Pro Life: Federal Judge to Tenn. Pro-Lifers: Your Votes Don't Count
Here is the latest news from the Pro Life world
A
Tennessee federal judge has ruled that ballots on Amendment 1 to the
state's constitution, which was against protecting a "right" to or
funding of abortion, must be recounted and that some of the "yes" votes
should just be thrown out in the process. Tennessee is appealing the
order.
The State of Tennessee is appealing the order of U.S. District Judge Kevin Sharp, an Obama appointee, who declared the method the state used to count votes for the amendment "fundamentally unfair" and in violation of due process and equal protection rights for voters under the U.S. Constitution, The Tennessean reported.
The State of Tennessee is appealing the order of U.S. District Judge Kevin Sharp, an Obama appointee, who declared the method the state used to count votes for the amendment "fundamentally unfair" and in violation of due process and equal protection rights for voters under the U.S. Constitution, The Tennessean reported.
The judge said that the eight plaintiffs who voted against the amendment "were not accorded the same weight" as those who voted "yes."
"As a remedy, the Court will order a recount of the 2014 Election solely in relation to Amendment 1, but defer ruling on the question of whether the election on Amendment 1 should be voided," the ruling said, adding that it does not apply to three other amendments on the ballot the same year.
The judge also ordered state election officials to count only those votes that were cast by voters who also voted in the governor's race, meaning those who voted in favor of the amendment but didn't vote in the gubernatorial election will be excluded from the recount.
The judge based this decision on the language in the state's constitution, which says amendments are approved "by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor."
Tennessee has long recognized that to mean a majority of the number of voters who voted for governor. Due to this method of counting votes, amendment proponents can strategically increase their chances of success by voting "yes" on an amendment and not voting for governor. This is exactly what many Tennessee pro-lifers did.
Judge Sharp now says the constitution's language means only the votes of those who made a choice in the governors race should count. But only the votes for Amendment 1 must be recounted. Sharp did not conclude that his reinterpretation applies to all amendments.
As many as 80,000 votes were cast in the 2014 vote on Amendment 1.
"We obviously disagree with the federal court's decision," Tennessee Attorney General spokesman Harlow Sumerford was quoted as saying. "Simply put, deciding what vote is required to amend the Tennessee Constitution is a matter of state law to be determined by a Tennessee court."
Tennessee Right to Life President Brian Harris said in a statement that "the historic method of counting the votes and ratifying the results on Amendment 1 was followed in the exact way as every other amendment approved by the voters of our state. Having wasted millions of dollars trying to defeat Amendment 1 at the polls, Planned Parenthood is now asking the federal courts to do their dirty work and to steal the votes of hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans who voted yes on 1."
He added: "That's neither right nor fair and we remain confident that the will of the people will ultimately be upheld… You can't discriminate against one set of voters because you don't like the outcome of an election and expect that it won't have implications for other amendments passed by the exact same process and procedures."
David French, a legal expert and conservative columnist for National Review, argued that Judge Sharp has disenfranchised pro-life voters.
"In an opinion full of insulting asides and other potshots at amendment supporters, Sharp claimed that the votes of those who voted in the governor's race but against the amendment were 'not given the same weight' as those who voted for Amendment 1 but did not vote in the governor's race," he wrote. "In other words, he claimed that a voter who did not vote for governor but did vote for the amendment had more influence over the process than a voter who chose to vote in both elections. Yet that additional influence was the product not of discrimination but of voter choice, of deliberate voting strategy.
"The judge's solution to this fabricated problem was to give the votes of those who voted for the amendment but not for governor no weight at all. In other words, his concern for voting rights (he called the right to vote 'precious' and 'fundamental') was so strong that he just went ahead and disenfranchised thousands of voters who relied on longstanding state-government interpretations of its own constitution. Moreover, he signaled that even if a recount shows that the amendment would still pass under his new, judicially created standard, he may still rule that the election itself should be voided."
Although such funds have been cut off by annual budgets dating back to 2011, the new measure would make the prohibition an ongoing state policy not requiring annual reauthorization. A second bill also approved on Sunday night would make it illegal for midwives “to perform, induce or prescribe drugs for an abortion.” It passed the Senate unanimously, 40-0, and cleared the House by a vote of 115-7. READ MORE
"As a remedy, the Court will order a recount of the 2014 Election solely in relation to Amendment 1, but defer ruling on the question of whether the election on Amendment 1 should be voided," the ruling said, adding that it does not apply to three other amendments on the ballot the same year.
The judge also ordered state election officials to count only those votes that were cast by voters who also voted in the governor's race, meaning those who voted in favor of the amendment but didn't vote in the gubernatorial election will be excluded from the recount.
The judge based this decision on the language in the state's constitution, which says amendments are approved "by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor."
Tennessee has long recognized that to mean a majority of the number of voters who voted for governor. Due to this method of counting votes, amendment proponents can strategically increase their chances of success by voting "yes" on an amendment and not voting for governor. This is exactly what many Tennessee pro-lifers did.
Judge Sharp now says the constitution's language means only the votes of those who made a choice in the governors race should count. But only the votes for Amendment 1 must be recounted. Sharp did not conclude that his reinterpretation applies to all amendments.
As many as 80,000 votes were cast in the 2014 vote on Amendment 1.
"We obviously disagree with the federal court's decision," Tennessee Attorney General spokesman Harlow Sumerford was quoted as saying. "Simply put, deciding what vote is required to amend the Tennessee Constitution is a matter of state law to be determined by a Tennessee court."
Tennessee Right to Life President Brian Harris said in a statement that "the historic method of counting the votes and ratifying the results on Amendment 1 was followed in the exact way as every other amendment approved by the voters of our state. Having wasted millions of dollars trying to defeat Amendment 1 at the polls, Planned Parenthood is now asking the federal courts to do their dirty work and to steal the votes of hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans who voted yes on 1."
He added: "That's neither right nor fair and we remain confident that the will of the people will ultimately be upheld… You can't discriminate against one set of voters because you don't like the outcome of an election and expect that it won't have implications for other amendments passed by the exact same process and procedures."
David French, a legal expert and conservative columnist for National Review, argued that Judge Sharp has disenfranchised pro-life voters.
"In an opinion full of insulting asides and other potshots at amendment supporters, Sharp claimed that the votes of those who voted in the governor's race but against the amendment were 'not given the same weight' as those who voted for Amendment 1 but did not vote in the governor's race," he wrote. "In other words, he claimed that a voter who did not vote for governor but did vote for the amendment had more influence over the process than a voter who chose to vote in both elections. Yet that additional influence was the product not of discrimination but of voter choice, of deliberate voting strategy.
"The judge's solution to this fabricated problem was to give the votes of those who voted for the amendment but not for governor no weight at all. In other words, his concern for voting rights (he called the right to vote 'precious' and 'fundamental') was so strong that he just went ahead and disenfranchised thousands of voters who relied on longstanding state-government interpretations of its own constitution. Moreover, he signaled that even if a recount shows that the amendment would still pass under his new, judicially created standard, he may still rule that the election itself should be voided."
Kansas passes bill to permanently defund Planned Parenthood
The state of Kansas is likely to permanently prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning funds administered within the state. A bill to prevent the abortion provider from accessing that revenue stream passed both houses of the state legislature: 87-34 in the House and 32-8 in the state Senate.
Although such funds have been cut off by annual budgets dating back to 2011, the new measure would make the prohibition an ongoing state policy not requiring annual reauthorization. A second bill also approved on Sunday night would make it illegal for midwives “to perform, induce or prescribe drugs for an abortion.” It passed the Senate unanimously, 40-0, and cleared the House by a vote of 115-7. READ MORE
NWO Defends Its Sale Of Baby Parts
Elite think the "Amazon.com" of fetal tissue is totally normal
Clearly there are more questions and falsehoods surrounding the fetal tissue scandal.But it isn’t Planned Parenthood’s feet being held over the fire.
Here in liberal bizarro land, an attack on the first amendment is well underway.
Abortion in Europe: Northern Ireland Conviction Inflames Debate
Passion of the Christ Actor Jim Caviezel Calls Abortion America’s “Great Sin”
Jim Caviezel, famed for his role as Christ in The Passion of the Christ, and currently starring as the leading man in TV’s Person of Interest, is frequently outspoken on the issue of abortion. With his publicly Catholic faith to his committed pro-life views, Jim and his wife Kerri have adopted two children from China, both of whom had special needs.
Earlier this year, Caviezel had a message about God’s mercy and grace — especially for women who have had abortions. Now he has a message for Americans in general: calling abortion America’s “great sin.”
The Christian Post has more:
“Many people are a part of this great sin in this country. These are all God’s children and he brings them home. Now He wants to bring you home. Do you think your friend has more grace than God? Does your friend have more love than the Creator? It can never be. God forgives you and now He needs you to begin, to accept forgiveness,” the actor told the congregation at Rock Church in San Diego, WND.com reported earlier this week.Caviezel isn’t worried about how being outspoken on abortion may impact his career.
“Some of you have had abortions – some men here, and women are adulterers,” Caviezel said during a question and answer session at the church.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
“Some have committed murder. Some of you didn’t have the abortion but paid for it, so you have contributed to this. Many people are part of this great sin in this country … over 50 million in the United States alone, and 45 million die every year in the world. These are all God’s children and God brings them home.”
The actor told Catholic Digest in 2009 that being pro-life is more important to him than his career. He told the digest, “How are we so arrogant to think the 51.5 million babies who have died in this country… Look, I am for helping women. I just don’t see abortion as helping women. And I don’t love my career that much to say, ‘I’m going to remain silent on this.’”
Italian government sounds alarm over ‘apocalyptic’ drop in birth rate
ROME, May 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Italy’s government is sounding the alarm about the country’s “apocalyptic” birth rate decline, but critics say the measure officials are proposing is a political gambit that will actually further undermine the Italy’s historically Catholic culture.
Earlier this week Italian Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin called for doubling current child benefits of 80 Euros per month for low income families and 160 Euros for the lowest earners making under 7,000 Euros a year.
She told La Repubblica, “If we carry on as we are and fail to reverse the trend, there will be fewer than 350,000 births a year in 10 years time, 40% less than in 2010—an apocalypse.”
She said that there were 66,000 births fewer than in 2010. The lower rate coupled with the aging population painted a picture of a “moribund” country.
According to the BBC, only 488,000 babies were born in Italy in 2015, “fewer than in any year since the modern state was founded in 1861.” The fertility rate was only 1.39 children per woman of childbearing age, down from 1.6 in 1981, according to the World Bank.
But are child payments the answer? Virginia Coda Nunziante, president of the Association for the Defence of the Family, told LifeSiteNews the money was too little, politically motivated, and wrongheaded.
“They are really just politically manoeuvring. The increase is insubstantial,” she said. As Nunziante sees it, “The government wants to get back the Catholic vote they lost over homosexuals,” after supporting the passage earlier this year of a measure granting civil unions to homosexual couples, including spousal benefits and adoption on a case-by-case basis.
But the amounts being proposed “will not have an impact on helping families,” said Nunziante. “They are proposing 150 Euros for a first child a month. It is not even enough to pay for diapers.”
Tax breaks for parents would be a far better way to help families, she added.
Steven Mosher, president of the Virginia-based Population Research Institute, agrees. “While I am in favor of ‘baby bonuses,’ there is a right way to do it, and a wrong way. Italy has chosen the wrong way by giving government handouts to all those, including illegal immigrants, who have a child within the country's borders.”
Mosher told LifeSiteNews that cash grants would “further hasten the Islamification of Italy by creating another new government program that will disproportionately benefit immigrants and indigents.”
Instead, he recommended child tax credits. “Such a tax credit would only benefit Italians who are gainfully employed, and who by having another child could reduce their tax burden and keep more of their hard-earned money.”
Nunziante added that the cost of child rearing was only one of the factors contributing to the low fertility rate. “We live in a very selfish society that is not open to larger families. People only want to have a good time.” She added that while having a family was a sacrifice, “sacrifice and joy are bound together in families.”
Nunziante called for government policies that encourage women to stay home and have families, rather than work, and even criticized government day care programs that tried to accommodate both. “Children should not be in day care. They should be at home with their mothers.”
Oklahoma passes bill effectively banning abortion
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma lawmakers have moved to effectively ban abortion in their state by making it a felony for doctors to perform the procedure, an effort the bill's sponsor said Thursday is aimed at ultimately overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
The bill, which abortion rights group Center for Reproductive Rights says is the first of its kind in the nation, also would restrict any physician who performs an abortion from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in Oklahoma.It passed 33-12 Thursday with no discussion or debate; a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against the bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Nathan Dahm. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, an anti-abortion Republican will withhold comment until her staff has time to review it, Fallin spokesman Michael McNutt said.
Dahm made it clear that he hopes his bill could lead to overturning Roe v. Wade.
"Since I believe life begins at conception, it should be protected, and I believe it's a core function of state government to defend that life from the beginning of conception," said Dahm, R-Broken Arrow.
But abortion rights supporters - and the state's medical association - have said the bill is unconstitutional. Sen. Ervin Yen, an Oklahoma City Republican and the only physician in the Senate, described the measure as "insane" and voted against it.
"Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women's access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low," Amanda Allen, an attorney for the New-York based center said in a statement. "The Center for Reproductive Rights is closely watching this bill and we strongly urge Governor Fallin to reject this cruel and unconstitutional ban."
Thursday's vote in the Senate comes as the Oklahoma Legislature nears a May 27 deadline for adjournment and is still grappling with a $1.3 billion budget hole that could lead to deep cuts to public schools, health care and the state's overcrowded prison system.
"Republicans don't have an answer for their failed education policies, failing health care policies and failing fiscal policies, so what do you do in that situation?" said Senate Democratic leader Sen. John Sparks. "You come up with an emotional distraction. That's what this bill is."
Nearly every year, Oklahoma lawmakers have passed bills imposing new restrictions on abortions, but many of those laws have never taken effect. In all, eight of the state's separate anti-abortion measures have been challenged in court as unconstitutional in the last five years.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case over an overturned Oklahoma law that would have required women to view of an ultrasound of her fetus before an abortion is performed. That same year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a law that would have effectively banned all drug-induced abortions in the state.
In 2014, the state Legislature approved a law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, but a challenge is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Also Thursday, the Oklahoma House approved a bill that requires the state Department of Health to develop informational material "for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society," but lawmakers didn't approve any funding for it. The measure, which now goes to the Senate, requires the health department to produce information about alternatives to abortion and the developmental stages of a fetus, but the bill's sponsor says it cannot be implemented without any funding.
Woman Defends Aborting Her Baby: “It Was a Choice Made From Love”???
No one wants to see their child suffer or die. Parents face heartbreaking news about their child often are left feeling hopeless, desperate and searching for answers.
Tragically, abortion advocates often prey on these vulnerable, grieving parents when their child is still in the womb. They try to convince them that aborting the child is more compassionate than allowing the child to die naturally. Implying but never saying that the unborn child is not a child yet, they push the lie that aborting the child will prevent him or her from suffering.This is what Huffington Post writer Deborah Hitchins argued in a recent column. Hitchins was heartbroken when doctors told her that her unborn daughter had a fatal condition and probably would not live outside the womb.
Hitchins said she felt excited for her child from the moment she took the first pregnancy test. She followed her unborn baby’s development, reading about how her daughter grew from the size of a rice grain to the size of a kiwi then a grapefruit.
“We wanted our baby with every ounce of our being,” she wrote.
But when she and her husband learned that their daughter would more than likely die soon after her birth, they convinced themselves that it would be more compassionate to abort her. Hitchins wrote:
Having to choose whether to terminate your unborn child is possibly the hardest choice you will ever have to make in your life. I would not wish that choice on anybody. It’s not something that you’d ever imagine yourself being faced with and for me it’s something I will carry with me forever.Hutchins said her decision to abort her unborn daughter smashed her heart “instantaneously into a million pieces.” Ten years after it occurred, she said she still misses her daughter and wants to hold her in her arms.
The worst thing is the judgement and opinions that society has placed upon you for your decision, and most often that opinion is formed without knowing the reasoning.
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.
… I didn’t choose abortion for any selfish reasons. For me, I chose selflessly to undergo a termination out of the love I had for my child, to stop their pain and suffering. The easiest option would no doubt have been to bring our baby into the world because I was selfishly unable to let go, into the world to exist without a quality of life, to live in a self confined darkness of pain and suffering, to not see or hear, not communicate, to not breathe unaided, to be trapped in a world of nothing, a void, to be totally reliant on others for every function to enable them to exist, if they were to survive the birth… would you want that for your child?
Hutchins wants compassion and affirmation for her abortion decision, not judgment. Her situation and her unborn daughter’s absolutely was heartbreaking and worthy of compassion – but Hutchins’ decision to kill her unborn child is not.
In that vulnerable, emotional time, what many parents like Hutchins fail to see is that their unborn child deserves the same treatment as a child who is born. Parents would never think of killing a 2-year-old who is suffering from a life-threatening illness. Why should a baby in the womb be treated any differently?
Born or unborn, children suffering from fatal conditions, illnesses, disabilities, etc., deserve to receive medical treatment, pain management and compassionate care. Thankfully, a growing number of communities are offering such programs to help babies with fatal conditions and their families. Perinatal hospice programs give families a life-affirming alternative to abortion during one of the most painful times in their lives. Most important of all, these programs treat babies in the womb just like any other child, working to alleviate their suffering and honoring them with the compassion and respect that they deserve.
