Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) had struggled to distinguish herself from a large Democratic primary field by campaigning almost exclusively on women’s rights. That has not succeeded in moving Gillibrand from the bottom of the pack of candidates with less than one percent in most polls. However, Gillibrand doubled down this week with a startling interview where she not only pledged to impose a litmus test on any judicial nominees but said that being pro-life is equivalent to being racist or anti-Semitic.
Trump also crossed this line in pledging to appoint pro-life nominees though his nominees insist that they were not asked about their view of the constitutionality of abortion. Other Democratic candidates have pledged to appoint pro-choose nominees without saying how they would confirm such views. Gillibrand is the first to say that pro-life views are the same as racist views.
In an interview with The Des Moines Register on Tuesday, Gillibrand rejected the issue of abortion as a political matter and instead portrayed it as an anti-human rights viewpoint that is disqualifying for any jurist:
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America … I don’t think those are political issues anymore.”
Senators have long rejected the notion of litmus tests for nominees as threatening judicial integrity and independence. Indeed, many nominees refuse to answer questions about matters that may come before them.
When pressed on litmus tests, Gillibrand does not back down or deny that she would use a direct litmus test.
Gillibrand, who once ran on a fairly conservative agenda in New York, suggests that she would fight the agenda of the Trump Administration by imposing her own agenda. The reason is that her agenda is the correct one: “All these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that’s what this is. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism. And I do not believe that there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”
The question is whether this will now prompt other candidates to pledge a similar litmus test and declare pro-life views as indistinguishable from racism.
Democrats in the US House say they are about First Amendment and investigating the truth, but not when it comes to investigating them. Thus it is no surprise the spoiled brat from Minnesota has been caught breaking the law again and again and again.
What is it about Democrats telling Americans how they fight for them but break the law with such gusto?
Lock her up too!
—-
Ilhan Omar’s credibility takes another hit</strong?
Tax return irregularities are just the latest misstep by the first-term congresswoman.
By Editorial Board Star Tribune
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar is back in the news again, and not in a good way. The former state representative who won a seat in Congress last fall continues to be dogged by past missteps, this time eight violations of Minnesota campaign-finance law that will cost her nearly $3,500 in reimbursements and civil penalties.
It is even more disturbing, therefore, to learn that among the board’s latest findings was a troubling discovery that is far beyond its jurisdiction, but worthy of greater scrutiny nevertheless. Omar, for two years running, filed joint tax returns with a man she was living with but not legally married to. Complicating matters further, she was legally married to another man at the time.
Omar is no stranger to controversy. As a new state House member, she collected $2,500 in speaking fees — $2,000 from Normandale Community College and $500 from Inver Hills Community College — for appearances made shortly after she took office. Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, who publicly noted that state law prohibits legislators from collecting such fees from groups that have business before the Legislature, made that public, and Omar returned the money. Drazkowski also filed the latest complaint. “It’s very clear there are huge ethical problems with Rep. Omar,” he told an editorial writer, adding that the House should consider an ethics investigation.
Omar’s political rise has been marred by a series of unforced errors, including intemperate remarks and tweets earlier this year that were widely perceived as anti-Semitic. Every month seems to bring a fresh problem.
http://www.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-s-credibility-takes-another-hit/511152612/?refresh=true
Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion
Background
Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion
Janet R. Daling Kathleen E. Malone Lynda F. Voigt Emily White Noel S. Weiss
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 86, Issue 21, 2 November 1994, Pages 1584–1592, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/86.21.1584
Certain events of reproductive life, especially completed pregnancies, have been found to influence a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Prior studies of the relationship between breast cancer and a history of incomplete pregnancies have provided inconsistent results. Most of these studies included women beyond the early part of their reproductive years at the time induced abortion became legal in the United States. Purpose: We conducted a case-control study of breast cancer in young women born recently enough so that some or most of their reproductive years were after the legalization of induced abortion to determine if certain aspects of a woman’s experience with abortion might be associated with risk of breast cancer.
Methods
Female residents of three counties in western Washington State, who were diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 845) from January 1983 through April 1990, and who were born after 1944, were interviewed in detail about their reproductive histories, including the occurrence of induced abortion. Case patients were obtained through our population-based tumor registry (part of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute). Similar information was obtained from 961 control women idenified through random digit dialing within these same counties. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios and confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women (95% CI = 1.2-1.9). While this increased risk did not vary by the number of induced abortions or by the history of a completed pregnancy, it did vary according to the age at which the abortion occurred and the duration of that pregnancy. Highest risks were observed when the abortion was done at ages younger than 18 years—particularly if it took place after 8 weeks’ gestation—or at 30 years of age or older. No increased risk of breast cancer was associated with a spontaneous abortion (RR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.7-1.2).
Conclusion
Our data support the hypothesis that an induced abortion can adversely influence a woman’s subsequent risk of breast cancer. However, the results across all epidemiologic studies of this premise are inconsistent—both overall and within specific subgroups. The risk of breast cancer should be re-examined in future studies of women who have had legal abortion available to them throughout the majority of their reproductive years, with particular attention to the potential influence of induced abortion early in life. [J NatI Cancer Inst 86:1584-1592, 1994]
OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
Rebutting The Alleged Link Between Abortion And Breast Cancer
The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of people and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women aside from skin cancer; and breast cancer is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.
For Full Article See The Link Below On Post By Current P.H.
SO CALLED ‘PRO-LIFE’ FORCES..
LINK ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER
BUT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES HAVE REBUTTED THAT CLAIM
For years the anti-abortion movement has made this claim on a routine basis. But no peer-reviewed scientific research confirms it. The claim is one of many lies pushed by anti-abortion forces.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html
Sometimes I feel like maybe it’s good abortion is legal, because, I’m all for people like Gillibrand having more abortions. Sooner or later, the Gillibrands of the world will self contracept and abort and voluntarily self exterminate their defective genes off the face of the Earth, and probably better sooner than later. Not very Christian of me, I know.
The defect is not a physical one, She appears to be intelligent and healthy and sound, physically a good specimen. No, I feel like she exemplifies some kind of personality thing, that’s emerged in our people, maybe a thing that was good in caveman times but now in contemporary times has become dysgenic.
They will self abort out of existence. I say let them.
If we treated the natural right to self-defense in the same manner as the pro-choice crowd wants to treat a woman’s natural right to reproduction, everyone would be free to exercise it as irresponsibly as they want. An entire industry would be legalized to support those irresponsible choices. They wouldn’t be hired assassins, they would be Planned Defenders.
This was not the career arc that Gillibrand, a practicing Catholic, had in mind when she confided to her younger sister, Erin, before entering the 2006 congressional race, “I want to do more. If I died and went to heaven right now, God would say to me, `You should have done more.’ ”
Ah so this explains everything. Gillibrand, being a faithful Catholic, is doing all of this to look at God face to face when she gets to Heaven. But killing babies is A-OK to the Almighty.
Hubris anyone? Then again Hillary was her mentor so that gives us insight into her “defense of Heaven meeting with God”, even if she threw Bill Clinton’s rape victims under the bus.
The wedding was held in a Catholic church on Park Avenue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. One emblematic detail: The bride had 14 attendants (no typo), although they were not all required to wear the same dress. “There were girls from her childhood, girls from Dartmouth, girls from law school,” Whalen says. “Tina couldn’t leave anyone out.” It was not that Gillibrand fancied herself the second coming of Marie Antoinette…
Of course no one would have ever thought that Gillibrand was a Marie Antoinette. Lorena Bobbitt perhaps but definitely not Marie A.
http://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/11/24/2379939886985661710/1024x576_MP4_2379939886985661710.mp4
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a10233/kirsten-gillibrand/
After Gillibrand was appointed to Hillary Clinton’s seat, The New York Times, in a front-page feature, revealed the kind of legal work that she was doing as a hard-driving associate at Davis Polk: advising Philip Morris in its battles with the federal government over cigarette smoking. Nothing in the Times article suggested any violation of legal ethics by Gillibrand, but working for tobacco companies is not generally considered a shrewd way for liberal Democratic politicians to burnish their image.
So she defended Big Tobacco but now wants to kill babies and tell God what a great Catholic she was.
This will be a very interesting presidential race.
William Shakespeare wishes he had such material for his drama plays
When confronted with a tough question—even one that she is expecting—Gillibrand’s style is to angrily stare at her inquisitor and repeat talking points in the hopes that the messy business will simply vanish.
in other words, Gillibrand would have made a great troll.
So there you have it Peter Shill et al, you too can be a hypocritical, gutless, lacking any integrity US Senator just like Gillibrand. Apparently you much in common with Gillibrand except she in the US Senate while you are trolling for David Brock.
Gillibrand is a graduate of the Emma Willard School in Troy, NY. She went from there to Dartmouth. It’s highly unlikely the Rudnik family were serious Catholics. Rather it was what GK Chesterton once called, ‘the religion of the household gods, that no one quite believed.’
As for her legal career, Mespo may offer something. My impression reading about it was that it derived from political connections.
Actually, what’s amazing about her is how little verbal agility she has and what a dingbat she makes of herself now and again. You’d think a working lawyer wouldn’t have these problems.
Doesn’t hurt her with New York’s electorate.
what’s amazing about her is how little verbal agility she has and what a dingbat she makes of herself now and again
It doesn’t appear that to be a “successful” politician one need to be a great orator. Well, there is Obama but I digress
Where are our modern Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s?
brave student protester survivor of Tianenmen carries on with his duty after 30 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg6qRYKWM3k
Hong Kongers defy Chicom extradition bill, win delay
Gillibrand reminds me of a commie, setting out here ideological tests and so forth.
She would make the courts places of political correctness, rather than places of justice?
Kurtz, your completely wrong attacks on the NYTs over the Hong Kong protests are calling you “please. defend us, please defend us … or apologize to the NYTs”
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/06/10/the-enemy-of-the-people-trump-resumes-his-attacks-on-american-media-as-china-bans-the-washington-post/comment-page-2/#comment-1857288
https://youtu.be/W6-HHtq0mXU
good citizen journalists taking statements from Chinese residents of New York, demonstrating
Kurtz. since the specific example you used has been proved not only false, but what you thought it meant about the NYTs has been as well. That judgement then was wrong twice over and should generate a correction, not a tirade of misplaced hostility.
I thought you were bigger than that.
no the NYT is bigger than me by a thousand thousand times, they don’t need me to apologize or correct anything so why would you. how about you worry about the subject instead of my demeaning the most arrogant newspaper on earth
OK, Kurtz. Whatever. I’ll know how seriously to take your word and opinions in the future.
One thing they all have in common. Socialist, international socialist, nationasl socialist, progressive sociaslist, progressive socialist, RINO Ssocialist, DINO Socialist. See how liberal with life they are?
As far as during or after birth why just count up sine 1909 the amount of deaths caused by their love affair with drugs, wars and other military actions, retention of the draft, disregard of the retirement funds values of senior citizens and retirees. blocking the attempts to block entry to the country of vioilent felons even up to caging children at the border. Yes That was the same group
They are truly liberal.with the lives of others.and have shown progress in the methodology since the dahys of their various founders.
Methinks we professional military folks stopped a day late and one country short of fighting the last battle where it should have been fought.But now we’ve been outed by the liberal socialists as the greatest danger their kind faces why shore nuff snuffy glad to correct the mistakes of the past. 2016 was just a start.
Constitutional Centrists Coalitions. The sef governing ,un affiliated independent citizens envisioned by our countries founders
:Let the counter revolution continue…..
If an undocumented immigrant crosses the border and gives birth in the United States, the child is a citizen of the United States. If a child scheduled to be aborted in a late term procedure somehow survives the procedure, isn’t that child a citizen of the United States? And as a citizen, isn’t that child entitled to the same rights and due process protections as any adult?
RSA, show us credible statistics from a recognizable source documenting the number of babies who survive abortions. This myth of ‘surviving babies’ is becoming an urban legend.
Well, Jon, I have now come around to the camp of those who believe you are bucking for a Faux News job. The subject of today’s post was broadcast last night on Faux News, so now I know where you got your inspiration. Of course, in reporting this , you overlooked Trump’s personal and vicious name-calling of Joe Biden and the story about him instructing his staff to claim they had “internal polling” showing him winning against the top Democratic challengers, instead of the reverse, which is the truth.
Meanwhile, did you miss the story about Elaine Chao, Transportation Secretary and wife of your bitch Mitch McConnell funneling $78 million to a Kentucky project that had previously been turned down repeatedly as a bad idea and waste of money? He is, of course, up for re-election, and one of his campaign themes is that he’s bringing federal money (a/k/a “pork”) to Kentucky. Then, there’s the story about the multi-billion dollar contracts for mass transportation granted to her Japanese family’s business. These are existential conflicts of interest affecting the integrity of the U.S. Department of Transportation and give-aways of tax money to a foreign corporation with ties to a U.S. cabinet secretary and the Senate majority leader, and in any age of reason, she and McConnell would be impeached and removed from office. Gillibrand is not any threat. She’s not even one of the top contenders, and, as you have noted, Trump’s test for judicial appointees hinges on how they would rule because that’s what gets the gullibles to the polls. Trump has no chance of winning without the gullibles, so he and Republicans pander to their religious beliefs which somehow don’t include condemning him for his racisim, xenophobia, misogyny, porn star dalliances, constant lying and bragging about abuse of women.
As to the merits of the abortion matter, the Supreme Court has spoken, and its decision should be stare decisis, to the extent we still have stare decisis, and that’s really all Gillibrand was saying. Abortion has been settled and shouldn’t even be an issue any more, but due to the Trump SCOTUS appointees, and need to stir up the gullible Evangelicals and get them to the polls to save babies (i.e., Trump’s fat ass and Republican roll backs of consumer and environmental protections and tax breaks for the wealthy), it is front and center once again.
she was not talking about stare decisis. you must not have watched it. your comment quality was already low but you just succeeded in notching it down a little more
Natch said:
” Elaine Chao, Transportation Secretary and wife of your bitch Mitch McConnell ……….. there’s the story about the multi-billion dollar contracts for mass transportation granted to her Japanese family’s business.”
WHAT? ELAINE CHAO IS JAPANESE? WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA? NOT!
FROM WIKI
“Elaine Lan Chao (Chinese: 趙小蘭; pinyin: Zhào Xiǎolán; born March 26, 1953)[2] is the United States Secretary of Transportation who assumed her office on January 31, 2017. A member of the Republican Party, Chao was previously Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009.
Born in Taipei to Chinese parents who had left mainland China following the Chinese Civil War, Chao immigrated to the United States at age 8.”
SEE HOW MUCH RESPECT PARTISAN HACKS LIKE NATCH HAVE FOR IMMIGRANTS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR WHEN THEY’RE FROM THE WRONG POLITICAL PARTY!
Clue to Natch: calling a Chinese person a Japanese is a big insult.
But maybe you knew that huh? Wanted to insult her? Or maybe you’re just ignorant, I can only wonder.
This one was hilarious. Thanks Natch., You threw a little “Faux news” of your own out there.
Chao, Japanese. Wow. Not.
The question should not be “are you pro-choice or pro-life,” but whether or not you think the Constitution says anything on this point.
The question is: “have you read Roe v. Wade”?
Yes. It’s an abomination. The reasoning used is so ridiculously expansive that it will inevitably be reversed. That’s just the way it is. The way to expand the Constitution is via the amendment process, not judicial fiat. That’s the problems with liberals, they just want things their way without going through the prescribed democratic process. It’s part of what has turned me against the left that I voted for my whole life- they hate the Constitution.
Gillibrand is a horrible, pathetic, weak minded opportunist and after her Al Franken shafting, no more worth considering than Magpie droppings.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kirsten-gillibrand-calls-on-al-franken-to-resign
she was exercising her power. schoolyard bully gets stronger every extra kid she beats up
Well, here’s a bit of humor into the emotional Thunderdome of Abortion Debate:
https://youtu.be/CNgwsT295G8
https://youtu.be/kzgJDZgQFSA
You can’t voice an opinion on what happens to tiny humans in the womb, unless you have a uterus, or you are a tiny human in the uterus, with no means to communicate. Which means you also cannot comment on whether slavery is wrong unless you are either a slave or a slave owner.
that’s a great video. sad thing is that it’s essentially true
the fetus has no rights but men have lost the rights too.
it takes sperm to make a baby yes? and yet the father has zero say
men totally disenfranchised as a social class by this
https://youtu.be/QTPxKzny6vQ
This is discriminatory. It’s not only the religious who either oppose abortion entirely or want restrictions. Most of the country want restrictions at least at some point. It’s this kind of extremism that precludes getting any positive bipartisan results. The extremists on one side call the other murderers who deserve the death penalty, and the other side’s extremists say that if you don’t support killing a baby the second before he draws breath, then you’re as bad as a racist. This is madness. It is impossible to talk to anyone when they call you names.
Pro-life people believe that abortion is killing an infant. They believe that killing human beings are wrong. The difference between a baby in the birth canal, legal to kill in NY, and a baby in someone’s arms is a lungful of air. Biologically, it’s the same homo sapiens. If you wouldn’t want it legal to kill a baby in sight, then they wouldn’t want it legal to kill a baby out of sight. With the 9th month abortion laws in NY, that’s the only real difference – in one, the mother can see the baby, and in the other, she cannot. The baby, and what’s happening to it, is out of sight, so there is a disconnection with reality.
What I find telling is that when pregnant women either get an ultrasound, or learn about what is entailed with an abortion, most choose not to have one. That means that patients are not being informed on the procedure. They are being kept in the dark in order to maximize the number of people who buy a service. Normally, the Left would be opposed to such business practices.
Regardless of whether a woman goes forward with an abortion or not, she should receive sufficient information on what happens, as well as basic gestational information. There are arguments to be said on all sides of the debate, but the need for more information available to women is clear.
If you don’t support this, then you’re as bad as any racist and shouldn’t be allowed to become a judge? Why does she believe that the government should have the right to dictate what is an acceptable belief on abortion, and what can preclude employment? It’s fascist!
https://youtu.be/53tzMV9OmvY
Gillibrand is another example of the general Democrat trend towards increasing the power of government and moving towards a dictatorial state. Here, we have a candidate who proclaims she will use the power of authority, if elected, to prevent people with views that differ from her, to ever be a judge. That would mean that she would singlehandedly change the judicial system, and wipe out opposing views and diversity of opinion on the bench.
Tyrant. All she’s missing is her aviator glasses and a cigar.
She needs to personally acquaint herself with the meaning of a free country.
In addition, judges are supposed to check their internal beliefs at the door and judge each case on its merits, applying the law impartially. Remember when there was an uproar over Trump complaining that a Mexican-American judge who was a member of La Raza might not be fair with his case?
Karen you hack – your party stole a SC seat to illegitmately cement the courts position as enforcer of minority political goals. Where do you get off talking about letting opposing views on the court and the meaning of a free country.
PS The judge was American and he belonged to a totally benign group that sought to increase opportunities for Latino lawyers.
“Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a nonprofit professional association of Latino lawyers that is affiliated with a statewide organization, the La Raza Lawyers of California.[47][48] Neither these groups nor Curiel are affiliated with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), an unrelated advocacy group.[47]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_P._Curiel
“Karen you hack”
Anon, that’s just plain rude.
I know all about the La Raza and National Council of La Raza. I’ve often said that personal opinion should be left at the door to a court. You should be able to ask what I think about SC and the San Diego judge without insulting me as an opener. Why aren’t you?
Oh gee Karen, I’m so sorry to have rudely pointed out your ignorant rant about another imagined Democratic conspiracy while you ignored the actual GOP conspiracy and rip off that occurred right before our eyes. I’ll try to be more polite.
By the way, I don’t care what your opinion of La Raza is since the judge is not a member.
Again one must note how every comment of Karen’s is all over the map in terms of issues. As I observed a few weeks back, Karen uses a ‘scatter shot’ approach to her arguments; throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
Peter:
Your accusation of scatter shot was in another post where I listed numerous examples of media inaccuracy on a variety of topics. The “variety of topics’ that they were wrong about, rather than admitting is a trend, you called “scatter shot”.
Get that? If I can prove a trend of wrongdoing on a range of topics, the problem is that I didn’t just stick to one topic. I should only declare the media was wrong about one thing, whereas discussion how they were wrong over and over again is disjointed.
Your reasoning is deeply flawed.
Karen, I responded to your wrong post about Charlottesville but you did not revisit it. In short you claimed there were “very fine people there” that Trump was correct to defend.
No, there wasn’t. It was an event well publicized among neo-Nazis and racists, not civic minded conservatives and there were no innocent grandmothers and kids there. Review this accounting which includes the posters advertising the event, the police expectations of attendees, and video of the marchers chanting “Jews will not replace us”. There are no “very fine people” in attendance!
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18517980/trump-unite-the-right-racism-defense-charlottesville
Anon – I outlined, with bullet points, the 4 groups that were there. Vox is partisan and wrong. It just ignored what he said entirely and said what they thought he meant. I included a link to Trump’s entire comments, in which he unequivocably stated that racists should be condemned totally. And yet, the Left has taken that statement “should be condemned totally” and said that Trump called racists “fine people.”
That’s not what happened. It’s been proven. You know this.
Do you have a list of every single person in attendance at the Charlottesville protest against removing the statues? Were you aware of the local groups who were not racist, but felt very strongly that statues should not be removed from their public spaces?
Where is your attendance list of everyone there, since you claim that there was literally no one protesting the statue’s removal who was a good person? People in the South are attached to Confederacy statues. Many of them are good people. I know people who participate in War reenactments who are good people. Why is this confusing? Why are you not aware of the local, public outcry ahead of the removal of each and every one of these statues?
It has been acknowledged that racist people were there, along with violent Leftist activists like Antifa. The two bad groups, remember. But they were not the only people there. Get it? There were also locals who just didn’t want to lose the statue, peacefully protesting, as well as people in support of the removal of the statue, peacefully protesting.
Not everyone who came out in support of the removal of the statue was waving a baseball bat like a crazy person, part of Antifa. And not everyone who wanted the statue to stay belonged to Unite the Right.
Do your realize how illogical these assertions are? Just stop and think about it for a moment, on your own, without referring to the very media sources who have edited Trump’s remarks to change his meaning.
You have got to learn how to reason your way through this, or you’re just parroting or paraphrasing what you’ve been told, without any thought going on between reading and reciting.
Anon:
Let’s try the bullet points again.
Evidence that there were those who wanted the statue to remain who were not racists or Unite the Right:
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/charlottesville-confederate-statues.html
“a group of citizens who filed the lawsuit six months before the 2017 rally, argue that they are Civil War memorials.”
“While some people obviously see Lee and Jackson as symbols of white supremacy, others see them as brilliant military tacticians or complex leaders in a difficult time,” the judge wrote. He added, “In either event, the statues to them under the undisputed facts of this case still are monuments and memorials to them, as veterans of the Civil War.”
2. “Months before the white nationalist rally, the City Council voted to remove the Lee statue, as well as to redesign and rename the park with the Jackson monument. That decision led several groups, including the Virginia Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans, to sue the city last March to block those efforts.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/charlotesville-confederate-monuments.html
Your foundational mistake is the assumption that only Unite the Right opposed the removal of the statue. That’s not true, which unravels your conclusions.
Here is evidence that, one, Antifa does not respect the right of others to use the First Amendment to say bad things, or a permit, and, two, they are violent.
This is really, really, hard for the Democratic Party to understand, but Free Speech protects all speech. The government doesn’t get to choose which speech is legal or not. You aren’t allowed to physically hurt or terrorize someone because they said something offensive, or else all the wife beaters would be let out of prison. Defending the right to say something awful is not defending the content.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at-unite-the-right-black-clad-antifa-again-give-peaceful-protesters-a-bad-name/2018/08/13/86ac4e2c-9f05-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.4d9294a99c9f
“But on Sunday, after the sad little band of Unite the Right demonstrators retreated, the nouveau antifa was still looking for a fight.
They knocked a cellphone out of a Washington Post reporter’s hands.
They told me to go, um, “love” myself.
[Washington’s new normal — a spectacle a day]
Masked — in black instead of KKK white — they pinballed around the empty streets of downtown D.C., randomly chanting and searching for a brawl .
“Bust some windows!” (Why?)
“Nazis, go home!” (They did.)
“No border! No wall! No USA at all!” (Huh?)
Eventually, they faced off and clashed with police at G and 13th streets, in front of Au Bon Pain.”
Karen, the question isn’t whether there are opponents of removing Confederate statues who aren’t Nazis – of course there are – the question is who was at the Nazi rally that weekend in Charlotteseville which is what the controversy and Trumps subsequent comments were about.
There were not “very fine people” at the Nazi rally that weekend.
“Karen you hack”
Anon, that’s just plain rude.
===
Ah, but is it true. If you can’t take the heat…
OED definition:
“A writer or journalist producing dull, unoriginal work.”
I guess we have our answer.
10 out of 35 comments are by “Karen S”
Is she being paid to post? By some right-wing group?
One has to wonder.
Anonymous:
Karen S. says a lot of interesting things – and they are almost always right.
I have been less impressed by the quality of your output – both in content and intellectual debate.
As far as I can tell you do not actually care about the merits of your position. If you did, you would instead try to civilly convince Karen and others that your perspective is correct. You are not treating your own argument with sufficient respect. You are not going to move Karen or anyone else not already in “your camp” to your perspective with venom. Besides that, it’s tedious to read yet another ad hominem.
grow up
You are whining about using the power of authority to get your way and “the meaning of a free country”? Where have you been for the past 2 years? Fatty lost the popular vote, and yet signs one Executive Order after another to impose the Republicans’ will on the American people to encourage pollution, roll back consumer financial protections and environmental protections, and threaten wilderness areas by allowing oil drilling. McConnell denied the American people a SCOTUS justice, and if he gets the chance, he’s going to make an appointment even though Trump is on his way out. Geesh!
Now Natatcha, play nice with Karen or she’ll ….. go away.
Karen, you are such a windbag. Did you ever read Roe v. Wade? If you had, you would know how stupid it is to claim that “most of the country want restrictions at least at some point.” Roe says that at the point when a fetus can live outside the womb, states can impose restrictions, which almost all do. And, no, when Faux News tells you that it is legal kill a baby in the birth canal in New York, they are lying to you, just like they are lying to you when they tell you that most women seeking an abortion change their mind when they receive an ultrasound, or that most women don’t know or understand human gestation. They are also lying to you when they tell you that abortion providers refuse to provide information for financial reasons.
You want to believe all of this manure they shovel to you because you are a true believer, gullible, and don’t understand that all of this abortion rhetoric, which is almost all untrue is nothing but a cover for their real agenda, which is rolling back consumer and environmental protections, helping polluters and tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.
Hey, what ever you need to tell yourself to make you feel good about killing babies.
“Karen, you are such a windbag. Did you ever read Roe v. Wade? If you had, you would know how stupid it is to claim that “most of the country want restrictions at least at some point.” Roe says that at the point when a fetus can live outside the womb, states can impose restrictions, which almost all do.”
Let me get this straight. I’m a windbag because I remark that most people in the US believe there should be restrictions on abortion, and your proof is that most states impose restrictions? That actually proves my point. But, in case you are still experiencing confusion…
Gallup Poll – Only 18% of people polled believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). That means that 82% believe there should be limits.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619200865/americans-support-for-abortion-rights-wanes-as-pregnancy-progresses
“Public opinion on abortion rights is often framed as a binary choice between two political positions, but a closer look at new polling data from Gallup reveals more nuance.
While a majority of Americans support legalized abortion in early pregnancy, most oppose it in the later stages, according to the survey.”
So, even NPR believes I am correct when I’ve repeatedly said that rather than a stark Pro Choice Pro Life dichotomy, there is actually a range along which most people believe that abortion should have limits.
I suggest that you learn what a partial birth third trimester abortion is. It takes place while the full term fetus is in the birth canal, but before he or she draws air. Where do you get your information? If you have questions on how a first trimester, second trimester, or third trimester abortion is performed, and what are the various chemical and surgical methods, then let me know. People should be informed before they vote on such issues.
“And, no, when Faux News tells you that it is legal kill a baby in the birth canal in New York, they are lying to you,”
If you believe that a third trimester abortion does not take place in the birth canal, then either someone lied to you, you are lying to yourself, or you didn’t learn about it before you talked about it. I have also linked a video of an OB/GYN who testified before Congress describing a somewhat earlier, second trimester abortion, in which the baby is pulled out piece by piece through the dilated cervix, rather than in the birth canal. The procedure depends on gestation.
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml
”I stood at the doctor’s side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.”
“Partial Birth Abortion, a late-term and highly controversial abortion procedure, is currently legal in almost the entire United States. The baby is killed when it is only a few inches from being given full U.S. citizenship and the legal right to life. The baby is alive when the Partial Birth Abortion procedure is performed.”
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called “partial-birth abortion”, referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, any physician “who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both”. The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. Source: Wikipedia. What you call “partial birth abortion” is, and has been, illegal for years.
Citations to anti-abortion sources is disingenuous, but we know you are a true believer. They tell you this stuff to get you to the polls.
“but we know you are a true believer.” not based on anything I’ve said.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/partial-birth-abortion-bans/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
State bans on Partial Birth Abortion. Please note that NY is not included. Please note that states are not following federal law (such as federal immigration law).
Are you, in fact, requesting more information on the other methods? For instance digoxin or potassium chloride to induce a heart attack in a healthy, full term infant, after inducing labor and dilating the cervix? The baby is then delivered. The woman still goes through labor, i.e. dilation of the cervix. The full term baby is killed. Difference between legal and illegal? A lungful of air.
So, let’s see. According to Gillibrand, if you want restrictions on abortion, such as below, then you’re the same as a racist. If you want there to be a standard of “medically necessary” you are as bad as a racist. Opposing women’s reproductive care. Her body, her choice. The below is why people move to create the very restrictions that the Democrat Party tries to claim is anti-woman. They don’t seem to care about the babies. Good legislation would try to find a humane balance between both mothers and babies. But it would need to be bi-partisan to strike a balance. Given the tenor of those who want to limits, like that below, then seems unlikely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=r5Af8vIym2o
The process where they make sure the baby they stabbed in the head with a needle is dead on day 2 was really chilling. However, if it bothers you, you’re as bad as a racist. That kind of reasoning disconnect, and false equivalence, would be the definition of a “true believer”.
What do you think “no limits” means? Where do you see the “no limits” Pro Choice movement going? If NY does not have a state ban on partial birth abortion, Democrat states disregard other federal laws (i.e. immigration), and there are to be no limits to abortion as long as there is a medical need, which is not defined, then where do you see this going?
“Citations to anti-abortion sources is disingenuous”. As I’ve remarked numerous times, I include sources from the Left and Right to incorporate a range. Above, I linked to NPR and Gallup. Obviously, when looking for a source that describes why limits should be made, there are not going to be far Left sources. That is one of the reasons why I include a range to try to bracket the issue. I also included a couple of videos from an OB/GYN who performed over 1,200 abortions in NY before becoming so troubled by it that he became ProLife. Did the weight of his experience as a provider evaporate when he came to believe it was wrong? No. And his testimony is therefor valid.
You should try it.
Try this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/opinion/born-alive-abortion.html
Anon – just to be clear, you object when I include right leaning sources in my range of links, but use left leaning sources yourself?
You posted an opinion piece that did not address the fact that the NY law removed the right of infants born alive after an abortion attempt to the same standard of medical care that a wanted child would receive – that would include the same standard that a wanted child with a fatal defect would have received.
From your article – “But this reality — my reality — has been twisted by Mr. Trump and pundits to sound as if doctors like me and parents like me are smothering full-term babies at birth or injecting them with dirty needles to kill them (filled with what I have no idea).”
Did people say anyone was injecting babies with dirty needles? (Well, outside of Dr Gosnell’s clinic). No. They didn’t. Thus it’s a straw man argument.
He neglected to address that there is a medical standard of care for children, wanted or not, born with fatal abnormalities, or that there are studies that show that most late term abortions are not in fact done because of such abnormalities, and that these children were no longer entitled to the same medical standard of treatment as a wanted child.
You may be interested to know that one of my friends in high school was one of those 1% premies who survived. She was 1 lb at birth. Her father said his wedding band fit around her wrist. She could have fit in a shoe box. She survived, thrived, and is a wonderful person today. No disabilities. It’s pretty sad that the Aiden in the story was 3 days before 23 weeks, and no one tried to save him. Poor thing. In any case, there was a standard of care in effect at the time of his birth that babies no longer have.
In any case, the NY Law undeniably removes a medical standard of care from the class of children comprised of those who are born alive after an abortion attempt, no matter if they have abnormalities or not.
Karen, I posted an “opinion” article that is a 1st person accounting of her experience with the tragedy of a having to accept the ending of pregnancy she and her husband planned and wanted. Oh yeah, she was also an OB-GYN doc. It is not a left wing screed.
As to your crocodile tears about “Aiden” but none for the mother, did you not read:
“…After we consulted with a high-risk obstetrician and a neonatologist, I heard the dismal news I had expected: The survival rate for male triplets at 22 weeks and three days was less than 1 percent……As Aidan’s parents we had decided that invasive procedures, like intravenous lines and a breathing tube in a one-pound body, would be pointless medical care. And so, as we planned, Aidan died.”
So, would you take that risk and probably birth a pitiable creature who would be tortured pointlessly for who knows how long? OK if you say yes, but then don’t tell other people what to do in that situation.
Karen, federal law is ….. federal. If a doctor violates that law, he is chargeable by federal prosecutors and there is no defense based on an absence of a state law.
Cite the federal immigration laws you claim are being violated by states. If you mean through sanctuary cities, that’s false:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/27/steve-daines/sanctuary-jurisdictions-violate-laws-our-nation-s-/
California’s, and various other states’, pot laws violate federal law. Which lead to a grandma being arrested for carrying CBD oil at Disneyland. This was patently unfair as CBD is derived from hemp, not marijuana, and does not produce intoxication.
So, you think laxity in enforcing federal pot laws is a reason a doc in NYC probably doesn’t need to fear being prosecuted for violating federal law on late term abortions? Oh, OK. Or wait, you seem to be complaining that the feds will bust people for pot in California. Actually they are not interested and rightfully think they have bigger fish to fry.
Anon – did you not hear how a woman was arrested at Disney(world, not land) for CBD oil? It was legal in many states, but against federal law.
The NY law removes all penal codes for abortion at any gestation.
You are (1) guessing that the federal ban on partial birth abortions will be upheld now that NY has lifted all gestational restrictions on abortion, using a “for the health of the mother” that has no definition and (2) appear to consider that if a doctor shoves a needle with digoxin into a baby’s skull or chest, to (hopefully) cause a heart attack, check back at day 2 to make sure the baby has died, and if not, shove another injection in his skull or chest, and then deliver a still born, that it’s also OK to do to a healthy, full term infant?
Sorry. When people are asked “is it OK to terminate a healthy, full term baby” most answer no. As I’ve said earlier, an emergency delivery is faster than a late term abortion, which carries greater risk to the mother. To save a mother’s life, you’re not going to wait for a few days to complete an abortion at the 9th month. No, that’s done to kill the baby, not save the mother, at that gestation.
“you seem to be complaining that the feds will bust people for pot in California. Actually they are not interested and rightfully think they have bigger fish to fry.” By your own words, you admit that a state law can be passed that is against federal law, and the assumption will be that the feds won’t to prosecute it. Thank you.
Here is another example in the article you posted that is completely wrong:
“Pregnancy terminations at or after 24 weeks of gestation, the time largely accepted as viability, are typically performed because of severe fetal anomalies or fetal anomalies combined with maternal health problems.”
Actually, no, studies show late term abortions are done for the same reasons as any other trimester abortions, which are not usually for fetal abnormalities. Statistically, more babies with fetal abnormalities are aborted than not, but that is not the main reason for all abortions.
I’ve posted this before, but here it is again:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/
“However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.”
If women make the connection between gestation and abortion, then why is the most common descriptor a “ball of cells” or “tissue”? Neither are accurate. The zygote – blastula “ball of cells” stage of human development is around day 5. Then it implants and rapidly develops into a gastrula, with skin and internal organs, by day 10.
“Tissue” is a euphemism usually attributed to a piece of something dead.
“Why does she believe that the government should have the right to dictate what is an acceptable belief on abortion, and what can preclude employment? It’s fascist!”
And ironic. How dare the government tell a woman what she can do with her (and a baby’s) body, but of course the government should be able to tell you what to do with your mind.
Guess she isn’t a Pink Floyd fan…
I feel like we are in an Iranian centrifuge sometimes.
I learned in the Hobby Lobby case that the FDA has approved 14 methods of contraceptive. (Hobby Lobby was fine with providing insurance coverage for 10 of the 14 methods. It objected to providing insurance coverage for the four contraception methods that occur after the egg has been fertilized.)
It’s not 1973 any more. Huge advances in contraceptive technologies have been developed since then. Many cost very little. With at least 14 alternative technologies available to prevent or terminate pregnancy, there is no real reason to continue the barbaric practice of abortion. Normal people sympathize with women who involuntarily become pregnant after rape or incest. I, personally, think the moral option is to birth the child and put it up for adoption. But I understand how repulsive it is for a raped woman to carry the child of her rapist. So if she wants to terminate the pregnancy she can use one of the four legal contraceptive methods employed after fertilization to terminate her pregnancy. To me, that means the only legit reason to continue to allow abortion is in the extremely rare case when an abortion will save the mother’s life.
Gillibrand and her ilk use the insane euphemism “reproductive freedom” to refer to the decapitation, dismemberment and chopping into tiny pieces the bodies of preborn children. Watch this grotesque video showing what is purported to be an abortionist sifting through recognizable human body parts (hands, arms, legs, feet, etc.) after an abortion was performed at 20 weeks of pregnancy.
We have cheap, easily accessible alternative contraceptive technologies. Use them. End the barbarism.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortionist-dismembered-baby-patient-life/?utm_content=83650024&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18001922
Horse with No Name – I love the song that inspired your Avatar. You make some good points.
While I personally feel that abortion is a tragedy, and that there should be limits, I don’t know yet what good legislation would be. Perhaps a real medical necessity definition, in addition to the early methods like the Morning After Pill, and not a loophole the size of a black hole that eats stars. We’ve seen how abortion has become so commonplace that it’s a method of convenience for people who may not understand what they’re doing. They are told it’s a “ball of cells”, which is malpractice. There is also an argument to be made that everyone controls their own body, but no one else’s. Perhaps a mother has the right to evict a pregnancy early, but not to take the added step of deliberately killing the pregnancy. I think this thorny issue has to be thrashed out. I consider fetuses to be people – gestational age homo sapiens. This is just like an endangered sea turtle in an egg is still an endangered sea turtle, so deliberately smashing one violates the Endangered Species Act. It does not suddenly become a protected sea turtle after it hatches. The law doesn’t kick into affect after hatch.
I developed preeclampsia in my third trimester, and my pregnancy was a threat to both our lives. The cure was an emergency C-section, which occurred less than an hour after my diagnosis. It was like having an expert pit crew jump into action. My infant was a patient with his own team that ensured he was okay.
There are cases where pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life before viability. The mother could have cancer and require chemotherapy, when the fetus is too early to deliver. There are cases of hyperemesis that are not controlled by medication. I knew of someone who was constantly hospitalized, and nothing helped. It’s not just nausea, but rather an illness that can kill you, and used to in years past. The patient feels like she’s dying, slowly and horribly. None of the nausea medications like Zofran ever worked for her. There are also mothers whose pregnancy triggers psychiatric symptoms. I’m sympathetic for those situations, and a humane solution needs to be found.
But the above cases are rare, and would apply prior to viability. It is also clear that eugenics is still thriving in the abortion industry, where Downs Syndrome people are deemed unworthy of life.
Several studies determined that most late term abortions were done for financial reasons, or due to a breakup. The whole argument that late term abortions are only done due to severe fetal abnormalities or to save the life of the mother has been thoroughly debunked. The process of a late term abortion takes far longer, and more risk to the mother, than an emergency C-section, or even emergency delivery. The abortion itself adds time-consuming steps in a life or death situation.
The following article discusses how abortion has become politicized, rather than a science-driven topic.
“However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.”
“If an induced abortion is healthcare, still a widely debated question, then the procedure must meet the requirements of being medically necessary. Exempting abortion from the test of medical necessity essentially relinquishes any claim that it is health care.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/
https://youtu.be/jSExm3i3Jns
Karen S, I like the song, too, but how could he ride through the entire desert without giving the poor horse a name???
And Karen S, it’s admirable how you try to have a sensible dialogue with Natasha and Anon, but totally pointless, I’m afraid. They cannot see anything through the fog of hate and vitriol that consumes them.
And Karen S, it’s admirable how you try to have a sensible dialogue with Natasha and Anon, but totally pointless, I’m afraid.
totally pointless and more like mental masturbation. When it became apparent to me a couple of months ago that these trolls were here to agitate and nothing more, other than rack up numbers in their comments contest to comply with their employer, I realized I was better off watching grass grow than engaging these paid mongrels. Since then they seldom get a reply from me, and only when I need a quick hit of feelz goods, which is cheap, tawdry and beneath my integrity. But i’m human
I wish people would stop engaging the trolls and instead addres JT’s articles, other sentient commenters and post intelligent articles from other sources that relate to JT’s articles.
Give peas a chance
“totally pointless and more like mental masturbation” Ack! Now I have to wash my brain after that image!
I had hoped to get Anon to admit his mistake. You’re right, of course, that it’s best not to feed the trolls.
Karen, I admit my mistakes. You just keep repeating them.
Apparently a “troll” is someone who doesn’t agree with the Trumpsters here, who shut out news they can’t handle and opinion they can’t counter.
Karen S.,…..
You probably already know this, but at any time you can become “anon2”, “Defcon3”, or any other alias you chose to debate issues in “good faith”.
Multiple aliases are one of the clear indicators that you’re commenting here “in good faith”.
Incidently, what ever happened to JanF?
She got off to such a wonderful start here a few months ago, then just seemed to drop out of sight.😉😄
Prairie Rose says: February 24, 2019 at 11:14 PM
Jan,
“No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump.”
Not a fair comment at all. And not one designed for a meeting of minds over differences. You just demonized people. That is not a decent thing to do.
Karen S.,
Here’s another example of how to debate “in good faith”.
FFS:
I think that became the horse’s name “No Name.” I’ve met dogs named Dog, and horses I was absolutely sure their rider named “Whoa D*(&(& It!”
We have cheap, easily accessible alternative contraceptive technologies.
I will go a step further and tell my colleagues in my industry that patients had their choice when they spread their legs. Everyone knows the possible outcomes, so acting surprised (like one patient I saw today in her 40s) that one is pregnant after doing the act is totally disingenuous and I won’t enable it.
if the intelligent reader wants to really dialogue about abortion, all you have to do is pick up any basic textbook in Embryology. You don’t need to be a PhD or MD to understand the basic points. Here are some I have used in my studies. Just pick one
Cochard, L. R., Machado, C. G., Craig, J. A., & Netter, F. H. (2012). Netter’s Atlas of Human Embryology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Moore, K.L., Persaud, T.V.N. & Torchia, M.G. (2015). The developing human: clinically oriented embryology (10th ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Schoenwolf, G.C., Bleyl, S.B., Brauer, P.R., Francis-West, P.H. & Philippa H. (2015). Larsen’s human embryology (5th ed.). New York; Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Langman’s Medical Embryology 11th ed., Sadler, T W, (Thomas W.); Langman, Jan. Philadelphia : Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, c2010.
I disagree with her link of anti-abortion to racism or semitism, but I frankly have no problem with a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. Let’s be up front about it. Both sides have been doing it for years, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.
It is interesting to watch how several of the 20 something Democratic candidates are trying to distinguish themselves from the pack.
Kamala Harris wants to prosecute Trump when he leaves office and now Gillibrand claims holding pro-life beliefs is equivalent to racism and anti-semitism. I predict one of the current candidates will propose European/Canadian style “hate speech” laws in an attempt to get noticed. Or perhaps suggesting holding dissident right beliefs is akin to terrorism.
Don’t be surprised, the signs are there. The election of Trump has moved the “Overton” window in both directions. We are absolutely coming apart as a nation and no one will be able to stop it. Wait until our ethnic composition as a nation is similar to that of Brazil or California.
Mike
In general, I’d say Gov. Patterson was the most appealing chap to have sat in that chair in the last 35 years or so, but he made some mistakes, and one was promoting this odious cretinette to the U.S. Senate after Hellary resigned her seat. (Gov. Patterson also told Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg that she hadn’t paid her dues and wasn’t getting the seat). Downstate pols saw her for what she was and nicknamed her ‘Tracy Flick’. Of course, she did a pirouette on a menu of issues when the positions she’d adopted to please her largely rural Hudson Valley district wouldn’t sit so well with a Downstate electorate. In the last few years, she’s established herself as an exemplary promoter of a fairly gross version of feminism; the ordinary sort begins with the notion that women have options, and men have obligations; Gillibrand’s version elaborates on that with the insistence is that a man’s liberty and property are forfeit if some borderline creature accuses him of something, facts and logic be damned.
She’s really demonstrating something that many of us have suspected for a decade: that she’s unfit to hold any office or public trust or to have any sort of position where she exercises any sort of discretion.
I find the disconnect of these pro abortion/anti gun people amazing.
They advocate for the mother’s right to kill her child and they punish law abiding gun owners for the actions of a few psychos.
Be clear, a child in the womb is at far greater risk of being killed by its mother than of ever being killed by a gun throughout its life.
Know these people like Gillebrand for what they are – baby killers.
Being she is my Senator I can say this, Her misandry is showing and it is not attractive. The cure for that may kill her,
You have to have some sympathy for her husband and children. She’s ghastly.
sympathetic for all the young dudes
these disgusting feminists are reinforcing the core message:
WOMEN OWN THE FETUS
and as much slack as the courts cut them, they might as well own kids post womb too