Biden Administration Drops Lawsuit Protecting Pro-Life Nurses

The Biden Administration took a little discussed but significant action this month in dropping a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center for allegedly forcing pro-life nurses to participate in abortions. It is not clear if the Biden Administration believes that pro-life nurses can be forced to participate in procedures that they consider to be immoral. However, it is clear that they are not willing to protect those religious views in this important action despite the faith-based claims under federal law. Indeed, the nurse believed the procedure constitute murder of the unborn and the Trump Administration agreed that she should be able to decline.

According to the prior findings letter,  the medical center refused the request of the nurse to excuse herself from the abortion procedure. Other nurses were all allegedly forced to help despite such objections. There was no evidence that the Center could not accommodate the religious objectors by using other nurses.

During the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  asked the DOJ to investigate the matter as a civil rights violation. However, Biden Secretary Xavier Becerra asked for the investigation and lawsuit to be terminated.

The HHS told Fox News:

After a detailed evaluation of the underlying legal theory used to issue a referral to the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services withdrew the original referral and requested DOJ dismiss the suit against the University of Vermont Medical Center, a request which was granted.

In line with this, HHS removed the Notice of Violation issued against UVMCC last Friday. HHS continues to evaluate the underlying facts of the matter and notified all the parties about its actions last Friday.

That says virtually nothing. It is particularly glaring in light of the prior findings. The prior Administration found:

UVMMC forced the nurse complainant to assist in an abortion against the nurse’s religious or moral objection. The nurse had expressed an objection for many years and was included in a list of objectors, but UVMMC knowingly assigned the nurse to an abortion procedure. The nurse was not told the procedure was an abortion until the nurse walked into the room, when the doctor—knowing the nurse objected to assisting in abortions—told the nurse, “Don’t hate me.” The nurse again objected, and other staff were present who could have taken the nurse’s place, but the nurse was required to assist with the abortion anyway. If the nurse had not done so, the nurse reasonably feared UVMMC would fire or report the nurse to licensing authorities.

The prior referral was based on the view that this violated the the Church Amendments by forcing employees to participate in abortions against their moral or religious objections. 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c)(1) of the Church Amendments which state:

“(c)Discrimination prohibition

(1)No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] after June 18, 1973, may—

(A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or

(B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel, because he performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.”

The Center received $1.6 million in federal aide in the prior three years.

HHS did not explain the basis for the withdrawal and just said it was “continuing to evaluate” the situation. The Biden Administration needs to be more clear on the government’s positions on religious objections. These nurses deserve better than a perfunctory, conclusory statement when they feel they are being forced to choose between the jobs and their faith.

What is interesting is that the Biden Administration is planning on the controversial step withholding federal funds from hospitals and other institutions that do not impose a mandatory vaccine requirement. However, it is dropping an enforcement action to withhold funds to protect religious objections to participating in abortions.


122 thoughts on “Biden Administration Drops Lawsuit Protecting Pro-Life Nurses”

  1. There is at least one person on the blog who sounds like he doesn’t even bother reading what Turley wrote. I will quote what that person missed.

    “The nurse had expressed an objection for many years and was included in a list of objectors, but UVMMC knowingly assigned the nurse to an abortion procedure. The nurse was not told the procedure was an abortion until the nurse walked into the room”

    Add to that other nurses could have assisted.

    Such accommodations are not unusual. It sounds as if some leftist wanted to get off on using unnecessary force and means.

  2. “So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without,

    ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions,

    and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide,

    all at the public expense.

    Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself,

    creating his own boredom out of his own affluence,

    his own vulnerability out of his own strength,

    his own impotence out of his own erotomania,

    himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down,

    and having convinced himself that he was too numerous,

    labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer.

    Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility,

    and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction,

    he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”

    ― Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society

  3. what would it be called if the us military invaded a foreign country
    and did the same things to the women and babies there
    that planned parenthood does to women and babies here
    and what would happen next
    and after that

  4. Q what do abortion and ham sandwiches have in common

    A neither of them are in the 14th amendment

  5. How Far Should Employee Exemptions Go?

    Professor Turley fails to note that abortion ‘is’ a legal medical procedure and that nurses are employed in the healthcare field. This raises a serious question: “Must employers in every field accommodate employees with moral or religious objections to work that may arise during the course of typical workdays?”

    Let’s say, for instance, that a restaurant cook becomes a vegetarian and decides he has moral objections to preparing meals with meat. Is the restaurant obliged to keep the cook employed while having to work around him?

    A graphic artist at an advertising agency decides she cannot work on layouts that exploit women’s bodies and, or, portray women as sexual beings.

    A Muslim firefighter declares he has religious objections to extinguishing a fire at a liquor store.

    A pharmacist converts to Scientology and decides she has religious objections to filling prescriptions for psychiatric drugs.

    A pilot decides he has moral objections to piloting flights to Las Vegas.

    A teacher decides they have moral objections to teaching proper English because minority students are at a ‘natural disadvantage’.

    A soldier undergoes a ‘religious awakening’ on the battlefield and decides he can no longer contribute to the fight in any way, shape or form.

    A paramedic declares she had moral objections to rescuing victims of drug overdoses.

    In all these examples the objector might be every bit as sincere as the nurse in Turley’s column. Does that mean, however, their employers must cheerfully accommodate? Nowhere in his column does Turley explain why objections to abortion are deserving of official recognition.

    1. Anonymous, I think employers can make reasonable accommodations to those who have conscious objections. But I believe those accommodations should be very limited. It’s fine to object and have someone else do the objectionable task if that person is readily available, but if it’s a case where there is no immediate alternative the objectionable task should be done as a matter of necessity that the profession requires. Like at a pharmacy where there’s one pharmacist. If that person can’t do the job because of a conscientious conflict that person can be terminated.

      Many of these people willingly go into a job knowing their religious beliefs or whatever belief will be a problem expect to be accommodated. There’s something inherently wrong with that. I see it as some sort of privileged accommodation at the expense of others.

      1. Svelaz – forcing nurses to participate in abortions has not been a historical part of nursing. There is no way that someone going through nursing school would be able to anticipate this.

        If hospitals are going to require that nurses, or doctors for that matter, perform or assist in abortions, regardless of their beliefs, then they need to make that clear in their hiring information. Any hospital that requires such participation should publicly acknowledge this. When people are deciding what careers to pursue, they need this kind of information.

        It aways comes down to force.

        1. KAREN WRITES:

          “There is no way that someone going through nursing school would be able to anticipate this”.

          Karen, what country are we talking about? Poland..??

          Abortion has been legal in the U.S. for almost half a century. To claim that a nursing student has no reasonable expectation of being asked to participate in an abortion, presumes that conservatives should expect accommodation in every state.

          1. Anonymous:

            Don’t be coy. Abortion has been legal for a while. Forcing a nurse to participate in one against her will has not.

            “What’s it to you?”, says the crowd who seeks to abolish all limits to abortion. It’s between a woman and her doctor. But now it might mean that medical staff can be forced to participate against their will.

            This is another reason why this issue involves everyone.

            “What’s it to you?”, asked the crowd in favor of gay marriage. I know, because I was one of them, and that’s the argument I made. How does 2 men getting married affect anyone else? Well, now a little old Christian cake baker will be furiously pursued with one lawsuit after another unless he consents to bake a Satanic cake, a cake for a gay wedding, and a cake that promotes the idea that a biological male can transform into a real woman, and that gender no longer has any definition.

            Comply, or be destroyed. Ruined. Fired. Driven out of business. Impoverished.

            Force is all they know. Dissent is punished.

            1. In addition to being an ill-informed disciple, you are a drama queen. “Force is all they know”? Who is “they”? Trump, who fomented an insurrection because he lost an election and the Republicans who let him get away with it, and who are passing laws to take over control of local elections and void validly-cast votes, so he could cheat his way back into office again?

              No one “destroyed, ruined, fired” or drove any nurse out of business because she assisted in an abortion procedure.

        2. Karen: how the hell would you know what is taught in nursing schools, anyway? You never attended one, much less do you know the history of what is taught in nursing schools.

          1. “Karen: how the hell . . .”

            There’s “TDS.” Now there’s “KDS.”

            It’s a bit tiresome.

              1. One abortion technique is “dilatation and evacuation”, similar to a “dilatation and curretage”” (“D & C”), a gynecological procedure that involves dilation of the cervix and scraping of the interior of the uterus. “D & C” is a procedure that has been around for decades, and which is employed to treat a variety of conditions, like dysfunctional menstrual bleeding, among other non-abortion gynecological conditions. Nurses have been taught about assisting in D & C procedures for decades. Another technique is induction of labor, involving use of prostaglandin vaginal suppositories. Vaginal suppositories are employed by nurses for a variety of conditions. Then, there’s intrauterine injection of various substances, which is performed by a physician. Another method, sometimes in conjunction with other methods is IV infusion of pitocin, which has also been done for decades for women whose labor is not progressing satisfactorily. Another technique is cervical dilation with vacuum extraction. Cervical dilation with placement of metal instruments or with insertion of laminaria (dried seaweed) is also something nurses are taught about. Cervical dilation is used to perform hysteroscopy (scope inserted into the uterus for inspection) and endometrial biopsy (tissue sampling) procedures among other things. The physician actually performs the vacuum extraction. So, Karen is wrong by claiming that nurses aren’t taught about abortion procedures, which utilize the same techniques as other gynecological procedures.. It is tiresome to hear her blather on about things she doesn’t know anything about. Karen is spreading misinformation, and this is just another example of why we have so many problems getting along in this country.

                1. Natacha, do stop making things up. If you can. I made no representations about what obstetrical or gynecological procedures nurses are taught.

                  What I actually said:

                  “Abortion has been legal for a while. Forcing a nurse to participate in one against her will has not.”

                  And earlier:

                  “forcing nurses to participate in abortions has not been a historical part of nursing. There is no way that someone going through nursing school would be able to anticipate this.”

                  Grammatically, what would someone going through nursing school not be able to anticipate? Being forced to participate in an abortion. An abortion. Not cervical dilation to induce labor. Not a D&C after a miscarriage. Grammatically, this sentence can have no other meaning.

                  So stop grinding on about intrauterine injections and the like.

                  If hospitals are going to force nurses to participate in abortions, then that needs to be fully disclosed in their hiring material, and communicated to nursing schools so that those who do not choose to participate can make an informed decision.

                  It always comes down to force. And those who would use such force always think they have a good reason.

    2. These are not very good examples and almost all have been dealt with. I think you overlooked the “reasonable accommodation” clause that deal with the majority of your examples.

    3. If homicide is illegal, abortion cannot be a “legal procedure.”

      If you can murder your baby, I can murder my obnoxious and inconvenient neighbor.

      1. Homicide is illegal. It is illegal to take a human life in civilized societies. The only exception is self-defense, and that is only justified to the extent necessary in order to mitigate the progress of an immediate threat.

        There are four viable, moral choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. The ethical choice, the Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable property. So, a wicked solution for social and medical progress. There are diverse precedents. One step forward, two steps backward.

      2. Everyone does not believe that life begins at conception, and you not only cannot force them to believe this, you cannot force those who don’t share your beliefs to live their lives according to your rules because this is a secular society.

      1. Abortion is ending a pregnancy, and for those who don’t believe that life begins at conception, they are not taking a life. The SCOTUS settled this decades ago by holding that prior to the age of viability when the fetus is capable of life outside the womb, the woman has a constitutionally-protected right to terminate a pregnancy. I don’t think I can make it any simpler. Whether life begins at conception is based on religion, and based on your religion, you believe that life begins at conception. Others do not share this belief, nor are they required to, nor can you force them to live according to your beliefs. The matter is resolved.

        1. Is a fetus alive, dead, or not alive, regardless of gestation?

          Because the claim that a fetus is not alive is not biologically based. A sperm cell can be alive, or dead. Even bacteria is alive. The scientific definition of life is the capacity for growth, reproduction, function, and change until death. This distinguishes life from inorganic material, like rocks. A fetus can die prior to viability, hence it was alive prior to viability, and prior to birth.

          Is a fetus human? It is genetically human. It is not a turtle. Not a dove. Not any other creature than a human. It’s genetics are fixed. It is XY or XX or intersex upon activation of the zygote. If this discussion was about whether a developing fetus in an egg was an endangered sea turtle, or not, because it had not yet hatched, it would not be difficult.

          The matter of life is resolved, but not as you thought.

          The questions is when rights are conferred to a human. Upon breathing air? Prior to birth? If so, at what gestation? The fetus is alive, and human, and a separate person than the mother. At what point does the fetus have any rights? Not even at viability, even though late term abortions take longer and are riskier than birth?

          Whether or not the developing fetus is alive, or human, is not in question. Religious, agnostic, atheists, and everyone else have their own definition for when a human being should receive rights. That is where the argument lies. It is also false to portray this disagreement as a religious vs non religious issue. Plenty of non religious people object to killing a 20 week old fetus, especially when they learn how it is done. That matter of when a human deserves rights is not resolved.

          1. For a fetus to not be alive, but not dead, either, it would have to be inorganic. Like a rock. Or a ring. Or a computer keyboard.

            1. Karen, why don’t you try reading “Roe v. Wade”. The law on abortion is settled, and you are wrong about religion not being reason for anti-abortion activism. I

              1. The law on abortion is settled, and you are wrong about religion not being reason for anti-abortion activism.

                Karen didn’t say religion wasn’t a reason. She said it’s false to claim pro-Life is only a position for the religious and pro-Choice is for the non-religious.

                1. Most Americans support a woman’s right to choose up to the age of fetal viability, including a substantial number of Catholics.

              2. Natacha:

                You claimed a fetus was not alive. You said, “Abortion is ending a pregnancy, and for those who don’t believe that life begins at conception, they are not taking a life.”

                From a scientific viewpoint, your statement was ludicrously false. A fetus is not a rock. Stop spreading misinformation that a fetus is not alive. That would mean it’s inorganic, non replicating, with no capacity for growth, metabolic activity, change, or death. Absolutely the fetus is alive, you just don’t believe that it has any rights.

                Your claim that religion is being anti-abortion activism is based upon your opinion, which is not a fact. Religion is one of the reasons. There are non religious groups who oppose abortion or seek its limits. In fact, most people in the US want there to be at least some limits on abortion, especially when the fetus is viable.

                Atheists run the Secular Pro Life movement. They view this not as a religious issue but a human rights issue. Dr. Mildred Jefferson: “I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live.”

                Then there are those who take issue with Margaret Sanger’s goal of aborting as many black babies as possible, viewing them as an inferior race. Black abortions still account for the lion’s share today. They see this as an equality issue.

                More people want to limit abortion than abolish it entirely. Most polls ask respondents whether abortion should be legal or illegal in all or most cases, but this does not usually capture the common ground where most people want there to be at least limits on abortion. More religious than non religious people think abortion should be completely illegal. Yet there is quite a bit of common ground among religious, non religious, and atheists about the need to limit abortions.

                You don’t have to believe in God to think that killing a full term, healthy baby just before birth is wrong. Or that selectively aborting girl babies to only have sons is wrong. Or that aborting all but designer babies would be wrong.

                That said, there are also people in this country who think there should be no limits whatsoever on abortion.

          2. Plenty of non religious people object to killing a 20 week old fetus, especially when they learn how it is done. That matter of when a human deserves rights is not resolved.

            Speaking of learning how it is done, the University of Pittsburg has an organ harvesting program funded by the NIH that horrifically exceeds that 20 week timeline.

            The known facts in this case should be enough to get the attention of the federal authorities and elected officials responsible for ending this nightmare. In a press statement this week, Daleiden called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring any involved, including NIH Director Francis Collins, Fauci, and representatives of the University of Pittsburgh and Planned Parenthood, “to face…imperative scrutiny for the enabling of partial-birth abortions and infanticide in the government-sponsored human trafficking of aborted infants.”

    4. they wouldnt force a muslim to make a ham sandwich in the cafeteria

      but theyll make a nurse kill a baby in the operating room

      thats the state of our world right now

      his judgement cometh

      and that right soon

  6. The University of Vermont Medical Center is committing murder and it is soliciting and deploying accomplices.


    When the single sperm enters the egg, conception occurs. The combined sperm and egg is called a zygote. The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby. Half the DNA comes from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm.

    – Fetal development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

    If a zygote is not aborted, or murdered, it will become a human being, therefore, it is a human being in its early stages; it is a nascent human being, and, therefore, it is a human being.

    Homicide is the killing of one human being by another.

    Abortion is homicide.

    Homicide is illegal.

    Abortion is illegal.

    Family members who cannot be cared for are transferred to the guardianship of responsible individuals, social services or NGOs which provide care.

    Unwanted babies must be cared for in similar fashion or adopted.

    1. Inconvenience and irreconcilable differences are not justification for homicide.

  7. In days of old. When knights were bold.
    And condoms weren’t invented.
    They tied a sock. Around the ____.
    And babies were prevented.

    1. Yeah, Liberty, I’m sure you’d be more comfortable in the Middle Ages.

  8. This entire story stinks to high heaven. Unless a nurse worked in an actual abortion clinic, which why would she if she opposes abortion, the only times a nurse might be involved in pregnancy in which no one else was available to assist would be some sort of gynecological/obstetrical emergency that is a threat to the mother’s life–like a ruptured tubal pregnancy, or a detached or low-lying placenta that is causing hemorrhage, or eclampsia, severe trauma to the mother due to an accident or some other issue that threatened the mother’s life. There are some radical pro-lifers who would even object to terminating a pregnancy that is a threat to the mother’s life, which is second-guessing the decision of the patient and the physician. Since there is such a shortage of nurses, if someone was really this concerned about being involved in a pregnancy termination procedure, they should work someplace else where this would never come up. I think the claim itself was all about politics, but for Turley, it’s red meat as usual–another attack on Biden, getting the faithful disciples pissed off and prepped for 2022, which is what he is paid to do.

    1. I wonder if any red meat pissed you off the previous four years. Here’s your hypocrite hat.

      1. The policies of this administration, the media, and most institutions are leaning dramatically in one direction and have been for more than four years. Acting as if the left and right are both the same in this regard is a huge false equivalence.

    2. Natacha,

      You bring up a very good point. I find it concerning the lack of details on the situation nurse was in. It would clarify a lot of such details were available.

      If that nurse had to be on a list at the hospital notify she objected to participating in any procedure related to abortion she shouldn’t have been working at that hospital at all. She’s a nurse and she had options to work somwhere she wouldn’t have to get on some list to be excluded from participating in such procedures. Nobody forced her to work there. Just as some nurses or hospital staff refusing to be vaccinated when their employer requires it. They aren’t being forced to be vaccinated. They are being given a choice. Get the vaccine or go somewhere else.

      1. A lot of people don’t realize that the word “abortion” applies to anything ending a pregnancy, like a miscarriage, for example, which is a “spontaneous abortion”, as opposed to an “elective abortion”, which is by choice. I can’t see a situation in which a radical pro-lifer is “forced” to assist in pregnancy termination arising in any instance other than a true emergency in which there isn’t time to get someone else to assist. Obstetrical emergencies are often life-threatening.

    3. If it’s so unlikely, why are you getting so hot and bothered about it. You got something against conscience?

    4. This entire story stinks to high heaven. When did you ever care about high heaven.

  9. Ironic that the left supports conscientious objectors in war, but not in anything else, especially when it comes to women’s issues. My way or the highway. But again, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that Biden made this — or any other — decision. The extremist flank is pulling his strings thinking we won’t notice their creeping fascism.

    1. Giocon1,

      “ Ironic that the left supports conscientious objectors in war, but not in anything else, especially when it comes to women’s issues. ”

      When you’re drafted into the military against your will and object to being a part of war it’s a case of being forced to be there. The nurse wasn’t being forced to work at that hospital. She chose to work there on her own. There’s a distinction.

    2. Of course he believes it. He won’t do anything to hinder abortion and he won’t let anyone else either if he can help it.

  10. Demonic murderers will FORCE you to be a murderer too, whether you like it or not!!!!

  11. Another example of Biden administration valuing state control over religion, freedom of speech/association or individual liberty

  12. It would be traumatic to force a nurse or doctor to assist or perform an abortion against their will, whether their objection was religious or conscientious. If it was a 2nd trimester abortion or later, they would be removing severed fetal limbs and head. That could create terrible and long lasting trauma.

    In some European countries, nurses are forced to participate in abortions. They have no right to say no, unless they quit being a nurse. This fails to accommodate those who wish to save lives, not end them, especially unborn babies.

    It always comes down to force with the Left. They even went after little old lady nuns who did not want to provide such services, even theoretically.

    Conform or be destroyed.

    Don’t be afraid to speak out against this.

    1. I heard the LIttle Sisters of the Poor are changing their name to the Little Sisters of Perpetual Litigation

    2. You again, with your attacks on “the Left”. The “little old lady nuns” you reference are the Little Sisters of the Poor (which is their title, not necessarily a physical description) who sued to avoid including contraception coverage for health insurance for their secular staff. It had nothing to do with abortion.

      1. As Karen correctly pointed out, it had everything to do with the forced violation of their freedom of conscience. It took a legal fight and President Trump’s EO that resulted in protecting the rights of all parties.

        Resolution at last, and a win-win outcome

        The Supreme Court decision was a victory, but one that would take another two years to reach completion. In May 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing HHS and other federal agencies to protect the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits from the mandate.

        On October 6, 2017, the government issued a new rule with a broader religious exemption. In June 2018, the Little Sisters’ original case was finally resolved with an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And on November 7, 2018, HHS issued a rule  finalizing the Little Sisters’ religious exemption.

        The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court and the President’s executive order were big wins for the Little Sisters. But that does not mean anyone lost. As the Little Sisters had argued all along, the solution in no way bars the government from providing these services to women who want them. In fact, any alternative delivery method the government chooses could likely be applied not only to women in religious plans, but to the tens of millions of women in corporate and government plans HHS had previously exempted from the mandate. In the end, the government was able to both provide the mandated services free of charge to any woman who wanted them and accommodate the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs.

        1. Olly:

          I have felt for a while that we should only have individual plans, with a wide variety of offerings. There should be no more employer plans. I also think that doctors and hospitals should charge the exact same prices to everyone who walks in their doors, and those prices should be made available. When one group negotiates a lower rate, other groups pay more to make up the difference.

          Everyone should be able to shop for what they particularly want to share the costs of health insurance. Then your employer won’t have to worry about financially participating in anything they conscientiously object to.

          Just the fact that nuns had to spend millions of dollars in a court battle to avoid participating in contraception or the day after pill is absurd.

      2. Natacha:

        I don’t like, but never get in the way of you killing your children.

        Just don’t force others to help you kill them.

        Your comments are distracting from the main issue, mothers killing their children and wanting unwilling others to participate.

    3. This is the problem with universal health care. The medical industry will be forced to work in situations they are not comfortable with and for the pay the govt. decides. Things will only get worse as we go down this road.

      1. Exactly right. That’s what turned Abby Johnson from a PP center director to a staunch pro-life advocate. In case you missed either, check out her book and movie, “Unplanned.”,

    4. According to Tucker Carlson who is singing the praises of Strongman Victor Orban, many Conservatives have emigrated to Hungary because they feel more at home with the Illiberal Democracy there. Have any of you Trumpists thought about following Tucker’s lead and moving?

  13. Next thing you know, Creepy Joe will award the Medal of Freedom to Kermit Gosnell for his lifelong achievement of advancing women’s reproductive health care.

    1. good one, morefandave. Gosnell will probably get a statue to replace some of those torn down.

  14. The Biden administration continues down the path towards totalitarianism by constantly choosing to increase the power of the state even when that power directly and indirectly infringes on the individual rights of the people. Choosing the state over the people is becoming standard fare for Democrats.

    What have we become? The political left and the political right couldn’t be further apart in their ideological leanings in the 21st century, especially right now in 2021. The political right wants to stick with what’s worked well for the United States of America since it’s inception nearly 250 years ago and that’s to keep the power of the government in the hands of we the people and the political left wants to transform our society and culture into some kind of totalitarian society where the state controls the people. Keep this in mind when listening to the rhetoric and observing the actions of the progressives that have consumed the political left, they will choose “the state” over “we the people” and our individual rights to control our own lives every time and they will say and do anything and promote any narrative to promote their version of the state and demonize those that oppose their ideology. What the hive minded political left and their army of social justice warriors are doing is Orwellian.

    Enemy of the ________!

    1. Steve, that’s exactly right.

      I’ve tried to explain that Conservatives believe the best fight against Fascism and other totalitarianism is to preserve individual rights with limited government. That’s why we oppose much of Democrat policies and ideology.

      I’m at a total loss how those who keep pushing for more government control, and less individual rights, accuse the conservatives fighting for limited government of being fascists with a straight face. Why do more than 8 people in the country fall for this?

      Not only does the Left push for totalitarianism in government, but it also has created an alliance with Left leaning institutions to create totalitarianism in private industry. Big Tech engages in propaganda and censorship that would make any dictator happy. Don’t like it? Then create your own Facebook and Youtube. Oh, but if you do, then Big Tech will align to shut your servers down.

      Left hegemony leads to human rights abuses.

      1. best fight against Fascism and other totalitarianism is to preserve individual rights with limited government.

        This is the type of principles, leftist label as EXTREME right wing. Individual freedom and a constitutionally limited government.

      2. Karen, you absolutely need to stop. You not only aren’t a “conservative”, you don’t even know what a conservative is, much less are you able to explain it. Conservatives want nothing to do with you Trumpsters. Conservatives find your arrogant, narcissistic hero repulsive and a threat to democracy and common decency. Since I know you don’t believe me, try reading the writings of Rick Wilson, George F. Will, George Conway and Bill Kristol. They can explain it to you. They are people most Americans respect, whether or not they agree with their opinions.

        There is no “Left” pushing for totalitarianism either in government or elsewhere. If you watched anything other than alt-right news, you would know that the ones pushing for totalitarianism are Republicans who are trying to seize power they can’t obtain by winning elections by changing the election rules, especially in swing states like Georgia, whereby they can wrest control of local elections and void votes for nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim of voter fraud, which is exactly what Trump tried to get Raffensberger to do. If you knew anything about what’s really going on, you would know that Trump tried to bully the DOJ to say that the election was “corrupt”, and that he would take it from there. This is according to notes from one of the attorneys present when the request was made. The DOJ refused because it was a lie. But, what if they hadn’t? Nevertheless,Trump still won’t quit, and he still won’t shut up or go away. In Arizona, despite 4 recounts, the Cyber Ninjas, who guaranteed results before they even started and who are being financed by wealthy Republicans, are demanding things like voter registration records, which are confidential by law, and which the State of Arizona is refusing to produce. They also have been observed with pens in hand, placing things on ballots that were cast, which is outrageous. THAT is totalitarianism–trying to void validly-cast votes. At minimum, Republican lying about Trump’s loss, that was predicted by every single poll, and their refusal to stand against the Big Lie has caused a substantial number of Americans to be uncertain about the security of elections, not only in the past, but going forward. THAT is totalitarianism. Republicans refused to impeach Trump twice–his proven collusion with Russian hackers wasn’t enough for them, and neither was inciting a riot based on the Big Lie. THAT is totalitarianism.

        You say “Big Tech” is engaging in propaganda and censorship? “Big Tech” doesn’t post things to Facebook, and by enforcing its rules against spreading lies that hurt people it’s not engaging in censorship, either. Don’t like it? Start you own social media company.

        But, hey, ding, ding, ding, Karen got to use her big word “hegemony” again.

        1. Oh, Natacha. George Will the vaunted conservative! Most people respect him and his ilk! Trumpians! Bullying! Only enforcing its rules against spreading lies that hurt people! Your command of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies is – well. “Adorable” isn’t the right word.

          I can’t figure out what you’re trying to accomplish. I doubt it’s persuasion, given those rhetorical devices, which pretty much leaves “owning.” But owning works a lot better when you’re surrounded by like-minded people who will cheer whatever you say, which – I’m new here, but it doesn’t seem as if you are.

          1. I can’t figure out what you’re [Natacha] trying to accomplish. — Jamie McArdle

            Like you, I’m new here as well. But I’ve seen these type of operations, and operatives, before. She is a propagandist. The idea isn’t necessarily to persuade, in this blog’s case, but to confuse casual readers by injecting chaos and disrupting constructive exchanges of ideas and information. As such, it isn’t necessary for her posts to be factually or logically accurate, but simply push approved narratives and bait other posters into fruitless arguments.

            The idea is to keep other posters preoccupied and prevent them from advancing their arguments and creating common ground for broad consensus and agreement — especially any which might reach outside the blog and find resonance in a wider audience. Her goal is containment.

            It is important to note that the laws governing U.S. intelligence agencies’ ability “influence” domestic opinion were quietly changed a few years ago such that it became legal to directly propagandize U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. There were several invitations to bid, shortly thereafter, on contracts for software (500 seats / 10 personas per seat, typically) with the ability to post to social media / websites without being detected as coming from a singular source.

            My guess is that she is a contractor occupying one of those seats.

            Or she could just be an ideologue who’s as dumb as a box of rocks with a lot of time on her hands.

            1. There’s no “constructive exchange of ideas” when it comes to someone like Karen, a deeply-embedded alt-right media disciple who believes whatever lies they put out and repeats them. Nor should such lies stand without challenge, which is what you seem to be suggesting. So, according to you, pointing out the fallacies Karen relies on is some form of “containment”, as for example, accusing Democrats of being totalitarians when it is Republicans who won’t stand against the Big Lie, who have passed laws allowing Republican-controlled state government to take over local election boards and discard valid votes without any proof of fraud or even error, which is exactly what Trump tried to do, and refusing to impeach Trump despite proof of collusion between his campaign and Russians, his attempts to get Ukraine to falsely accuse Biden of crimes and inciting a riot to try to stop Pence from accepting certified vote totals. These are factual matters, not ideologue rhetoric, and they are proof that Republicans are the ones trying to be totalitarians.

              Karen keeps trying to legitimize herself by calling herself, and those who believe the Big Lie, “conservatives”, but she doesn’t know or care that true conservatives, like those mentioned, abhor Trump, his arrogance, his lying, his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and the total failure of his presidency. She doesn’t understand the values of conservatives–things like honesty, patriotism, personal integrity, paying valid debts, marital fidelity and limited government. She constantly attacks “the Left”, accusing them of starting and supporting riots, she tries to downplay the Trump Insurrection and defends the Big Lie.

              I am neither an idealogue, nor am I dumb as a box of rocks, descriptions that apply more to the Karens on this blog than myself. The things I stated in the post above are FACTUAL, not opinions, which no one pays me to write.

              1. …it isn’t necessary for her posts to be factually or logically accurate, but simply push approved narratives…

                …for example, accusing Democrats of being totalitarians when it is Republicans who won’t stand against the Big Lie, who have passed laws allowing Republican-controlled state government to take over local election boards and discard valid votes without any proof of fraud or even error, which is exactly what Trump tried to do, and refusing to impeach Trump despite proof of collusion between his campaign and Russians, his attempts to get Ukraine to falsely accuse Biden of crimes and inciting a riot to try to stop Pence from accepting certified vote totals. — Natacha

                Thanks for making the point crystal clear.

                “You’re not allowed to talk about the vaccine.
                You’re not allowed to talk about the election.
                You’re not allowed to have an opinion about social justice (unless groveling for forgiveness).
                You’re not allowed to ask intelligent, informed questions.
                Your assertions will always be baseless.
                You will always be an evil conspiracy theorist.
                Their assertions will always be true.
                They will always be righteous.
                And anyone who believes their talk of openness, compromise, healing, and unity is in for a rude awakening.” — unknown

                1. You can “talk” all you want about the vaccine, but you don’t have the expertise of the CDC or your state health commissioner, the WHO or any of the numerous medical societies that support vaccination. What you want to do is repeat the lies about the vaccine put out for political reasons, which you can do, but not if it violates the terms of service for Facebook or other social media. So you turn to blogs, where you get push-back that you find offensive because you think it is muzzling some perceived “right” to express an “opinion” that you contend should be believed. None of the garbage about the vaccine being unsafe, more dangerous than COVID, that it causes you to be microchipped so the government can spy on you, or any of the other lies has any merit, and all it does is prolong the pandemic and give the virus more time and opportunities to mutate into vaccine-resistant strains in addition to sickening and killing people. This is why Florida and Texas are seeing record numbers of infections and hospitalizations. So, what is there for you to “talk” about? What do you have to offer that is of any value to humanity? Lies you heard on alt-right media?

                  You want to “talk” about the election? What is there to “talk” about–the Big Lie? Trump began putting out the Big Lie even before all of the ballots were cast when it became obvious that Biden was defeating him. If you’re “talking” about the election, how about this: there is not, and has never been, any proof of fraud, vote-stealing, illegal ballots or any of the other lies put out by alt-right media. What has your “talking” done to this country? Caused Americans to worry unnecessarily about the security of elections and where we go from here. Why aren’t the certified vote totals from the Secretaries of State, of which most were Republicans, the multiple recounts, hand-recounts, failed lawsuits, Barr saying there was no election fraud, and Krebs saying there was no election fraud enough for you? What is there for you to “talk” about? All you would do is repeat Trump’s paranoid lies. Why should that be respected?

                  What is “social justice” anyway? None of the things you want to “talk” about includes “intelligent, informed questions”–it is lies put out by alt-right media to support a losing presidential candidate who has a narcissistic personality disorder. You are immune to facts.

        2. Natacha, Most people respect Conway and Wilson? Of the Pedophile Project? PLEASE!!

      3. Karen S, what do you believe limited government is? What do you picture limited government to be?

        1. Svelaz, now those are very good questions. Since the call for limited government is usually associated with Conservatives, I’m curious to know what you believe it means to Conservatives.

          1. Olly,

            My view is that conservatives see limited government as being as minimally intrusive as possible. The whole notion of fewer regulations and more “liberty” and freedom from government and more freedom to make your own decisions and suffer your own consequences.

            However that is often in conflict with demands such as government intruding on someone else because of religious objections should be ok.

            There’s all kinds of demands that government shouldn’t dictate how one should live or what to do, but with abortion, vaccines, masking, etc. how would a limited government be able to remain…limited.

            Some say limited means size of government. Others say it’s the fewest regulations possible.

            1. Thank you Svelaz. I see those as the “effect or “reasons” for a limited government, but not what the term limited government means. My understanding of what limited government means is the reason I’m no longer a Republican and instead registered Independent. To me, a limited government is one that does not exceed its constitutional authority. In other words the power they exercise is limited by what is granted in the constitution. This means the size of the bureaucracy is limited to what is necessary to effectively and efficiently administer the constitutional laws and regulations enacted. The framers didn’t argue the government bureaucracy had to be a particular size. They argued that whatever size it evolved to must be within the limits of the constitution. And as this experiment continued, if the government was found to be too limited in constitutional powers, then an amendment to the constitution was required to provide government new powers not previously granted. Lastly and in my opinion most importantly, no law, regulation, amendment is ever legitimate that infringes the natural right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

              I am Independent because will support any candidate committed to that view.

              1. Olly, that’s certainly interesting how you view it. But what determines regulations and what is necessary? Because the constitution WAS intentionally vague in some respects.

                The constitution’s framers didn’t envision things like the internet, things like same sex marriage, or transgendered individuals, political parties, gerrymandering, pandemics, etc. There many issues that cannot be solely decided on the constitution’s verbiage and it’s vagaries.

                There’s was a debate early in the Nation’s history about creating a national bank. There were constitutional framers who argued there was no requirement for such a bank and that the constitution didn’t give congress the authority to create one because it was not an authority specifically granting it. Others argued that the need for such a bank was necessary in order to deal with other nations and give congress the ability to purchase weapons from other countries.

                States didn’t have that power to negotiate with foreign powers. Only congress did. But there was no central bank in order to be able to make such transactions. It would have required congress to convene and make an amendment. A very lengthy and drawn out process. It exposed the flaw in the system where everything that was not specifically in the constitution would have to be added every time an issue would arise. If it were that way. We would have had hundreds of amendments by now.

                1. The constitution’s framers didn’t envision things like the internet, things like same sex marriage, or transgendered individuals, political parties, gerrymandering, pandemics, etc.

                  What you’re describing are examples of the endless number of reasons a culture might be moved to seek government action. The framers planned for this eventuality with the amendment process. That process is designed to prevent constitutional changes for ‘light or transient causes’.

                  There many issues that It exposed the flaw in the system where everything that was not specifically in the constitution would have to be added every time an issue would arise. If it were that way. We would have had hundreds of amendments by now.

                  You see that as a flaw and I see that as a feature. You see it as an obstacle to “progress” and I see that as “conserving” the security of rights. Yes, a government limited by their constitutional powers is supposed to respect the amendment process. Sometimes the purpose has overwhelming support and other times it is with very thin margins. The process is as designed because of that.

                  The reason we have this massive bureaucratic state and a “house divided” is because the Progressives succeeded and the Conservatives failed. So instead of hundreds of amendments and a citizenry equally secure in their rights, we have an ou-of-control administrative state that is at war with its citizens. We’ve “progressed” right back to the decade before our revolution.

                  1. I often tire of people who don’t understand the power of the Constitution is its promise to every citizen it will not trample their inalienable rights simply because the majority may wish to ‘vote it so’. The founders deserve far more respect for creating a governing system that for the first time, puts citizens rights above so-called ‘government rights’. Yes, the men who drew up the document were flawed; everyone is flawed in more ways than we’d wish to admit. But if not for their insight that the human spirit in all of us yearns to be free and that they took the time to write it down as a core belief that government should preserve, we would not have the rights we have to criticize them today for just being humans in a time then we couldn’t possibly see, based on today’s ‘standards’, as just. Far too many people here don’t understand they have a life here that so many across the world would love the opportunity to live, if only their own government minders would allow. All I can do is share my opinion just as everyone else has the right.. I know I can’t make someone understand, let alone accept. And sometimes, it’s just sad.

                    1. I have been on this legal blog for almost a decade and was disappointed to find a fair number of members don’t believe in our natural, unalienable rights. It’s kind of difficult to have any agreement on what our government should be doing when we don’t agree on the fundamental reason it exists.

                    2. To be somewhat fair, the ability to think critically for themselves has been removed from public education, especially at the college level. Student’s are easily swayed into believing destroying today will lead to a better tomorrow but they can’t quite tell you why other than ‘it’s what I learned in college’. When confronted with facts , supported with data to back them up, too many younger people have been trained to ignore you completely and simply regurgitate the Leftist perspective, only this time, LOUDER! As if loud equals truth. They have no clue the framers of the Constitution were the ones that ensured their right to yell and scream would never be abridged. They are clueless and have no desire to even acknowledge there’s another way to look at any issue. Even if they may not agree, there are other ways to solve problems than by being hypocritical and otherwise clueless. They simply don’t know any better.

                    3. Olly – you are right. When people cannot agree on the basics, such as individual rights, then they don’t speak the same language. If you don’t speak the same language, then you can’t converse. You can’t make anyone understand.

                      Casual Observer – great post. I wish more people would spend a few weeks in various countries, and really see how people live under other economic systems. People don’t value what’s been handed to them. They don’t appreciate what they’ve never done without.

                    4. Karen, speaking of basics, Conservatives consistently reference the same sources to support their worldview. Many of those sources were used by the framers. What sources have you seen Liberals/Progressives cite to support their worldview? I can’t recall any.

                    5. No doubt about it, if they would visit their Utopian countries today and live there for a minimum of two years, nearly all of them would be shocked at the lack of individual rights and freedoms their fellow socialists truly have. Even then, they might even fail to recognize they’ve been lied to until forced to live in a country they’ve been told is “A Workers Paradise”, then could never escape.

                    6. I recall the “field trip” the some Chicago teachers and a union rep made to Venezuela. They had high praise for Maduro and his regime.

                    7. But not enough praise to stay and live the life there they want for the rest of us. It’s quite telling they chose to come back.

                2. The Constitutional Amendment is the way to go. Many court decisions have caused more problems than they solved and only led to the Court becoming tan additional legislative body. The situation we are in today in great part is because Congress didn’t do its job and the Courts became legislators.


              2. Excellent summary of limited government. The Tenth Amendment has been usurped by the federal government in ways the Founders would have never approved. Two of the most obvious examples are education and healthcare. Neither are mentioned as enumerated federal powers yet we have entire executive departments making policies that are nullifying every states opportunity to innovate and improve their own systems. Another example is the Supreme Court. It’s primary purpose is to determine if the US Congress passes laws consistent with the Constitution’s framework as well as settle disputes between the states. Yet, they told Texas and 18 other states they will not have hearings to determine if Pennsylvania broke it’s own election laws to produce an outcome that effectively nullifies election results of the other 19 states who didn’t changed their rules before the election. SC said ‘no standing’. There wasn’t even a hearing to determine if Texas and the other states even had so-called ‘standing’, the Court just said no neglecting one of their core mandates – settling disputes between the states. If one or more states can’t find relief in the courts when another state violates its own laws, will Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia going to gleefully accept Texas when it refuses to allow election observers in the next Presidential vote? Will they try to sue if their candidate loses? Anyway, a limited federal government is just that limited to the powers enumerated in the US Constitution. It also has no legal power to give itself more power whenever it chooses. But it does so anyway because We The People have forgotten they are the governing body in this country and allow them to get away with it because we’re unwilling (so far) to take the power out of Washington. Only time will determine how long the people will tolerate their own freedom being chipped away by the unaccountable, unelected, and obviously overgrown unlimited government.

                1. Well said. I believe the 17th amendment has been instrumental to the abuse of the 10th and may be the root cause for the rise of the administrative state.

              3. Olly, you understand the basic reason for the Constitution, to limit government. But the founding of the nation included the idea of federalism which is what many people forget about. Federalism permits the federal government to stay out of things where they don’t belong.

                If Svelaz is interested in knowing more about this and the surrounding issues he might want to go to Hillsdale College and listen to some of their free courses. A quick scan of the courses reveals that he might get some answers in the course on the Federalist papers lesson #4 . It might target the issue that includes federalism. I don’t want to have to listen to the video for him to make sure. If he wishes to learn he can do it by himself. They have a whole bunch of courses that encompass what is mostly talked about on this blog.

      4. Karen S.

        “ Not only does the Left push for totalitarianism in government, but it also has created an alliance with Left leaning institutions to create totalitarianism in private industry. Big Tech engages in propaganda and censorship that would make any dictator happy. Don’t like it? Then create your own Facebook and Youtube. Oh, but if you do, then Big Tech will align to shut your servers down.”

        Karen, how would a limited government be able to handle a pandemic? Would a limited government be restricted on relying on the actions of the private sector to handle it?

        How would the public trust the private sector to handle a pandemic when a limited government restrained by budget limitations and regulations would put the responsibility on people and private industry?

        Who would bear the cost? Only those able to afford it? What about ensuring the safety of a vaccine when regulations are few far between?

        A limited government would create a much bigger “big tech” that would STILL be able to censor at will because limited government would be limited in regulating it and telling it what to do.

        It’s is incredibly ironic how you propose to have a form of government that would create the very things you despise.

        1. “Would a limited government be restricted on relying on the actions of the private sector to handle it?”

          Yep. Just like it did for this pandemic.

          It was *private* scientists and *private* Pharma that created and mass produced the vaccines. Bloviating politicians and megalomaniacal public health “authorities” (e.g., Fauci) do nothing but get in the way.

  15. The Complete Perversion of the Law
    But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. The Law, Frederic Bastiat

        1. Agreed. de Toqueville well understood Americans were trying a completely new kind of governance and recognized immediately how she, America, stood alone in recognizing freedom for her citizens to live and worship compared to the well-established shackles of Europe’s monarchies other Authoritarian regimes in the world.

  16. Lefty leadership: “You have to help us kill babies or lose your job.”

    Ugly people who will not tolerate a moral person in their midst.

      1. Progressives don’t care about alienating voters – they can vote as many times as they want to nullify them.

      2. democrats are going to get their wish
        america is going to officially split along the red/blue axis
        and when it does
        anybody want to bet on which buildings go up in flames first in the red areas…

Comments are closed.