Friday, December 14, 2018

THE BABY BUTCHERS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD THREATEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE


ABORTION KILLS…. the innocent!
PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
America’s baby murdering factories…. Your tax dollars at work

“I Cut the Vocal Cord So The Baby Can't Scream.”

Dr. Leah Torres, 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.




Planned Parenthood Urges Holiday ‘Presents’ for Mike Pence



Vice President Mike Pence speaks at the Department of Homeland Security National Cybersecurity Summit in New York, Tuesday, July 31, 2018. DHS is creating a center aimed at guarding energy companies, banks and other industries against cyberattacks.
AP Photo/Susan Walsh
151
4:30

Abortion vendor Planned Parenthood, which considers Mike Pence to be among its most fervent enemies, has released a list of suggested holiday presents for the pro-life vice president.

During the holiday season, it can be hard to find the perfect gift for everyone on your list. But when it comes to shopping for @VP Mike Pence, we’ve got you covered. Here’s our roundup of the 10 best holiday .

110 people are talking about this
Among the items on the list is the ever-popular “donation to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in Pence’s Name.”
Donations to America’s largest abortion provider in Pence’s name have been trendy among abortion rights advocates since Pence was governor of Indiana. The practice, however, reached its peak in November 2017, when actress Mila Kunis told Conan O’Brien, while appearing on his talk show, she donates to Planned Parenthood in Pence’s name to protest his pro-life policies.
That announcement by Kunis, the Jim Beam global brand spokesperson, created a firestorm on Twitter when many of the social media platform’s users declared they would be boycotting Jim Beam products as a result of her decision.
Today @mike_pence, who said condoms are "too modern" to protect against STIs, is speaking at a World Day event at the White House. 🤦‍♀️

What's on his schedule tomorrow, a lecture on women's rights?

See Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana & Kentucky's other Tweets
“Condoms” are also on the list of recommended holiday gifts for Pence.
Planned Parenthood points to a BuzzFeed piece noting Pence once objected to former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s statement that young people should protect themselves from HIV/AIDS by using condoms when having sex.
“Colin Powell had an opportunity here to reaffirm this president’s commitment to abstinence as the best choice for our young people, and he chose not to do that in the first instance, but — and so I think it’s very sad,” Pence reportedly told CNN, adding that “condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted diseases.”
“FALSE,” asserts Planned Parenthood. “When they’re used correctly, condoms are great at preventing STDS (and pregnancy).”
However, when condoms are not used correctly — by teens whose judgment and emotional maturity are not fully developed — more young people are likely to get STDs.
In fact, in August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data revealing the number of cases of STDs had skyrocketed for the fourth consecutive year.
“We are in the midst of an absolute STD public health crisis in this country,” said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors.
Of the 20 million new STDs reported each year, about half occur among young people between the ages of 15 to 24.
In educating U.S. citizens about public health crises, CDC notes that “abstinence from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse is the only 100% effective way to prevent HIV, other STDs, and pregnancy.”
Planned Parenthood also recommends a gift of a “Ruth Bader Ginsburg T-Shirt” for the vice president.
“The world would be a better place if only Mike Pence asked himself WWRBGD,” Planned Parenthood says. “Every time he sees it will be a reminder that we need more judges like Justice Ginsburg — especially as the administration is packing the courts with extreme, conservative judges like Wendy Vitter and Michael Truncale.”
Planned Parenthood also wants to see an LGBT “pride flag” under Pence’s Christmas tree.
“This symbolic rainbow flag will take the Naval Observatory from ‘blah’ to ‘bling’ this winter,” the abortion chain writes. “It’s the perfect gift for Pence, who believes that LGBTQ people ‘weaken’ the military and more recently failed to mention LGBTQ people in his speech on World AIDS Day.”
In Planned Parenthood’s world, people who are pro-life are anti-women’s health, so the group also thinks Pence would do well to receive their primer on sexual and reproductive anatomy. This is the document in which Planned Parenthood asserts gender identity should supersede biological sex.
“[Y]our doctor probably assigned you a sex — male or female — based on your sex anatomy,” the group states. “But that doesn’t necessarily say anything about your gender identity.”
Finally, Planned Parenthood recommends giving Pence a “bonus gift” of a “custom Brett Kavanaugh beer koozie.” The group says:
Pence responded to allegations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh by calling the then-Supreme Court nominee a “man of integrity.” Kavanaugh even planned to watch Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in Pence’s office. Let’s toast to these two Nice Guys™, who are united in their hostility to Roe v. Wade and women’s fundamental rights.
A pro-life advocate, Pence was the first sitting vice president to have addressed the annual March for Life event, which is held on the National Mall each year on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s invention of a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade – though no right has ever existed in the Constitution.


The Supreme Court bows to Planned Parenthood





In June 2017, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Medicaid Act "authorizes a private right of action," allowing Medicaid recipients to challenge the disqualification of a health care provider.  Louisiana and Kansas, which had stripped Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funds after evidence that the abortion provider was harvesting and selling fetal materials, proceeded to appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.  On 10 December 2018, by a vote of six to three, the High Court declined to hear the appeal, thereby letting the lower court ruling stand.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.  Instead of supplying the fourth vote needed for a hearing, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh sided with the four liberals on the Court.
The arguments Louisiana and Kansas planned to present make for instructive reading.  Documents of record are available on the Supreme Court's website.  Here is a link to the one filed by Louisiana, docketed on May 1, 2018.  Also available on the website is the lengthy dissent Justice Thomas presented, which lays out the consequences of Supreme Court inaction in the case.
The Louisiana and Thomas documents lead to some interesting bottom lines.  In stating them, blunt language seems to me appropriate to get at the heart of the matter.
Bottom line, Louisiana: The Supreme Court is allowing itself to be overruled.
This case raises an issue of national importance: whether Medicaid's Free Choice of Provider provision (42 U.S.C. § 1396a[a][23]) authorizes a private right of action for a Medicaid recipient to challenge the merits of a state's decision to disqualify or decertify a provider from the pool of state-approved Medicaid providers.  A sharply divided Fifth Circuit found it does so, flatly disregarding the Supreme Court's binding precedent in O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773 (1980), which held that the Free Choice of Provider provision "gives recipients the right to choose among a range of qualified providers," but "it clearly does not confer ... a right on a recipient to continue to receive benefits" from a provider who "has been determined to be unqualified." Id. at 785.  [Italics in original.]
Bottom line, Thomas: The Supreme Court is sowing confusion.
One of this Court's primary functions is to resolve "important matter[s]" on which the courts of appeals are "in conflict."  Sup. Ct. Rule 10(a); e.g., Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99, 106 (1995). ... Because of this Court's inaction, patients in different States – even patients with the same providers – have different rights to challenge their State's provider decisions. ... We are responsible for the confusion among the lower courts, and it is our job to fix it.
Bottom Line, Louisiana: The Supreme Court is ranking one circuit court above others.
In addition to ignoring binding precedent, the Fifth Circuit's decision has created a split in the circuits.  Most recently, in Does v. Gillespie, 867 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2017), the Eighth Circuit determined that Medicaid recipients do not have a private right of action under §1983 to challenge a state's disqualification of a Medicaid provider pursuant to the Free Choice of Provider provision because the provision does not create an enforceable federal right.  Similarly in Kelly Kare, Ltd. v. O'Rourke, 930 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit held that Medicaid recipients do not have a vested right to choose a nursing home that is being decertified as a health-care provider.
Bottom Line, Thomas: The Supreme Court is bowing to Planned Parenthood.
So what explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?  I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named "Planned Parenthood."  That makes the Court's decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion. ... Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty.  If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.  The Framers gave us lifetime tenure to promote "that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance" of the courts' role as "bulwarks of a limited Constitution," unaffected by fleeting "mischiefs."
One hopes that Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh will revisit the issue in due course and join Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in granting Louisiana and the other states "their day in court."

No comments: