases of medical necessity, this bill, actually two bills combined into one, aims to not only ban women from getting an abortion after a fetus' heartbeat is detected, but does not allow exceptions for rape or incest. And if the "Heartbeat Law" is passed any violation of said law would render the woman who had an abortion and the doctor who preformed the abortion a third-degree felon. 
So while I do understand the emotions at play behind the “Heartbeat Law,” and know I am in support of said law, my support, unfortunately, comes with a caveat for I unequivocally believe that exceptions must be made in regards to rape and incest...especially when it concerns gang rape. No woman should be forced to carry to term a baby conceived in such a vile and violently forced way... and I for one will vote against such a law without those exceptions in place if it ever had to be voted on by we Floridians. 
But I don't believe such a “Heartbeat Law” as the one Florida is proposing...a bill without any exceptions at all...will ever come to fruition as Florida's Supreme Court, even while leaning conservative, would first have to wait for precedence to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court...precedence set in Roe v. Wade (and in other cases) that states cannot impose an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion before fetal viability is reached which usually happens between 24 and 26 weeks gestation. 
And while Democrats will continue on in their efforts to shove their extremist views on the entirety of reproductive rights down America's collective throat, overturning precedence... which in the past has been done in certain key instances...I believe in the particular case of abortion will not be done as to do so would only serve to delegitimize the Supreme Court itself which is something I highly doubt the justices would be willing to do. Hence, abortion will remain an option but with adjustments to current laws made by some states...the “Heartbeat Law” being just one such adjustment.

And yet another key adjustment regarding abortion was made just last Friday when, thanks to President Trump and his administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced what has come to be know as the Protect Life final ruling...a ruling which will now partially defund the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. How so...via its new requirements that federal TitleX family planning funds cannot go to abortion facilities, while also denying “Title X” locations from giving abortion referrals. 
In fact, the new ruling...done to ensure both transparency and the legal and ethical use of taxpayer funds...also states that a "financial physical separation" between facilities and programs where abortion is a method of family planning must be in place, while also eliminating the current requirement that, “Title X providers offer abortion counseling and referral.”

Simply, Planned Parenthood abortions will no longer be financed by our taxpayer dollars being funneled through “Title X”...and that is a very good thing indeed.

But what exactly is “Title X” some might ask...created in 1970, “Title X” is basically a federal family planning grant program...a program to the tune of $286.5 million...whose sole purpose is to provide individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services with its funding arm ensuring that each and every person no matter where they live, their background, their income, or whether or not they have health insurance has access to basic, preventive reproductive health care.

Translation: government interference in all aspects of procreation...before, during, and after sex.

And know that Planned Parenthood is hopping mad what with it being our country's largest provider of abortions and with its having about 41 percent of all “Title X” patients, mostly low-income women or so they claim. Now fearing the loss of a good chunk of the $60 million they already receive from said “Title X” program, Planned Parenthood is not happy with the fact that while the new ruling would not reduce the overall amount of federal funds spent on family planning itself, it will redirect monies to “Title X” centers that do not promote or perform abortions thus taking needed funding away from them and giving it to (gasp) faith-based groups instead.

Killing unborn children costs Planned Parenthood a lot of money you know.

So where do we stand now that a final ruling is in place? First, while in place the new rules are not yet official as they still need to be published in the Federal Register and get through the 60-day waiting period to go into effect. Second, so-called reproductive rights advocates fully expect lawsuits challenging the rule to be filed way before the ruling goes into effect. In fact, Planned Parenthood's Deputy Director of Public Policy Litigation and Law Carrie Flaxman said that the organization is already reviewing their legal options in regards to fighting this new ruling and is “committed to fighting it.”
And the ACLU, as expected, is already sticking their nose into the mix with ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Senior Staff Attorney Ruth Harlow, saying in a statement that, "Nobody should be denied access to reproductive health care or receive inadequate care because of their lack of income," and that the ACLU is also currently reviewing the legal options and are, like Planned Parenthood, committed to fighting back.

And lastly comes the playing of the Trump is a racist game which has already begun what with the National Hispanic Medical Association Chairwoman of the Board of Directors Judith Flores, MD, already throwing down the “race card” by saying that, “As physicians we cannot silently standby and allow the Trump Administration to increase healthcare disparities."
Honestly, I see no disparities at all as “Title X” is open to anyone no matter their race, color, income, or creed proving that the “race card” is getting both tiring and old for it's not President Trump's fault that Americans who value the sanctity of human life are tired of the killing of our unborn. I know I about you?

Copyright @ 2019 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All Rights Reserved. 

For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article Who Really Lynched Jussie Smollett?

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************  RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!

Tuesday, February 26th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'A Heartbeat and a Ruling...Planned Parenthood Ain't Happy at All' 'Who Really Lynched Jussie Smullett?'; and important news of the day.

Hope you can tune in at: on Tune-In at:

Macron says those convicted of “hate speech” should be banned from all social media for life
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

This is what’s coming, if the Left gets the power to do it. And since analysis of the motivating ideology fueling jihad terrorism is absurdly classified as “hate speech” by the political and media elites, this will allow the jihad to advance unopposed and unimpeded. “Macron: France Could Ban Hate Speech Convicts From All Social […]
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Macron says those convicted of “hate speech” should be banned from all social media for life on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

Fox News First

Welcome to Fox News First. Not signed up yet? Click here.
Developing now, Monday, Feb. 25, 2019
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SWIPES AT OBAMA, VOWS TO NOT  'COWER' BEFORE NORTH KOREA: As President Trump prepares to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for their second one-on-one summit, in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Wednesday and Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the administration will abandon what he called the Obama administration's policy of "praying" and "cowering" before the rogue regime ... However, both Pompeo and Trump also sought to tamp down expectations that the meeting would produce a breakthrough, or lead to major concessions by either party.

In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Pompeo said he was hoping for a "substantive step forward." Still, he cautioned, "it may not happen, but I hope that it will." Trump has predicted a "continuation of the progress" made during his first meeting with Kim in Singapore last June. During the Singapore summit, Kim said he was committed to the "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." But the conditions under which North Korea says it would commit to complete denuclearization have fluctuated over time.