, an OB/GYN in Salt Lake City, Utah, said that when she performs certain abortions she cuts the vocal cord of the baby so "there's really no opportunity" for the child to scream. She also described herself as a "uterus ripper outer" because she performs hysterectomies.Public employees fighting to keep their identities secret in abortion body parts case
The case is Jane Does 1-10, et al v. David Daleiden, in which he as an investigative journalist is seeking information about the public employees working in a research lab at the university and what they’ve done, and abortion facility personnel.They all “want their involvement in research using aborted baby body parts to remain secret,” according to officials with the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden in this case.They “have gone to court to force heavy redactions to the public documents. However, that is contrary to the law, which says that those documents must be released because they detail their work procuring, processing, and transferring the organs and tissue of aborted babies in connection with the university’s large taxpayer-funded fetal tissue research program,” the organization explains.“Washington State’s Public Records Act requires full disclosure, but a lower court ordered the redactions, holding that the First Amendment required them. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, unanimously holding that the district court had not provided the facts and law sufficient to make a ‘clear showing’ that the U.S. Constitution requires the heavy censoring of these public records. The case returned to the district court and is now, again, before the federal appeals court,” the group explained.A ruling on the concealment demand is expected shortly, but the legal team said Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown called it a “very interesting case.”“She, along with Senior Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima and Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, heard Thomas More Society Special Counsel Peter Breen argue that, ‘This case has nothing to do with academic freedom or expression – the requested injunction in no way touches research.'”
The Democrats would rather see children die than build a wall.
By Daniel Greenfield
The dead children are not the victims of an overworked Border Patrol that has been deliberately starved of the resources to do its job, because its job would limit the ability of Democrats to steal elections. They are the victims of abusive parents or caretakers, who are willing to use the lives of their children as tickets to get inside the United States, not to escape persecution, but to double or triple their incomes.
The migrants are not refugees fleeing totalitarian regimes that are persecuting them for their beliefs. They are economic migrants who are willing to kill their children to earn more and get more free stuff. And they are every bit as guilty as the parents who leave their children to die in hot cars while they play slot machines. Any sane society would treat their murderous abuse of their children the same way.
Unfortunately we are not a sane society.
The flow of illegal migrants manufactures Democrat votes, not just through illegal voting, but through the far more pervasive problem of fake districts, boosted by illegal aliens and other non-citizens. The political machine that turned California into a Democrat one-party state where democracy is an alien concept, that has ravaged Virginia and has its gimlet eye on Texas, depends on illegal migration.
. . .