cnsnews--2019-02-01--David Limbaugh Abortion Extremism Exposing Lefts Moral Contradictions

David Limbaugh: Abortion Extremism Exposing Left's Moral Contradictions

It's horrifying that we are rapidly approaching the kind of culture that God ordered the Israelites to wipe out when he finally allowed them to enter the land he had promised them — a culture of rampant immorality, idolatry and child sacrifice.  For the longest time, the political left insisted that it was not pro-abortion but pro-choice, that it truly wanted to make abortion safe, legal and rare. I never could quite grasp why liberals would care about making it rare if they didn't consider the unborn to be human lives. But that is the position they firmly held — obviously for political expediency.  Their decision to cloak their true intentions in the euphemism of "choice" has always been a calculated strategy to sanitize their actual motives. If they were actually choice advocates, they would inform mothers contemplating abortions about all the risks of the procedure and advise them of alternatives, such as adoption. In practice, in many cases, we've seen just the opposite.  If they are about choice and not abortion, why do they adamantly resist any proposed restrictions on abortion? Why do they celebrate their legislative expansion of the right to abortion, as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did in obscenely lighting One World Trade Center in ghoulish pink to commemorate his state's new law greenlighting abortion to the point of birth? Why do feminists proudly run around with T-shirts boasting of their abortions? Abortion can best be understood as a vital sacrament of their secular religion.  Today, apparently feeling their oats because of President Trump's perceived unpopularity and the Democrats' strong showing in the midterm elections, they have started to be less circumspect about their true feelings and intentions.  We've seen it with the Democrats' attempted removal of the words "so help you God" from the House Natural Resources Committee's oath, Sen. Kamala Harris' embracing of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal and Harris' endorsement of universal Medicare, until the public blowback forced her to retreat. And we've seen it with these new state laws further liberalizing abortion.  We've also seen it in the evolution of the left's arguments on abortion. Liberals used to consider the unborn baby, at least prior to the point of viability, an unviable tissue mass — a clump of cells — and thus there was no moral question involved in the mother's exterminating it through an abortion procedure. But in recent years, some of the more brazen pro-abortionists have admitted that the unborn are human lives yet have maintained mothers' right to kill them anyway. No more apologies, just more fist shaking and rebellion.  In some ways, Virginia's proposed legislation is worse than New York's. Virginia state Rep. Kathy Tran's proposed bill would permit an abortion even when a mother is in labor. When asked whether the mother could abort her child when it is obvious she is about to give birth (when dilating), she admitted, "My bill would allow that, yes."  Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's comments were even more abhorrent, confessing that the law would permit a baby's murder after it's born. How hardhearted must this pediatric neurosurgeon be to endorse legislation permitting infanticide? People with just a speck of moral fiber might have difficulty wrapping their minds around this.  With these state abortion laws, we're not talking about someone committing a heinous act and then begging a court for leniency; we're witnessing a deliberative body making a conscious, premeditated decision to legalize murder. The radical abortionists who now hold sway in the Democratic Party are either paranoid about "toxic males" taking away women's freedom or part of a death cult — because they refuse to cede even an inch of ground on abortion. From a biblical perspective, this seems nothing short of demonic.  Pro-abortionists shrewdly couch their advocacy in the benign language of preserving mothers' health. No one would dispute that the state has a strong interest in protecting a mother's life and health, but "a mother's health" doesn't necessarily mean what they want you to think it means. It has become a catchall to permit abortions that have little to do with mothers' actual health.  If leftists are that concerned with mothers' health, why do they dismiss any research that shows that abortive mothers frequently experience physical, emotional and psychological damage from abortion? Why do they insist that late-term abortions are about health when medical experts such as Dr. Omar L. Hamada say "there's absolutely no reason to kill a baby before delivery in the third trimester"? Why does the New York law permit non-physicians to perform the procedure?  The leftists' newfound smugness could well backfire. Their main appeal, especially to young voters, is their claimed monopoly on morality and compassion. They paint themselves as moral exemplars and conservatives as uncaring bigots. Their callousness could wake up younger generations, which they've spent decades indoctrinating, to their moral contradictions.  It may take younger people longer to realize that the left's promise of socialism is an insidious lie — that everywhere and every time it has been tried, it has impoverished and enslaved people. But I doubt they'll have as much difficulty immediately grasping the left's depravity in outright advocating the murder of innocent infants while moralizing to us about universal health care, income inequality and separating mothers from their children at the border.  In its pride, the left is taking a big gamble on the moral indifference of the American people, and the Democratic Party might just pay a heavy price for it.  David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is "Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church." Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.


cnsnews--2019-03-01--David Limbaugh Dems Deceit and Moral Bankruptcy on Abortion

David Limbaugh: Dems' Deceit and Moral Bankruptcy on Abortion

Why should anyone be surprised at the left's careening into extremism on abortion? Leftists' position has always been morally bankrupt and deceitful.  I am old enough to remember when Barack Obama, in the 2008 presidential campaign, vehemently denied that he had supported infanticide while in the Illinois Senate. Fact-checkers and other Obama defenders came out of the woodwork to defend Obama's moral integrity. What were those facts?  Well, in 2001, Obama voted against Illinois' Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in committee, which would have required immediate medical care for any child born as a result of a failed abortion. He even gave a floor speech opposing the bill. But he voted "present" on the actual bill once it passed out of committee. The Illinois Senate passed the bill, but the Illinois House killed it. In 2002, Obama not only voted against the bill in committee and spoke against it on the Illinois Senate floor but also voted "no" on the bill. In 2003, Obama voted against another version of the bill. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama ran from this record and even accused Republicans of lying about it. Only after substantial blowback was he forced to issue a statement acknowledging he had earlier misstated his position on the bill.  But that was more than a decade ago — at a time when the national Democratic Party still pretended to have scruples. It was obviously scared to death that widespread knowledge of Obama's heinous opposition to the bill would be tantamount to political suicide.  But now, 11 years later, we've seen Democrats in New York easily pass a bill legalizing abortion at any time within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy and at any time when an abortion is necessary to protect a woman's life or health. Expanding the previous law to permit abortion at any time to protect the woman's health — liberally defined — effectively means sanctioning abortion up to the point of birth. Democrats in Virginia one-upped their craven New York comrades by introducing legislation that would permit not only the outsourcing of second-trimester abortions to non-doctors but also abortion during the mother's labor or, according to disgraced Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, even after the birth of the baby, in some cases.  When harshly criticized for these bills — and, in the case of New York, for jubilantly celebrating the legislation's passage — Democrats denied they go as far as they do. In any event, Democrats nationwide have claimed that such extremism doesn't represent the party's position. They apparently didn't expect the public backlash that they received.  Despite their denials and backpedaling, Democrats in the U.S. Senate, when given a chance to repudiate this extremism and demonstrate they are not in fact the party of death, brazenly showed that indeed they are.  Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., sponsored the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to "prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion." The bill needed 60 votes to overcome the Democrats' opposition but got only 53 votes, with all Democrats but three voting against the measure. The mainstream of the Democratic Party, then, is now on record supporting infanticide under these circumstances.  Again, Democrats are scrambling to justify their votes, and again they're denying their moral depravity in this process by misrepresenting the substance of the bill. Democrats claimed the bill was vindictively targeted at women and doctors to punish them and deprive them of their proper role in "reproductive health care." Others claimed the scenario contemplated by the bill rarely occurs. Still others denied that the bill would have had any effect at all, seeing as it purported to illegalize something already illegal.  They can dissemble to their hearts' content, but Sasse's bill was as straightforward as it could have been. It sought to require doctors to exercise proper care to save a baby if it survived a botched abortion. Who but the most dark-hearted human being could oppose such a bill, even an arguably redundant one? Who would allow themselves to go on record obstructing such a bill, even if they did consider the motivation of the sponsor to be to expose the hypocrisy of pro-choice women and doctors, which, by the way, is an absurd claim? How would you like to explain to your children and grandchildren that you refused to exercise your duly elected power to protect the most innocent of God's created beings — not unborn babies, not zygotes, not clumps of cells but already born babies?  Democrats have been dishonest about the abortion issue for decades by invoking numerous euphemisms and other distortions to conceal the horror of their positions, such as "choice," "the mother's health," "reproductive health care," "clump of cells," "unviable tissue mass," "autonomy" and dishonestly omitting the innocent child from the equation when discussing abortion.  The party is not so cautious now. Emboldened by their majority status in the House and their arrogant perception that they have wounded Trump and thus the Republican Party, Democrats are flexing their muscles and showing us just who they are — or who they have to be to mollify their extremist base and remain eligible for blood money contributions from their most notorious donor, Planned Parenthood. They'll still play games when challenged and do their best to mask and sanitize their indefensible position, but the jig is up, as they have exposed themselves to the world, for which I thank them.  David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is "Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church." Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.


cnsnews--2019-03-28--Pelosi There Is No Moral Justification for Banning Transgenders from Military Service

Pelosi: ‘There Is No Moral Justification’ for Banning Transgenders from Military Service

“There is no moral justification for this ban,” House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday in a floor speech condemning President Donald Trump’s ban of transgenders from U.S. military service.  Not only does banning transgenders from the military have no moral foundation, but it also “violates every value” of America, and is “designed to humiliate the transgender Americans,” Pelosi added:  “The President’s ban, as I said, is cruel and arbitrary, a decision designed to humiliate the transgender Americans who are risking and giving their lives for the United States of America. “There is no moral justification for this ban, which violates every value of our American democracy and betrays our fundamental belief in fairness, dignity and respect. “There is no medical justification for this ban, which the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association all oppose. And there is no military justification for this ban, which would undermine our military readiness and make America less strong and safe and that is according to our own military.”


cnsnews--2019-06-24--Millions Suffering from Ignored Medical and Moral War

If there were a war in which the causality figures reached one million people killed or wounded, most people would want to do something drastic to stop it.  Imagine if most of those affected were young people. Consider the family, friends and community of the fallen that also would suffer greatly from these losses.  This war is happening now. It is a worldwide war from sexually transmitted diseases that are the effects of the loose morals of the sexual revolution. The total casualty figure of this war is not one million killed or wounded. It is over one million new cases a day—every day, all over the world. The war is far from over. In fact, health care officials have noted little progress in curbing infection over the last five years.  According to a study published by the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, there were 376 million new cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis and syphilis in people between the ages of 15-49 in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available. The rate of infection has remained unchanged from the data collected five years earlier.  These shocking statistics do not show the suffering caused by this war. The consequences of sexually-transmitted diseases can ruin the lives of those infected. If left untreated, the diseases can cause infertility, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, heart disease and neurological conditions. Infected people also run the risk of developing HIV, which causes AIDS.  As in all wars, innocent people are also affected. Many of those with diseases do not develop symptoms of illness yet can still infect others through daily or even casual contact. Still more tragic are the innocent babies in the womb that can later contract birth defects, pneumonia and blindness from their infected mothers. Syphilis, transmitted during pregnancy and childbirth, caused 200,000 stillbirths and newborn deaths in 2016.  While most of these diseases are curable, efforts to treat them are hampered by a global shortage of the medicine called benzathine penicillin. In addition, officials report strains of gonorrhea that have developed resistance to antibiotics.  Thus, the problem has reached crisis proportions. The situation should trigger an international health emergency. People should get involved to eradicate the diseases as has been done in the past.  However, this crisis is different. It cannot be combatted by improved hygiene or other healthy habits. This is not only a medical problem but also a moral problem.  People do not want to face this reality. They do not want to face the real causes of sexually-transmitted diseases, which are loose morals and promiscuous behavior. Instead, they prefer to ignore the truth. People have fallen for the myths of the sexual revolution of the sixties that claims that sexual activity outside of marriage is an entitlement. They are told that chastity is impossible to maintain.  Thus, instead of taking measures to stop the behaviors that are causing this war and inflicting such casualties, people are doing everything possible to make it worse. They are adding fuel to the fire. Officials are calling for more contraception and abortion to ensure that these acts have no consequences in the form of childbirth. A hypersexualized, porn-filled culture makes sure everyone abuses their sexual appetites to the fullest possible extent.  “We’re seeing a concerning lack of progress in stopping the spread of sexually transmitted infections worldwide,” Dr. Peter Salama, the World Health Organization executive director for universal health coverage and life course, said in a statement. “This is a wake-up call for a concerted effort to ensure everyone, everywhere can access the services they need to prevent and treat these debilitating diseases.”  John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Soceity--Where We've Been, How We Go Here, and Where We Need to Go. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.


cnsnews--2019-06-24--Nancy Pelosi We Have a Sacred Moral Responsibility to Protectthe Lives of Vulnerable Children

Nancy Pelosi: ‘We Have a Sacred Moral Responsibility to Protect…the Lives of Vulnerable Children’

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) issued a statement yesterday backing a supplemental spending bill to provide humanitarian assistance to children and families at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying Congress has a “a sacred moral duty” to protect children and families.  “As Members of Congress and as Americans, we have a sacred moral responsibility to protect the human rights and the lives of vulnerable children and families,” Pelosi said. “To do anything less would be an outrageous and unacceptable violation of our oath and our morality.”  Pelosi also blamed what she called Trump’s “failed policies” for worsening the situation at the border.  “The president’s failed policies have exacerbated the situation at the border, where vulnerable children endure inhumane conditions that threaten their health, well-being and sometimes, tragically, their lives,” she said.  Here is the full text of Pelosi's statement:  Pelosi Statement on Border Supplemental Bill to Provide Humanitarian Assistance for Children, Families at the Border Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement on the introduction of a strong border supplemental bill, which provides robust funding to relieve the humanitarian situation at the border and does not fund the Administration’s failed policy of mass detention: “This week, the House will advance strong border legislation, which protects vulnerable children and keeps America safe as it honors our values. Congress continues to insist that families belong together and for immigrant communities to know their rights. “We salute Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard and all the appropriators for their relentless, good-faith work to address the heartbreaking and urgent humanitarian situation at our southwest border. “The President’s failed policies have exacerbated the situation at the border, where vulnerable children endure inhumane conditions that threaten their health, well-being and sometimes, tragically, their lives. This legislation provides urgently-needed humanitarian assistance for families, including funding for food, shelter, clothing, medical care and legal assistance, and will relieve the horrific situation of over-crowding and help prevent additional deaths. And we are providing urgent assistance to local communities to help defray their costs of providing humanitarian assistance to asylum seekers. “The legislation protects families. It does not fund the Administration’s failed mass detention policy, but, instead, funds effective, humane alternatives to detention with a proven track record of success. It places strict limits on influx shelters, protects sponsors from DHS immigration enforcement based on information collected by HHS during the vetting process and creates strong oversight by Congress including to protect unaccompanied children. “As Members of Congress and as Americans, we have a sacred moral responsibility to protect the human rights and the lives of vulnerable children and families. To do anything less would be an outrageous and unacceptable violation of our oath and our morality.”


cnsnews--2019-08-07--Catholic Priest Leaving God Out of Politics is Illogical Immoral and Un-American

Catholic Priest: Leaving God Out of Politics is ‘Illogical, Immoral, and Un-American’

During a talk before a group of Republicans in Florida recently, Fr. Michael Orsi, a Catholic priest, said that America’s founders were God-fearing men and women who understood that to have “a virtuous country, you have to believe in God.” Fr. Orsi added that it is “illogical, immoral, and un-American” to leave God out of politics and out of the public square, reported LifeSiteNews on Aug. 6.  “If your pastor is staying away from politics, tell him he's an illegitimate pastor,” said Rev. Orsi. “[P]olitics affect our lives. And when we talk about our lives, we necessarily have to remind ourselves that we are called to be moral creatures.”  “The important part about politics is that God is important in our political life,” he said.  Fr. Orsi further said that the drive to push God and faith out of the public square is "very foolish, very stupid, very un-American." This country was founded by people who believed in God and understood that He plays an integral role in the life of individuals as well as the nation and the world, said the priest.  "They realized that in order to have a virtuous country, you have to believe in God," said Fr. Orsi. "Why? [Because] God guarantees your rights."  “Without God guaranteeing you your rights, who gives you your right?” added Fr. Orsi. “The state? The politicians? God gives you your rights. They are anchored in God.”  "God sets the standard for what is right and what is wrong,” said the priest, who is the parochial vicar of St. Agnes parish in Naples, Fla.  “And in order to have a healthy political system, in order to have America as we know America, God has to play an important role in our civil discourse.”  "I think it's time that you talk openly about God,” said Fr. Orsi. “Openly, because that's what people's hearts are and people know what's right when they hear the truth.”  He continued, "Where do we find the truth? Where's our nation rooted? In God, but God in the Bible, in the Judeo Christian tradition. That's where God is found and that's where we learn how to live as good human beings.”  “I want to tell you to speak openly about our rights given to us by God,” said Fr. Orsi. “Tell your pastors that you want to hear the truth. Because it's only the truth that will set you free.”  This story was first reported by LifeSiteNews.com.


cnsnews--2019-10-14--AG Barr: ‘New Secular Religion’ Inverts Christian Morality, Employs ‘Inquisitions and Excommunicatio

AG Barr: ‘New Secular Religion’ Inverts Christian Morality, Employs ‘Inquisitions and Excommunication’

Secularism has become a religion based on freedom from personal responsibility, salvation attained by political activism and severe punishment of disobedience, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr warned Friday in a speech at Notre Dame’s law school.  While the new secular religion has inverted basic Christian morality, it has adopted practices such as inquisitions and excommunication to enforce its doctrine, Barr said:  “One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has, itself, become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It has taken on all the trappings of religion – including inquisitions and excommunication. “Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake: social, educational and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.”  A key precept of the secularist religion is that the government is responsible for protecting people from suffering the consequences of personal misconduct and irresponsibility, Barr said:  “Today, in the face of all the increasing pathologies, instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have cast The State in the role of the Alleviator of Bad Consequences. We call on The State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.”  The secularist government attempts to alleviate bad consequences by advancing abortion, enabling drug use and assuming the roles of parent and spouse, Barr said. And, while promising unlimited freedom, the end result of the secularist religion is one of servitude, he warned:  “So, the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion. “The solution to the breakdown of the family is for The State to set itself up as an ersatz husband for the single mother and an ersatz father for the children. The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage. “And, while we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them. “We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on whom we depend.” “Interestingly, this idea of The State as the Alleviator of Bad Consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society. It can be called the System of Macro-Morality. And, in some ways, it is an inversion of Christian morality. “Christianity teaches a Micro-Morality: we transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation. The new secular religion teaches Macro-Morality. Once morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather their commitment to political causes and collective action to address various social problems. “This system allows us not to worry so much about the strictures on our own private lives, because we can find salvation on the picket line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by participating in demonstrations on this cause or on that.”


dailymail--2019-08-14--SARAH VINE Status and power can make women lose their morals too

SARAH VINE: Status and power can make women lose their morals, too

Nasty business, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. It’s not just the names involved, from Prince Andrew to Donald Trump, that conspire to paint a picture of a sleazy, self-entitled elite utterly convinced of its own invulnerability.  It’s also the fact that it feeds into other recent disgraces involving sex and power — not least, of course, Harvey Weinstein — and the general perception of a world replete with predatory males.  Wherever men have money and status, it seems, vulnerable young women end up being at best exploited, at worst abused.  But — vile as the accusations levelled at Epstein and Weinstein are — it is perhaps worth remembering that women are also capable of abuses of power. If the allegations against Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell hold any truth, she is just as tainted as any of the men cited.  But it’s not Maxwell I’m interested in here. This week, male model Josh Kloss accused singer Katy Perry of sexual harassment during a night out almost a decade ago, after he played a starring role as her love interest in the video for her hit Teenage Dream.  According to Kloss, Perry pulled at his trousers and underwear to expose his nether regions to a group of people at a mutual friend’s birthday party.  He says he was left feeling ‘pathetic and embarrassed’. And in echoes of the experiences young female victims recount, he tells how not only was he paid a pittance for his part in the success of that video — just £540 —but also how he was manipulated and ‘lorded over’ by Perry’s team.  Any man behaving in an equivalent way towards a woman would, quite rightly, attract a ton of criticism. Repulsively, Donald Trump once said it was OK to ‘grab them by the p***y’. If Kloss’s story is true, and Perry has not commented on it, then what she did was almost as demeaning.  Explaining his decision to speak out, Kloss wrote: ‘I just say this now because our culture is set on proving men of power are perverse. But females with power are just as disgusting.’  He has a point. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of whether you’re a sexy young pop star or a paunchy movie producer.  It’s not gender that defines a sexual predator; it’s status, power and money — and the inequality between those who have it and those who don’t. Put simply, if you’re rich and famous it’s all too easy to think you can do what you want — regardless of the consequences.  Hence the alleged behaviour of Katy Perry. Hence, on a much lesser scale, the way billionaire Philip Green’s daughter Chloe segues from hunk to disposable hunk as she sails the Med aboard (one of) her father’s yachts. And hence the bizarre conduct of pop star Miley Cyrus, whose brief marriage has been tossed aside like yesterday’s Deliveroo in favour of snogs with another man’s ex-wife.  If a man behaved like these women, he’d be accused of sleazy moral bankruptcy. But because they are women — rich, famous, beautiful woman at that — they get away with it. In fact, some consider their actions ‘empowering’.  No doubt Katy Perry’s people will dismiss Josh Kloss’s accusations as the embittered ravings of a gold-digger — just as countless women in his position have been dismissed.  But it’s a salutary reminder that, as women, we cannot have it both ways.  We can’t let the strength and passion of the #MeToo movement blind us to our weaknesses. Women are just as capable as men of behaving like cads; it’s just that men traditionally held all the power, so had a head start. As that changes, we’ll find ourselves subject to the same temptations. We must do better.  Once, hot July weather causing a shortage of cauliflowers would never have made the national news. But this humble vegetable has been elevated by veganism from side-dish to main courses of ‘steak’ or cauliflower ‘rice’. Now, trendy restaurants face paying up to £3 per cauliflower wholesale.  Still, as they say: where there’s muck there’s brassicas.  Lauren Laverne, presenter of Desert Island Discs in the absence of Kirsty Young, has been criticised for her less-than-incisive interview style, with one critic accusing her of being one of ‘the worst appointments Radio 4 has made’.  I tend to agree — not because I don’t like Laverne, but because I don’t think her talents are especially suited to that slot.  She’s a DJ and presenter, not a journalist — and the two are quite different things. If anyone’s to blame it’s the suits at the BBC, who seem to be pursuing a policy of systematically removing anyone liable to ruffle feathers or speak truth to power (Andrew Neil, John Humphrys, Jeremy Paxman, David Dimbleby), replacing them instead with well-meaning but fundamentally toothless individuals such as Lauren Laverne.  One of the rare exceptions to this rule is Emma Barnett, who, as one of the new all-female line-up on Newsnight, is carving out something of a reputation for herself. Maybe she’s the one who should be spinning those discs.  I feel for those menopausal women worried that a No Deal Brexit will result in further shortages of HRT drugs. But I can offer some reassurance: no man is more familiar with the agonies of the mid-life female condition than my husband, or more acutely aware of the consequences of skipping medication. Lucky, then, that he happens to be in charge of No Deal planning . . .  If Caroline Lucas got her wish for an all-female, all-Guardian-reading Cabinet, there wouldn’t be many laughs. Armed Forces minister Johnny Mercer, retweeted a comment by a Tory researcher: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever met a straight woman who doesn’t fancy @JohnnyMercerUK.’  Mercer replied: ‘Me neither’ and ‘tagged’ Marina Hyde, the Guardian columnist, with whom he has a feud.  Quick as a flash, #metoo campaigner Kate Maltby tweeted: ‘Female journalist criticises male politician. Politician takes to insinuating it’s all because she’s got a crush on him.’  The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps — who took delivery of a brand-new Tesla this week — has doubled the funding for electric car chargers, promising an extra £2.5 million to help encourage drivers to switch. All to the environmental good, of course.  But there’s just one thing: after last week’s nationwide blackout, has anyone put any serious thought into how the National Grid will cope, if and when the entire nation plugs in all these shiny new cars? Time to stock up on candles?  I know we’re not supposed to criticise the Saintly Sussexes, but the photo of the Duchess’s hands cradling an elephant’s trunk is just too much. There’s cheesy — and there’s past-its-sell-by-date Camembert. We get the message, guys: you care. Now please can we just see some pictures of that son of yours — the one whose nursery we all chipped in for?  This week the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) launched a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of using toy inflatables at the seaside.  These giant plastic unicorns/avocados/flamingos are ubiquitous these days, thanks to their Instagram appeal. But the truth is that however cool they may look poolside, they are no match for wind, waves and currents in open water.  I know this because I once had to rescue my daughter from one in Greece. The sea could not have been calmer or the weather clearer — yet in the time it took me to reapply my suncream, she had drifted practically half way to Turkey.  So beware: they really are lethal.  Best news of the week: Victoria’s Secret has cancelled its notorious annual underwear show, in which so-called ‘angels’ such as Bella Hadid (below) model microscopic bits of overpriced polyester.  Don’t get me wrong — I have no problem with sexy underwear for grown-ups. It’s just that VS appears to target a very young market, and has, in no small part, contributed to the early sexualisation of young girls via its ruthless and highly successful marketing campaigns.  Mothers of impressionable teenage girls up and down the land will rejoice at the news this tack-fest has finally had its day.


drudgereport--2019-01-06--Journalists writers forced to sign morality clauses

Journalists, writers forced to sign morality clauses...

In 2017, Simon & Schuster canceled a book by the professional provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos after he gave an interview in which he appeared to condone pedophilia. His contract reportedly did not include a morality clause, and he sued, though he later dropped the suit. If a morality clause did lead to a book’s cancellation, we probably wouldn’t know it, according to Devereux Chatillon, a partner in the media and intellectual property law firm Chatillon Weiss who has represented both The New Yorker and writers. “It wouldn’t be public unless somebody sued over it,” she said. And even then, the lawsuit probably wouldn’t come to light.  Morality clauses may be relatively new to mainstream publishing, but they have a long history. The entertainment industry started drafting them in 1921, when the silent-movie star Fatty Arbuckle, who had just signed a then-astonishing $1 million contract with Paramount Pictures, was accused of the rape and manslaughter of a girl at a party. Mr. Arbuckle was acquitted after two mistrials , but by then the public had soured on him, and the studios wanted out.  Today the clauses are widespread in sports, television and advertising. Religious publishers have used them for at least 15 years, which seems fair enough. You can’t condemn a Christian publisher that cancels publication of a book called “The Ridiculously Good Marriage” after the author is accused of having sexually assaulted an underage girl when he was a youth pastor. (He apologized for a “sexual incident.”) Children’s publishers have been including the clauses for a decade or more, and they, too, have a case. It would be challenging to sell a children’s book written by a pedophile.  Maybe you don’t find morality clauses alarming under any circumstances. “If what you’re selling me is your reputation, if that’s what I’m paying you for, then I should not have to pay you” if your reputation tanks, said Rick Kurnit, a partner in Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, a firm specializing in art and entertainment law.  Maybe you’re asking: Why should anyone get away with being a racist or sexist jerk? What gives Mr. Alexie, accused of hitting on women who saw him as a mentor, and Mr. Díaz, accused of forcibly kissing someone, the right to have their books published? Or even: Why should opinion writers be allowed to gratuitously insult duly elected officials? If a loudmouth suffers from a backlash, this reasoning goes, he probably deserves it.  The problem with letting publishers back out of contracts with noncelebrity, nonreligious, non-children’s book authors on the grounds of immorality is that immorality is a slippery concept. Publishers have little incentive to clarify what they mean by it, and the public is fickle in what it takes umbrage at.  In 1947, the concern was Communism, and morality clauses gave studios a way to blacklist the Hollywood 10, a group of directors and screenwriters who denounced the House Un-American Activities Committee as illegitimate and refused to say whether they’d ever been Communists. All 10 went to jail, and all but one, who decided to cooperate with the committee, became unemployable until the 1960s, though some continued to write under pseudonyms.


drudgereport--2019-01-22--Existence of Billionaires Immoral

Existence of Billionaires 'Immoral'...

It’s “immoral” how America’s economic system “allows billionaires to exist,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said Monday at a Martin Luther King forum in New York City.  Here’s an excerpt from her interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates:  COATES: “I hate to personalize this, but do you think it is immoral for individuals to, for instance — do we live in a moral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome and and of itself?”  It’s not, and I think it is important to say that — I don’t think that necessarily means that all billionaires are immoral. It is not to say that someone like Bill Gates,for example, or Warren Buffett are immoral people. I do not believe that.”  COATES: “Like, he kicks his dog, stuff like that.”  OCASIO-CORTEZ: “Yeah, I don’t — I’m not saying that, but I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.  And I think it’s wrong that — I think that it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country does not make a living great wage. I think it’s wrong that you can work 100 hours and not feed your kids. I think it’s wrong that corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid, they can get paid by the Government essentially, experience a wealth transfer from the public for paying people less than a minimum wage.”


drudgereport--2019-11-06--Judge strikes down rule allowing clinicians to deny abortions for moral, religious reasons...

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.  A federal judge in New York on Wednesday struck down a new Trump administration rule that would have allowed health care clinicians to refuse to provide abortions for moral or religious reasons.  U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York rejected the federal rule after women's groups, health organizations and multiple states sued the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing the exemptions were unconstitutional.  Engelmayer ruled that the so-called conscience rule was too coercive, allowing HHS to withhold billions in federal funding unless health care providers complied.  "Wherever the outermost line where persuasion gives way to coercion lies, the threat to pull all HHS funding here crosses it," Engelmayer wrote in a 147-page decision, according to Reuters. He added that the rule was "arbitrary and capricious."  The ruling came in three consolidated lawsuits, according to The Associated Press. One consisted of 19 states, the District of Columbia and three local governments.  "The refusal of care rule was an unlawful attempt to allow health care providers to openly discriminate and refuse to provide necessary health care to patients based on providers’ ‘religious beliefs or moral objections,’" New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit for the states, said. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to protect access to health care and protect the rights of all individuals.”  The Trump administration rule, which would have taken effect Nov. 22, would have allowed providers and health care organizations to opt out of performing abortions and other services if the clinicians objected to them on moral or religious grounds.  Opponents argued the rule posed a threat not just to women seeking abortions but also to LGBTQ patients because providers could argue that treating them was against their personal beliefs.  “Today’s decision is an important victory against the Trump administration’s cruel and unlawful attempts to roll back critical patient protections,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney with the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs. “Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but religious beliefs do not include a license to discriminate, to deny essential care, or to cause harm to others.”  Supporters of the rule said the judge's ruling forced providers to perform procedures against their wills.  “This decision leaves health care professionals across America vulnerable to being forced to perform, facilitate or refer for procedures that violate their conscience," said Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, the largest legal organization in the U.S. dedicated to protecting religious liberty. "The Trump administration’s HHS protections would ensure that health care professionals are free to work consistent with their religious beliefs while providing the best care to their patients.”


fivethirtyeight--2019-03-27--Political Confessional I Think Its Immoral To Have Children Especially More Than One

Political Confessional: ‘I Think It’s Immoral To Have Children, Especially More Than One’

Welcome to Political Confessional, a column about the views that Americans are scared to share with their friends and neighbors. If you have a political belief that you’re willing to share with us, fill out this form — we might get in touch.  First up, Emily, a 28-year-old white woman who lives in Spokane, Washington, and works in the hospitality industry. When Emily first got in touch she wrote, “I think it’s immoral to have children, especially more than one (mostly because of climate change).”  This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.  Clare Malone: How did you come to the belief that having children was immoral?  Emily: Basically, I’ve never really wanted kids of my own, but I come from a pretty large family.  I’m also very, very interested in the sciences. I had a general sense of anxiety about climate change. I canvassed with a group, and I found all the groups I could — Physicians for Social Responsibility, and then some groups on Reddit. There’s a group on a subreddit of people who were very willing to share that they felt like having kids was one of the worst things.  I would still say we have a biological imperative to reproduce, so I don’t hold it against people that they want to have kids. I think politically in the last few years I’ve fallen more toward, like, China had a one-child policy. That’s a political view I could get behind. I understand people’s desires but I would say over the last four or five years as my friends have started having kids, I more and more think, ‘Why are you doing this?’  Clare Malone: So you would adopt and raise a kid, but you think having a biological child is immoral?  Emily: In some ways I really do. We have physical proof that we cause a lot of harm to the planet, and I think the statistics show an imperative to reduce the footprint of our population, which has grown so fast. I think that having children can be immoral for a lot of reasons. I think a lot of people aren’t ready or fit to have kids. And also people who I talk to who want to have kids, they don’t have a good reason. I’d also consider myself a nihilist. I don’t think there’s a moral imperative to have children.  Clare Malone: Why do you think you’re a nihilist?  Emily: I just see less and less purpose to why we do what we do. And I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a strict nihilist. All I see these days is that we’re just causing a lot of destruction. And there are people who are concerned about it, there are plenty of good people. But in terms of, what is our purpose here? It seems to be a very destructive one at this time.  Clare Malone: Do you see any good in the world?  Emily: Oh, absolutely. Pursuing medicine, I’ve been volunteering in an ER, and oh my god, the nurses there are the most incredible people I’ve met. I meet great people every day. In general, the average person is more good than bad. I don’t believe in an inherent badness in people. But we just live in a society where people are pushed to be greedy, and I think greed pushes us to do what we do, and we’re having a negative impact.  Clare Malone: Who have you shared this no-biological-children opinion with?  Emily: I do a podcast with some friends and we talked about having kids at one point. I share it as a personal belief, I wouldn’t share it with anyone as a political belief, because it’s got a lot of holes in it. The only country I’ve heard of that ever practiced something like this was China with the one-child policy. I know it had some extremely detrimental effects, like people getting rid of their female children.  Clare Malone: What do you think it is about not wanting to give birth? Is it something you’re afraid of? Is it just the climate change threat?  Emily: Climate change is a huge piece of it. We also have a pretty bad history of severe depression in my family, which makes a lot of us not want to pass on our genes. And the idea of being female in a world where women have kids and then they drop out of the workforce or they make less money — women are treated differently once they have kids. Up until then, you have all the same opportunities that any man would. Once you have kids, you fit into a different category.  Clare Malone: Don’t you feel like you’ll be treated differently if you decide not to have kids, though?  Emily: Even telling people you don’t want kids, they treat you a certain way. I’ve talked to people where I mention not wanting to have kids and a guy said, ‘That’s very selfish of you.’ And I was like, ‘I don’t understand why it’s not selfish for you to have children.’  Clare Malone: How would you identify yourself politically?  Emily: Extremely liberal. I’m registered as a Democrat so I can caucus. I wouldn’t consider myself a Democrat, though. I don’t agree with a lot of the party stances. The whole liberal elite thing, I actually get where people are coming from with that.  Clare Malone: If you shared this belief with other extremely liberal people, how do you think they’d respond?  Emily: I fall into the millennial generation, and I think a lot of people I’ve talked to in this generation feel the same way. I don’t think I’d get a lot of support from people thinking that it’s a solution for more or less everyone. I think there’s a lot of reasons to limit the number of kids people are allowed to have if they’re clearly incapable of being a parent. But I think that’s an extremely unpopular opinion. I think I’d get a lot of negative feedback if I shared that with people.  Clare Malone: Do you think people’s responses have to do with social class? Would a well-educated professional have a less positive reaction to your ‘no biological kids’ stance?  Emily: Yes, I do. I think a lot of people who have the financial capability and less of the worry think that having kids is great.  Clare Malone: How would you describe your social class growing up?  Emily: Middle class. My mom came from a poverty-line background so she raised us as if we were very low middle class and then I filled out the FAFSA and found that wasn’t the case!  Clare Malone: What about your friend group now?  Emily: My boyfriend is from a middle-class family. I’m from a very small town, and all of my friends are from small towns, but we ended up in Spokane. A lot of them came from maybe barely fitting into the middle class.  Clare Malone: You said some of your thinking about all this started when your friends started having kids. Can you walk me through your mindset back then?  Emily: I used to work at a diner in this extremely small town and I was still religious at that point, and I got this girl hired because we were in bible study together. She started having kids at like 19 and she’s having her fourth at age 26. She’s worked on and off while having kids, but her husband hasn’t ever had a super stable job; both of them are high school educated. She was also valedictorian of her school. And I’m like, ‘Why wouldn’t you go to college?’ That really frustrated me. My best friend chose not to go to college. She was also valedictorian, also from the same small town, also religious. None of them ever pursued their educations, they all depend on their husbands for income, even though, this first friend, I hate to say this, but she’s so much smarter than her husband. I hate to say that because I don’t want to be a snob about people’s intelligence. But she could support the whole family, but she’s just at home having kids. To me, that just seems like a waste.  Clare Malone: Do children hold you back from climbing the socioeconomic ladder?  Clare Malone: Do you like kids?  Clare Malone: We’re probably not going to have a one-child policy in America. What’s the next reasonable policy to get to your goal of population control?  Emily: Universal reproductive health care. I think most women, when given the option, would choose birth control until they’re in a better place to have kids.  Clare Malone: Do you stigmatize people with big families?  Emily: I’m sure if you asked someone else they might have a different answer — I feel I only do that when they’re instilling really obnoxious beliefs. I come from a large family. I actually kind of love large families, but I think I stigmatize people from big families who are not super well educated and from rural conservative Christian towns.  Want to tell us about a belief that you’re scared to share with your friends and neighbors? Fill out this form!


foxnews--2019-02-28--Ben Carson warns morality of our society at stake in abortion debate

Ben Carson warns 'morality of our society' at stake in abortion debate

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Ben Carson, in an interview with Fox News on the sidelines of the Conservative Political Action Conference, warned Thursday that the "morality of our society" is at stake in the abortion debate that has surged back onto the floors of state legislatures and Congress.  Speaking to Fox News moments after addressing the conservative gathering, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development said the issue should be at the forefront as the 2020 presidential race starts to take shape.  “I think it’s a critical issue because we are talking about the morality of our society,” Dr. Carson told Fox News.  FOR THE BEST CPAC MOMENTS, GO TO FOX NATION  “Are we going off the deep-end here or are we still loving and compassionate people?”  Asked what he would tell Democrats who voted to block a Republican bill that threatened prison time for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, Carson said: “I would say please stop and spend a little time educating yourself about what life is all about, and about when babies can feel and when they can respond to external stimulation.”  BEN SASSE: CUOMO 'PERVERTED' COLOR PINK BY LINKING IT TO ABORTION, NOT BREAST CANCER  Carson’s comments come after the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act stalled amid Democratic opposition in Congress. It would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."  The bill, which would exempt the mother from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital." It prescribed a possible term of imprisonment of up to five years for violations, not including penalties for first-degree murder that could have applied.  ABORTION SURVIVOR: SENATE DEMS ARE 'WILLING TO SACRIFICE LIVES LIKE MINE TO KEEP ABORTION-ON-DEMAND'  All Democratic 2020 presidential candidates in the Senate opposed the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.  Opponents called the bill unnecessary, considering it's already a crime to kill a newborn, and described it as an "attack" on women's health.  In response, President Trump tweeted: "This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress."  CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP  The vote came in the wake of New York easing restrictions on late-term abortions, as several other states including Illinois consider similar measures.


freedombunker--2019-01-28--Are Billionaires Immoral Democrats Are Staking Out Aggressive Anti-Wealth Platforms Ahead of 2020

Are Billionaires Immoral? Democrats Are Staking Out Aggressive Anti-Wealth Platforms Ahead of 2020: New at Reason

Coming soon to a Democratic Party presidential debate: the question, "Is it morally appropriate for anyone to be a billionaire?"  A version of the query was raised earlier this month by the author Ta-Nehisi Coates. He was interviewing a new Democratic congresswoman from New York, the self-described socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, about, among other things, her plan to raise top marginal income tax rates as high as 70%.  Talking about the tax rate, which would nearly double the current top federal marginal rate of 37%, Ocasio-Cortez replied, "It's an economic question but it's also a moral question....It's saying, where do we draw the line in excess? Maybe this idea of idealizing this outcome, of maybe one day you too can be a billionaire and own more than millions of families combined, is not an aspirational or good thing."  Coates followed up: "I hate to personalize this, but do you think it is moral for individuals to, for instance—do we live in a moral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome?"  The answer from the congresswoman was emphatic and came without any hesitation. "No, it's not. It's not. It's not. And I think it's important to say that."  The best moral defense of billionaires requires putting the socialists on the defensive by answering the billionaire question with some other questions. Would it be moral for politicians in Washington to change the laws so that becoming a billionaire in America would be impossible, no matter how much value an entrepreneur creates for customers and shareholders and society as a result of the entrepreneur's hard work, genius, and risk-raking? What, Ira Stoll asks, would that proposed alternative system do to the American dream and to its traditions of strong property rights?


freedombunker--2019-08-06--Culture Temporarily Embraces Concept Of Moral Absolutism

U.S—In the wake of more senseless acts of violence, people of the U.S. have decided to set aside their commonly held adherence to moral relativism to embrace cold, hard, black and white moral absolutes. "These recent tragedies are pure evil, through and through," said one citizen. "Absolute evil."  The post Culture Temporarily Embraces Concept Of Moral Absolutism appeared first on The Babylon Bee.


lifesitenews--2019-12-17--On sexual morality, Catholics must stop defending and start attacking

December 16, 2019 (CatholicCulture.org) — "Catholicism, by which I mean real Catholicism, is a fighting faith," writes David Carlin for The Catholic Thing. To which I would add that Catholicism is, or should be, an offensive rather than a defensive force. As followers of Christ we are not charged with preserving our own position. The Great Commission requires us to move always forward, capturing new ground (or rather more souls). Church history shows that when the Church is not actively engaged in the work of evangelization — when we are preoccupied by the effort to ward off threats, as unfortunately we are today — the faith suffers. We are, as a faith, much better at offense than defense.  Nevertheless I admire Carlin's essay, "How Not to Defend a Castle," because he correctly identifies the specific challenge that the Church confronts today. We are not, as a rule, fighting against Christological heresies. When a new acquaintance tells you that he was raised as a Catholic but drifted away, because "I had some troubles with what the Church teaches," you don't immediately suspect that he is a monophysite. No, the odds are overwhelming that he could not reconcile himself to one or more of the Church's teachings on sexual morality.  That's undoubtedly where the fight is fiercest, Carlin observes. And if you are a competent general, you reinforce your troops at the point of the sharpest attack. You certainly don't ignore that sector, in the vague hope that the enemy will go away. "And yet," writes Carlin, "that's the option that the Catholic Church in the United States has chosen in recent decades." A strained, embarrassed silence on questions of sexual morality prevailed, even as Church leaders grab headlines by speaking out on political issues.  Since I wholeheartedly agree with Carlin's basic point — even though I am uneasy with the image of defending a castle — let me extend the military metaphor a bit further, to show that ultimately we have the same strategy in mind. If the western wall of the castle is being overrun, the best response might be to turn the big guns in that direction, to ward off the invaders until the wall can be rebuilt. In other words, to go on the offensive.  We are losing the battle on sexual morality because we, as a Church, too often are silent on those issues. When we do speak out, too often we are apologetic. Why? Hasn't the wisdom of Christian morality been proven, in the painful results of the sexual revolution? Shouldn't the proponents of secular hedonism be the ones apologizing, for the grave damage that has been done to so many thousands of lives, so many thousands of souls?  Missionaries throughout history have presented the faith as a way to escape misery. Today we should be offering an alternative to the misery of broken homes and families, of emotional and sexual dysfunction. It isn't really a matter of defending our fort, after all. It's a question of helping oppressed people overthrow the tyranny of a perverse master.


liveaction--2019-01-21--Pro-abortion leader hoped abortion would end morality and the nuclear family

Pro-abortion leader hoped abortion would end ‘morality’ and ‘the nuclear family’

The “father of the abortion movement,” Larry Lader, was heavily influenced by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, about whom he wrote a biography. Planned Parenthood was also steeped in eugenics from its beginning, and boasted a list of eugenics proponents as its board members. Although the two shared a eugenics ideology, Lader would eventually part ways with Sanger over abortion. But it was perhaps Sanger’s warped eugenic ideology that motivated Lader to manipulate the 1960s women’s movement to push for abortion legalization.  “Larry never seemed to be interested in the rest of the women’s movement, the equal rights amendment, child care and so forth,” Sey Chassler, a consulting editor at Parade magazine, recalled to the LA Times in 1995. But on abortion, “he is absolutely single-minded. He just keeps going forward on it.”  In 1966, Lader authored the book “Abortion” on the heels of the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut, granting a so-called right to privacy. “If I had written it five years earlier, it would have sunk like a stone,” he admitted.  Lader stressed in the book, “We will only defeat ourselves by producing an endless cycle of unwanted children. Those born in slums, for example, denied even the smallest share of education and economic opportunity, have little chance of realizing their full potential as citizens.” He goes on to quote Garrett Hardin, a leading eugenic ecologist, whose views influenced debates on abortion, immigration, foreign aid, overpopulation, and other provocative issues.  Hardin, a member of the American Eugenics Society, who was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award in 1980, once called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. He advocated coercive birth control, stating that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society.  “When unwanted children become parents,” Lader quotes Hardin in “Abortion,” “they are more likely than others to be poor parents themselves and breed another generation of unwanted children. This is a vicious cycle if there ever was one. It is ruinous to the social system.”  “Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups,” Lader went on to state, then using Planned Parenthood’s iconic slogan, “every child a wanted child,” coined by eugenicist Frederick Henry Osborn, a founding member and president of the American Eugenics Society (AES) who also signed Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood,” published in her review in April 1938.  READ: Planned Parenthood’s ties to eugenics go far beyond Margaret Sanger  “As long as a reasonable chance of contraceptive failure persists, however, abortion must be included as part of birth control to insure every child’s becoming a wanted child,” Lader wrote. He then turned from a eugenics emphasis to couching abortion as liberating for women, calling it, “the final freedom,” and quoting Sanger as saying, “No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”  “The complete legalization of abortion is the one just and inevitable answer to the quest for feminine freedom,” Lader stated. “All other solutions are compromises.”  Lader saw abortion as liberating for women, sexually. But in reality, abortion was a man’s dream and the last barrier keeping him from free sex without consequences… and has shifted the responsibility of pregnancy to the woman alone.  “The rapid advance of legalized abortion in turn gave the feminist movement an explosive boost,” Lader wrote in “Abortion II,” adding, “Abortion provided the prime weapon against sexism and the ‘biological imperative’ – the prison of unwanted childbearing that had chained most women to the role of housekeepers, nurses, and cooks under male dominance. Once sex had been detached from pregnancy, Women’s Liberation could construct its own ethics on the ash-heap of puritan morality.”  Lader then suggested that the “feminist revolt” was the “rebirth of sex… an explosion of sexuality” while also pointing out that a recent study had shown that “nearly half of all unmarried women have had sexual intercourse by the age of nineteen.” Of course, Lader also observed from that Commission on Population Growth study that, “more Blacks than Whites had intercourse in each age group.”  Lader described the feminist demands as “a complete restructuring of sexual morality,” claiming that the “most radical feminist wants an even more sweeping revolt – the end of the nuclear family itself.” He claimed the feminist had replaced the security of a “husband’s salary” for the “biological security of abortion.”


liveaction--2019-02-14--Professor and late-term abortionist to debate whether abortion is a moral wrong

Professor and late-term abortionist to debate whether abortion is a ‘moral wrong’

On Thursday, February 21, 2019, a debate will take place between a professor of criminology and an abortionist on the campus of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. The Warwick Ballroom will seat 600 people on this secular campus, and Dr. Mike Adams, a professor and popular columnist and author, believes that the room will be filled to hear him debate Dr. Willie Parker, a late-term abortionist who claims to be a Christian.  Parker, infamous for likening himself to great historical figures such as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesus Christ, is a combination of abortionist and public relations rep, frequently making the rounds on TV as an apparent spokesperson for the abortion industry. What makes Parker even more chilling to some is the soft and nonchalant way he discusses abortion — though he doesn’t typically describe the process. And in the past, Parker has claimed that seeing aborted baby body parts doesn’t bother him, as he’s “not deluded about what this whole process is.”  READ: There’s no way to make late-term abortion seem better, media. Just stop.  According to Dr. Mike Adams, Parker “has an absolutely incoherent worldview.” His intent in the debate, he told Live Action News, will be to “get to the heart of what [Parker] does” for a living. “I will be calm but quite graphic in describing what he does,” says Adams, noting that Parker claims to abort children up to 25 weeks of pregnancy — beyond ‘viability.’ What Adams plans to put forth in the debate should be very relevant to the current “late-term abortion” discussions happening in the media.  The debate is being sponsored by Summit Ministries and Ratio Christi, a campus apologetics group, and will be moderated by a representative from Ratio Christi. The entire debate, including a question and answer session, is expected to last around two hours or so, and will consist of 20-minute presentations by Dr. Adams and Dr. Parker, a 10-minute rebuttal for each, a cross-examination period for each, and lastly, the Q&A session. The debate will be recorded for future viewing. (Sign up to watch the debate Live Stream here.)  Dr. Adams told Live Action News that he expects that Parker will, as he has done quite often, “play the race card, he’ll play the attacking women card….”  “He’ll be actually the first [abortionist I’ve debated],” Adams said. But Adams has had one other abortion debate. He would have done more, but said he’s “had about five or six people drop out in the research process…. I think they figured out that I can be aggressive in my columns, but… as a speaker and debater I’m not as aggressive at all. I actually have a very different approach. So I’ve had numerous people drop out.”  In Parker’s book, said Adams, he contradicts himself many times. Adams has done a great deal of research on Parker’s views, and told Live Action News that the abortionist frequently suggests that there is a difference between personhood and humanity. “He loves to say that ‘baby’ is an inflammatory term, and [claims] ‘I’ve never killed a baby.'” But Adams intends to prove otherwise.  “I heard an interview of his and I decided to read his book,” said Adams. “It’s a very strong moral obligation that I’ve got to respond” to Parker’s claims that abortion is moral — even Christian. “When Jesus asked the question, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ my answer, of course, is ‘the unborn is my neighbor,’ and so I can’t be passive in light of what [Parker] has said.”  READ: Abortion is violent and the photos are real, says late-term abortionist  Adams hopes that a good number of the student population at UNCW will attend, but there’s no guarantee. “They’re ripping down posters left and right… the Left is, and they’re defacing them and so forth, but the good news is, it is absolutely going to be preserved on tape, and so in that sense, we can hopefully reach a lot more people. I’m sure we will,” he said.  Adams told Live Action News, “[Parker’s] book is called ‘Life’s Work,’ and I want people to walk out knowing that my life’s work is different from his. We both have doctorates but I use my doctor of philosophy to dismember arguments; he uses his doctor of medicine to actually dismember human beings.”  Sign up to watch the debate Live Stream here.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


liveaction--2019-05-08--Abortion counselor claims parenting and abortion are morally equivalent

A video presented by abortion counselor Alissa Perrucci, Phd, MPH, who describes herself as “shepherding the counseling revolution,” presents as normal the idea that there is no moral distinction between parenting a child and ending a child’s life in an abortion. The video, “Decision Counseling for Positive Pregnancy Test Results,” was uploaded as part of training modules from Innovating Education, a project of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Bixby trains abortion providers though its Ryan Residency Training Program.  Perrucci is a Counseling and Administrative Manager at the Women’s Options Center, an abortion facility within San Francisco General Hospital. She admitted to All-Options, “Our clinic is the safety net clinic for Northern and Central California, accepting Medi-Cal as full payment to 24 weeks….”  In her book, Perrucci claims that being an abortion counselor brings her joy, “when women are walking toward the exit after their abortions….”  In the video, Perrucci states that in the decision between abortion and parenting, one “pregnancy decision is not more moral than another.” Of the woman contemplating her choices, which include abortion, Perrucci says, “She is a good person making a moral decision about herself,” adding, “The patient has the answer for her dilemma.”  Perrucci goes on to suggest that abortion counselors should give “accurate information.”  But, she adds, “In this context – in helping people make pregnancy decisions – I want you to suspend that assumption that you have the answer and let the patient find that for herself.”  She tells her audience that in pregnancy counseling, abortion counselors should “take a step back from professional mode.”  “In this context, when guiding people through pregnancy decision making, you actually don’t have the answer. Nor are you obligated to find it out for the patient. Remember that she has the answer.”  Perrucci offers two examples (seen below) when delivering the news of “a positive pregnancy test result” to a pregnant client. Calling it a “closed ended question,” Perrucci draws the attention of her audience to the statement on the left, pointing out that using the term “baby” isn’t a good idea….  “The thing you want to look at and analyze is the use of the word keep and the use of the word baby. In this scenario, the counselor or the person delivering the pregnancy test result has decided to use the word baby, maybe without knowing if that’s how the patient refers to the pregnancy.” “…I want you to think a little more deeply about what it means to use the word keep and what that might imply in terms of the opposite.”  READ: Former Planned Parenthood worker: ‘We were told not to say baby’  When addressing the “Three pregnancy options: Abortion, Adoption, and Parenting,” the abortion counselor states, “We want to examine our language. So, we want to pay attention to – are we using the word – abortion? Or, are we finding different ways to say abortion?”  “Its not that you can’t use different words, a lot of people say termination, a lot of people say procedure, and I think it’s very interesting to pay attention to whether you’re avoiding saying certain words and what that communicates to our patients, and what that might be contributing to in terms of stigma on any particular option.”  What’s interesting is that Perrucci appears to avoid mentioning the baby when discussing the abortion option. She is okay bringing up the baby when discussing adoption, however: “Make an adoption plan or place the baby for adoption. Place the child for adoption.”  While Perrucci is concerned about “misinformation” surrounding abortion, her suggested description of abortion leaves much to be desired. She characterizes early abortion as “gentle suction” which “empties the uterus.”  Yet, at the same time, she says, “In your descriptions, it’s going to be really important that you define medical terms or any kind of terminology that the patient might not understand. So that you’re really ensuring comprehension.”  To recap: When discussing a “pregnancy” avoid terms like baby but be sure to “define medical terms” when discussing abortion… hmm….  In the video below, former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describes a first trimester aspiration abortion:  Those in the abortion industry actually patronize women by refusing to give them factual and straightforward information. Withholding accurate information about fetal development and what abortion really does, does nothing to help women make “moral decisions.” What it does is help the profitable abortion industry remain profitable.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


naturalnews--2019-10-31--America: The land of total moral depravity

(Natural News) Just the other day, a homosexual high school teacher in New Jersey was arrested for soliciting sex from one of his underage male students. That same day, it was announced that the Washington, D.C., City Council is pushing to legalize prostitution for underage youth. What do these two stories have in common? They both represent just another day in America in 2019.  It seems as though not a day goes by anymore when pre-pubescent children aren’t being openly exploited by LGBTQP perverts who are obsessed with destroying the innocence of kids by indoctrinating them into sexual deviancy. Whether it’s propagandizing children into thinking that they can be any gender they wish, or instructing them in the ways of anal sex, the most morally depraved freaks on planet Earth seem to hold every position of power in the United States these days – and they routinely use their platforms of undue influence to try to force your children into being transformed into their own corrupt and abominable image.  While this country is said to have once been a bastion of goodness and decency in the world – during his famous Farewell Address, the late President Ronald Reagan actually called the United States a shining city upon a hill, and a beacon of light that guides freedom-loving people everywhere – today it has become the land of absolute perversion and total moral depravity. Everywhere you look these days it’s “Pride” parades smothered in gay “rainbow” flags, pro-abortion marches led by loudmouthed feminists, and drag queen story hours that aim to “trans-ify” your children.  Choosing to bake cakes exclusively for normal couples is now considered to be “evil” and “bigoted” in today’s America, while dressing up an 11-year-old boy in whorish clothing and exploiting him for money on social media is “brave” and “tolerant.”  Being a Christian in America today means that you’re completely backwards and deserving of ridicule, while forcing a seven-year-old boy to transition into a “girl” with puberty blockers is seen as a “progressive” way to let kids “express themselves” without “hate.”  Everything is completely upside down, in other words, and white leftists are largely to blame. If they achieve their endgame, the entire American population will essentially be transformed into an androgynous mass of genderless, flesh-suited robots that do nothing but work 24/7, pay their taxes to fund socialism, and exist as good little globalist slaves – and nothing more beyond that.  Dear, America: If you refuse to take a stand against the globalists, then you can kiss your children’s futures goodbye  If you think this is a bit of an exaggeration, just take a look around you. Do you see men being men anymore? Do you see women being women anymore? Do you see children being children anymore? Do you see anyone not glued to their smartphones or computers anymore? The new age is bursting through the social strata with a vengeance, and apparently nobody cares because formidable resistance to this satanic agenda is almost entirely non-existent.  Sure, people are still voting and foolishly putting their faith in politicians to save them, even though none of these politicians, left or right, ever actually do anything of worth to stop the madness. Instead, most of them are actually facilitating its progression by pretending to oppose one another in this massive blue-versus-red psy-op known as American politics.  When was the last time a “civil servant” actually took an aggressive stand for what’s right? When was the last time a politician on either side of the aisle said enough is enough to the continued onslaught of LGBTQP insanity? As most Americans spend their time buried in their electronic devices, our nation continues to swirl the toilet as our children are destroyed and replaced by an endless stream of foreigners who aren’t at all interested in assimilating, but are rather here to take new ownership of this once-great country.  Even with Donald Trump at the helm, most Americans appear to be under the delusion that everything is going to be just fine in the end, and that they don’t have to lift a finger to actually save this Republic. The sad truth is that nothing could be further from the truth. If Americans really care about saving their country from this war from within, then they’re going to have to start making some sacrifices by joining the fight with the intent to actually win.  The dumbest Americans will continue to slap “Coexist” bumper stickers on their cars and pretend as though multiculturalism actually works, while patriots will hopefully wake up to the fact that this is not a time of peace. The future of our Republic hangs in the balances, and it may already be too late to save it – but should we not at least try to defend it?  The time is now to turn off your television, terminate your Netflix subscription, and suit up for battle. If you have children, it’s especially critical that you do what’s necessary to afford them a future in which they can exist in harmony with their natural biology, religious convictions, and unique individuality, all of which is under constant attack by an army of globalists that simply won’t stop until our nation is completely subverted and under their control. Are you really okay with this?  For more related news about the continued downfall of America, be sure to check out Tyranny.news.


newsbusters--2019-01-23--A System That Allows Billionaires is Immoral Says Ocasio-Cortez

‘A System That Allows Billionaires’ is Immoral, Says Ocasio-Cortez

Media sensation Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. says billionaires are not a “moral outcome” in society.  Far-left author and journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates interviewed Ocasio-Cortez on Jan. 21, and asked, “Do we live in a moral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome in and of itself?”  “No, it’s not. It’s not,” Ocasio-Cortez replied. Her denouncement of billionaires was part of remarks she made at the MLK Now 2019 event held at historic Riverside Church in Harlem. She qualified by saying she didn’t mean that all billionaires are “immoral people” — rather a system that allows people to become that wealthy is “wrong.”  Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic-socialist, added: “I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.” She later clarified on Twitter she meant hookworm, but did not amend her statements about people having billions of dollars.  The question came after she promoted her previous calls for higher marginal tax rates of 70 percent for the wealthiest, which liberal media outlets defended. She claimed that marginal tax rates are not just an “economic question,” but also a “moral question.”  Playing a class-warfare card, she asked "Are we comfortable with a society where someone can have a personal helipad while [New York City] is experiencing the highest rates of people experiencing homelessness since the Great Depression?" CNBC reported that was a reference to a proposed helipad for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos at the future New York headquarters.  “Should those things coexist at the same time?” she asked before saying that “a 70 percent marginal tax rate” is about answering “where do we draw the line in excess.”  During the same interview, Ocasio-Cortez also offered her perspective of the role of journalists in public policy. (Hint. It was not that they should remain objective and neutral.) Instead, she lumped them in with activists as one of the groups that helps move “public will” so that policymakers can change laws.  She described the role of elected officials as translating “public will into the actual law of the land.”  “But who shapes and who directs and who moves that public will are writers, journalists, activists and artists. And they shape the public will and bring it to a point where we can take it and translate it into policy,” Ocasio-Cortez declared.


newsbusters--2019-01-23--Bono at Davos Capitalism is Not Immoral Its Amoral

Bono at Davos: ‘Capitalism is Not Immoral — It’s Amoral’

U2 frontman Bono at least partly defended capitalism at the 2019 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.  His remarks came just days after outspoken Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. attacked the “system” and ranted against the coexistence of billionaires and poverty.  In contrast to her Democratic-socialist views that such coexistence isn’t a moral result, the liberal Bono credited capitalism with bringing many people out of poverty — but still claimed capitalism “requires our instruction” and called it a “wild beast.”  “We have to just ask ourselves deeper questions about where we are with the project called capitalism. Capitalism is not immoral — it’s amoral. It requires our instruction,” said Bono. “Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other ‘ism’. But it is a wild beast that, if not tamed, can chew up a lot of people along the way.”  He added that, “In fact, those people’s lives it has chewed up are pushing the politics in our homes towards populism.”  Bono, who is known for his activism and his music, was part of a World Economic Forum panel about funding efforts to eradicate global poverty, according to The Irish Times. He is co-founder of the anti-poverty advocacy group One campaign.  Although very liberal, Bono’s work in Africa led to a close, friendly relationship with former President George W. Bush. In 2011, Bono credited Bush with saving five million lives in Africa over eight years helping supply treatment to AIDS patients. In 2018, Bono also told Rolling Stone “I’ve grown very fond” of Bush.


prepareforchange--2019-04-13--40 Facts That Prove That Americas Moral Collapse Is Spinning Wildly Out Of Control

40 Facts That Prove That America’s Moral Collapse Is Spinning Wildly Out Of Control

Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Collapse And The Next Great Depression?  According to a brand new survey that was just conducted by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of all Americans are either “very worried” or “fairly worried” about America’s moral health.  Of course the truth is that we should all be deeply concerned, because we can see evidence of the cancerous moral decay that is eating away at the foundations of our society all around us.  In life, each one of us gets to make choices, and some of those choices can lead to very bad outcomes.  We all have old friends that “got on the wrong path”, and their lives ended up becoming cautionary tales.  Well, the same principle applies to nations as a whole.  America has been given very clear choices between good and evil, life and death, blessings and curses over and over again, and we have consistently made the wrong choices.  If we stay on this road, there is only one result that will be possible.  As long as we are drawing breath, there is always an opportunity to turn things around.  That is true for individuals, and it is also true for our entire nation.  But if we continue running toward evil, it is only a matter of time before exceedingly painful consequences overtake us.  The following are 40 facts that prove that America’s moral collapse is spinning wildly out of control…  #1 America has killed more than 60 million children since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.  The federal government endorses this activity by heavily funding the country’s leading abortion provider, and after that abortion provider harvests the organs of the dead children, the federal government also heavily funds the research that is conducted on those harvested organs.  #2 According to a Quinnipiac University poll from last year, 63 percent of all Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade in place.  #3 America is a global leader in sexual depravity.  If you doubt this, just check out what is going on in Cleveland at the end of this month.  #4 Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than they are from a car accident.  #5 In the city of Baltimore, approximately one out of every four babies is born as an opioid addict.  #6 Overdosing on drugs has now become the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50.  #8 The teen birth rate in the United States is higher “than in any other industrialized country in the world”.  #9 According to the CDC, approximately 110 million Americans have a sexually-transmitted disease right now.  #10 The CDC also tells us that there are approximately 20 million new sexually transmitted disease cases in the U.S. every single year.  #11 The number of married couples with children in the U.S. just reached a 56 year low.  #12 According to the United Nations Population Fund, 40 percent of all births in the U.S. now happen outside of marriage. But if you go back to 1970, that figure was sitting at just 10 percent.  #13 At this point, approximately one out of every three children in the United States lives in a home without a father.  #14 Approximately one-fourth of the entire global prison population is in the United States.  #15 By the time an American child reaches the age of 18, that child will have seen approximately 40,000 murders on television.  #16 According to a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, nearly 70 percent of all Americans are on at least one prescription drug.  An astounding 20 percent of all Americans are on at least five prescription drugs.  #17 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, doctors in the United States write more than 250 million prescriptions for antidepressants each year.  #18 Over half a million people are homeless in the United States right now, but more cities than ever are passing laws making it illegal to feed them.  #20 A different study found that one-third of all American teenagers haven’t read a single book in the past year.  #21 Americans are obsessed with material things and are willing to go deep into debt to get what they want.  At this point, 480 million credit cards are in circulation in this country. That number has risen by nearly 13 percent since 2015.  #22 37 million credit card accounts in the U.S. are “seriously delinquent” at this moment.  #23 According to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately two-thirds of all Americans in the 15 to 24-year-old age bracket have engaged in oral sex.  #24 It has been reported that one out of every four teen girls in the U.S. has at least one sexually transmitted disease.  #25 It has been estimated that 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to adult websites.  #26 According to the Pentagon, 71 percent of our young adults are ineligible to serve in the U.S. military because they are either too dumb, too fat or have a criminal background.  #27 The city of San Francisco handed out a total of 5.8 million free syringes to drug addicts in 2018.  #28 During one seven day stretch last summer, a total of 16,000 official complaints were submitted to the city of San Francisco about piles of human feces littering the streets.  #29 When you include unfunded liabilities, the true size of our national debt is 222 trillion dollars.  What we are doing to future generations of Americans is beyond criminal.  #30 The suicide rate in the United States is up 34 percent since the year 2000.  #31 Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for Americans from age 15 to age 24.  #32 We are literally destroying the planet that we have been given.  It is being projected that the total amount of plastic in the oceans of the world will exceed the total weight of all fish by the year 2050.  #34 The number of American babies killed by abortion each year is roughly equalto the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has ever been involved in combined.  #35 About one-third of all American women will have had an abortion by the age of 45.  #36 Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.  Every single day, more than 3,000 American babies are killed by abortion when you include all forms of abortion.  #37 One very shocking study found that 86 percent of all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.  #38 An average of more than 100 churches are dying in the United States every single week.  #39 Only about 27 percent of all U.S. Millennials currently attend church on a regular basis.  #40 The number of Americans with “no religion” has increased by 266 percentover the last three decades.  About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News. From there, his articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites. If you would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so. The more people that see this information the better, and we need to wake more people up while there is still time.  Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.