Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Health

Makers of “Jesus Revolution” Announce Next Film, “Ordinary Angels”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday,  March 21, 2023:  

Long before production began on Jesus Revolution, the makers of that film, Kingdom Story Company and LionsGate, started work on Ordinary Angels. It will hit theaters in October. On Facebook, the company said the film is based on a true story:

We’re thrilled to announce the newest film from Kingdom Story Company and LionsGate — ORDINARY ANGELS — coming to theatres October 13, 2023.


Starring Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson, ORDINARY ANGELS is the incredible true story of a struggling hairdresser who single-handedly rallies an entire community to help a widowed father save the life of his critically ill young daughter.

The story is that of ordinary people caring for other ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. For two years, Michelle Schmitt, age three, had been waiting for a liver transplant. Time was running out when the phone rang, informing her grandmother that after all that wait a donor was available. That was the good news.

The bad news was that the donor was in Omaha, Nebraska, and Michelle and her widowed father were in Louisville, Kentucky, 600 miles away. And the donor couldn’t wait. The call came at 9:00 a.m. and they had until 6:00 p.m. to get Michelle to Omaha.

There was more bad news. A snowstorm that was expected to drop just a few inches turned into one of the worst in the history of Louisville. Roads were closed. Highways were closed. The only solution was a helicopter to fly Michelle.

But where to land? Sharon Stevens, a family friend, began the rescue operation that ultimately named Michelle the “miracle snow baby.” Stevens called a local radio station and asked for help. She called around to find a place where the helicopter could land. She found the parking lot of the Southeast Christian Church.

But it was covered with nearly 16 inches of snow.

Undaunted, she headed over to the church. By the time she got there, she found half a dozen people already there.

But time was running out. The clock was ticking.

Soon, more people showed up. And then more people. And then a snowplow.

They cleared the parking lot, the helicopter took Michelle to Omaha, and the liver transplant was successful.

The incident made the papers:

People from all over Kentucky came together yesterday in a breath-taking battle against time and nature for a Louisville girl.


Since 3-year-old Michelle Schmitt was a year old, she has been on a waiting list for a liver transplant. Yesterday, at 9 a.m., as a record snowfall paralyzed Louisville, her grandmother got the call the whole family had been waiting for. By sundown, a liver would be waiting for her.


In Omaha, Nebraska.


But there was no way for Michelle to get to the airport. No way for pilots to get there. No way for planes to take off, with the airport closed. No way for emergency medical workers to get out of their driveways.


To have the best chance of success, hospital workers in Nebraska wanted Michelle in Omaha by 6 p.m. — 7 p.m. at the latest.


The race was on.

For Hilary Swank, who plays Sharon Stevens in the film, the story touched her heart:

I was drawn to this beautiful true story because it’s such a powerful reminder that angels reside everywhere among us.


And that faith, hope, grit and positivity are all powerful fuel for miracles.

It’s also a story about the power of organ donation — something incredibly near and dear to my heart. I couldn’t be more thrilled to be a part of this story and message.

For Jon Gunn, the film’s director, the timing couldn’t be better:

The story of Sharon Stevens and the Schmitt family is a powerful reminder that helping others is how we heal ourselves. I can’t think of a message I’d rather share with the world right now, and I’m honored to be telling it with such a fearless and talented cast.

According to screenings done in advance of its public debut, the film is the highest-tested film Kingdom Story — producers of I Can Only ImagineI Still Believe, and Woodlawn, in addition to Jesus Revolution — has ever made.

Michelle passed away in May, 2021 at age 31. From her obituary:

She was born on December 3, 1990, in Louisville, Kentucky to Edward and Theresa (Sinnott) Schmitt. She is preceded in death by her mother, Theresa Ann Schmitt and grandparents; Edward E Schmitt and Barbara Schmitt.


Michelle was loved by all and known by many as the “Snow Baby of Louisville.”


For more than two years the Schmitt family waited for a life-saving liver transplant. On January 17, 1994, when Michelle was three, they got the call a donor liver was available in Omaha, Nebraska. Louisville woke up to more than a foot of snow and below freezing temperatures that day, making travel difficult; the donor liver would only be viable for a few hours.


After a family friend called a local radio station to broadcast a call for help, strangers cleared a parking lot at Southeast Christian Church, then located on Hikes Lane, for a helicopter to land and take Michelle to the airport.


In Omaha, the donor liver was successfully transplanted and Michelle was dubbed the “Snow Baby.” After her liver transplant, Michelle graduated from Spalding University, got married and started her career in the medical field working with children.


She was passionate, caring and loving to everyone and she treated everyone equally.

Virginia Restaurateur Fights State’s Democrat-controlled ABC to a Standstill

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 19, 2022:  

Virginia’s Democrat-controlled Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) finally decided to cut its losses and caved on Wednesday.

On Dec. 2, a gaggle of ABC agents and Virginia state troopers had descended on Matt Strickland’s restaurant, Gourmeltz, and Strickland recorded it all on his iPhone.

For once, The Washington Post got it right:

On the morning of Dec. 2, as agents with the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Commission boxed up bottles from the bar at Gourmeltz in Fredericksburg, Va., owner Matt Strickland took out his phone and began recording. He pointed his camera at the ABC agents, along with the Virginia state troopers who accompanied them, and accused them all of supporting tyranny. He questioned their loyalty to country and the constitution. He questioned their manhood.


“What you’re doing right now is government overreach. What you’re doing right now is supporting a tyrannical government,” Strickland told the officers as he panned his phone around the room. “The Constitution means more to me than my self-preservation. If any of you guys had the b—- to stand up and say that, and fight for that, this would not be going on right now.”


When the agents responded that they’re simply executing a lawful search warrant, Strickland compared them to former Nazi officers who, during the Nuremberg trials, said they were just following orders. “So many people were just doing their job for Hitler back in Germany,” he told the agents and troopers, their faces as still as stone.

After seizing all of his alcoholic beverages, they informed Strickland that he was closed until January 31, 2023.

The public, which recently had tossed the state’s Democratic governor and his attorney general, rallied, and on Wednesday the ABC announced its  “settlement” with Strickland:

Virginia ABC and Gourmeltz LLC have entered into a Consent Agreement resolving all issues associated with the serving of alcohol products without the requisite license to do so at the restaurant.


Effective December 23, 2022, the mixed beverage and wine and beer licenses of Gourmeltz will be reinstated.

The ABC managed to squeeze a CYA out of Strickland:

It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the Consent Agreement and related obligations are neither an admission nor denial of liability or wrongdoing on the part of any of the Parties.

Nothing was said about the legal fees Strickland has incurred, estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nothing was said about the state’s Department of Health backing down after Strickland fought them in court. Nothing was said about the commission being staffed with Democratic holdovers from Democratic Governor Ralph Northam’s administration that put them onto the commission.

The backstory is this: Strickland is a former military serviceman, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than 15 years. Upon leaving he started a melted-cheese-sandwich business out of a truck. In two years his business grew to the point where he decided to open a retail location.

Things went swimmingly until March 2020. Then, using Covid as an excuse, Virginia Democrats issued all manner of decrees, mandates, and demands. Masks were required for both his staff and his customers. His seating capacities were limited. Social distancing was required. Even bartenders had to follow strange and convoluted rules. Explained Strickland:

My bartender couldn’t serve a customer across the counter at the bar.


He could make a drink right in front of him though, but then he had to walk around the bar and serve it to them side by side.


Just stuff like that just didn’t make any sense, so it seemed to be more about control than our health and safety.

After 90 days of this silliness Strickland fought back, and incurred the wrath of the health department.

As Strickland explained:

We took it all the way. I mean they tried to settle with me on several different occasions saying, “hey man, instead of X amount of dollars and suspension of your license, just give us a quarter of that and we’ll make it go away.”


I declined every settlement that they sent me and we took it all the way to court and we won and we got our health department license back.

Not so quickly the ABC. It apparently was determined to make a point: “thou shalt not resist the state.” But reality set in, and they finally settled.

Strickland isn’t done, not by a long shot. He is now running for the Virginia state Senate. When asked if he was going to run as a Republican, he scoffed, reminding reporters that none of the Republicans in office stood by him while the battle was raging, though they were only too happy to support him and the cause of freedom after he’d won. Said Strickland: “My loyalty is to America, and that’s it.”

Lawsuit Claims FDA Declared Pregnancy an “Illness”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, November 21, 2022:  

The public interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the first lawsuit of its kind on Friday. It sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), claiming that for decades the agency has operated outside its legal boundaries, has failed to protect young pregnant women, and has ignored science in favor of politics in the process:

The FDA failed America’s women and girls when it chose politics over science and approved chemical abortion drugs for use in the United States.


And it has continued to fail them by repeatedly removing even the most basic precautionary requirements associated with their use….


Plaintiffs … ask that the Court hold [the agency’s actions] unlawful, set them aside, and vacate them.

The use of RU-486, aka mifepristone, was successfully blocked by pro-life groups for years after it was developed in France. But during the Clinton administration, then-president Bill Clinton instructed the FDA to promote the testing, licensing (for profit), and manufacture of the drug.

This led to the French pharmaceutical company that held the patent on the life-ending drug to donate it for free to the Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Population Council. From there it was a short hop to approval by the FDA. By September 2000, the FDA had approved the council’s application, and abortion by ingesting poisonous chemicals became legal in the United States.

There was major pushback against the FDA, including two citizen petitions, both of which were ignored for years by the agency before finally being rejected. Along the way the agency continued to make the drug ever more accessible, finally even making it available by mail.

Ironically, one of the plaintiffs in the case, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, has adopted its own version of the Hippocratic Oath:

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) upholds and promotes the fundamental principles of Hippocratic medicine.


These principles include protecting the vulnerable at the beginning and end of life, seeking the ultimate good for the patient with compassion and moral integrity, and providing healthcare with the highest standards of excellence based on medical science.

This is a softer, kinder, gentler version of the original Hippocratic Oath:

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.


Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly, I will not give to a woman a pessary [prosthetic device] to cause abortion.

The lawsuit reminds the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where it was filed, that the only way the FDA was able to approve the drug was to lie:

The only way the FDA could have approved chemical abortion drugs was to use its accelerated drug approval authority, necessitating the FDA to call pregnancy an “illness” and argue that these dangerous drugs provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit” over existing treatments.


But pregnancy is not an illness, nor do chemical abortion drugs provide a therapeutic benefit over surgical abortion.


In asserting these transparently false conclusions, the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the drugs.


What’s more, the FDA needed to disavow science and the law because the FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use despite being required to do so by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).


The agency also ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls in violation of the Pediatric Research and Equity Act (PREA).


And the FDA disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than even surgical abortions.

The FDA knew then, and knows now, that administering RU-486/mifepristone has a complication rate four times higher than surgical abortions. In fact, one in five pregnant women who use the chemical to force the abortion of her living child will suffer complications requiring further medical attention, perhaps facing severe vaginal bleeding, life-threatening infection, and/or becoming sterile, and often requiring a blood transfusion followed by a hysterectomy.

According to ADF senior counsel Erik Baptist, the FDA’s approval has always been based on questionable ethical and legal grounds:

The FDA’s approval of chemical abortion drugs has always stood on shaky legal and moral ground, and after years of evading responsibility, it’s time for the government to do what it’s legally required to do: protect the health and safety of vulnerable girls and women.


On behalf of the national health care organizations and physicians we represent, we ask the court to hold the FDA accountable for its reckless, unlawful behavior.


We urge the court to reject the marketing and distribution of dangerous chemical abortion drugs so that the health, safety, and welfare of women are protected.

The lawsuit claims that the FDA knew all of these things and approved the drug anyway, cowing to political pressure from the White House and the profit motive of the pharmaceutical companies to which it owes its loyalty and allegiance:

In addition to the legal and scientific infirmities referenced above, all of the FDA’s actions on chemical abortion drugs — the 2000 approval, the 2016 major changes, the 2019 generic drug approval, and the two 2021 actions to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement — failed to acknowledge and address the federal laws that prohibit the distribution of chemical abortion drugs by postal mail, express company, or common carrier.


Instead, the FDA’s actions permitted and sometimes even encouraged these illegal activities.


After two decades of engaging the FDA to no avail, Plaintiffs now ask this Court to do what the FDA was and is legally required to do: protect women and girls by holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating the FDA’s actions to approve chemical abortion drugs and eviscerate crucial safeguards for those who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.

California Pastor Blasts Newsom’s “Blasphemous” Promotion of Abortion

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 30, 2022:  

Certain of his reelection as governor of California in November, Gavin Newsom is spending some of his $24 million in campaign funds to buy billboard space in seven pro-life states promoting abortion.

One of those ads reads:

Need an abortion? California is ready to help.


Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these — Mark 12:31

This immediately elicited outrage from believers, including Kathleen Domingo, executive director of the California Catholic Conference:

It is unconscionable that these ads distort Scripture to support abortion, specifically in states that have already dramatically limited abortion in favor of supporting life.

Chris Check, president of the California-based apologetics ministry Catholic Answers, said Newsom’s ads “commit blasphemy by co-opting Sacred Scripture in service of abortion.”

But the letter from John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church (and the target of much of Newsom’s wrath during the Covid “crisis”), expanded on Newsom’s blasphemy:

Almighty God says in His Word, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). Scripture also teaches that it is the chief duty of any civic leader to reward those who do well and to punish evildoers (Romans 13:1–7). You have not only failed in that responsibility; you routinely turn it on its head, rewarding evildoers and punishing the righteous.

MacArthur called Newsom rebellious, wicked, and reprehensible for the ads:

In mid-September, you revealed to the entire nation how thoroughly rebellious against God you are when you sponsored billboards across America promoting the slaughter of children, whom He creates in the womb (Psalm 139:13–16; Isaiah 45:9–12).


You further compounded the wickedness of that murderous campaign with a reprehensible act of gross blasphemy, quoting the very words of Jesus from Mark 12:31 as if you could somehow twist His meaning and arrogate His name in favor of butchering unborn infants.


You used the name and the words of Christ to promote the credo of Molech (Leviticus 20:1–5). It would be hard to imagine a greater sacrilege.

In that Scripture, God warned anyone burning his child in a sacrifice to the Canaanite god Molech:

I will set My face against that man, and I will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy Name.

MacArthur called out Newsom’s hypocrisy — he calls himself an “Irish Catholic” — with this:

Furthermore, you chose words from the lips of Jesus without admitting that in the same moment He gave the greatest commandment: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30).


You cannot love God as He commands while aiding in the murder of His image-bearers.

MacArthur ended his letter telling Newsom that, despite his grievous sins against God and man by promoting the murder of unborn children,

Our church, and countless Christians nationwide, are praying for your full repentance. Please respond to the gospel, forsake the path of wickedness you have pursued all your life, turn to Christ, ask for forgiveness, and use your office to advance the cause of righteousness (as is your duty) instead of undermining it (as has been your pattern).

Eric Metaxas no doubt is pleased to learn that MacArthur is willing to take the fight to the enemy. Regarding his new book Letter to the American Church, Metaxas said he wrote it “calling the American Church to actually be God’s church, with all that entails, so that we might avoid the mistakes of the German church in the 1930s, and those direst consequences we know to have been the result.”

Metaxas must also be asking, where are the other pastors protesting Newsom’s blatant opposition to the Lord of Life?

Idaho Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Providers’ Attempts to Block State’s Abortion Bans

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 15, 2022:  

In a split decision, the Idaho state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the state’s near-total ban on abortions may take effect, along with the state’s “heartbeat” law. The abortion ban (with narrow exceptions for rape or incest) will become effective in 10 days, while the heartbeat bill became effective immediately.

The state’s highest court ruled that the civilian enforcement part of the heartbeat law is also effective immediately. That provision allows relatives of the fetus or embryo that was murdered in the mother’s womb to sue the abortionist and his or her staff. If convicted, those parties could be fined up to $20,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison.

Abortion provider Planned Parenthood, along with a local abortionist, brought the suit against the state of Idaho, the speaker of the house, and the president pro tempore of the Senate, along with the entire Idaho state Legislature. It was filed three days after the Supreme Court of the United States made its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24.

That ruling reversed the high court’s previous decisions in Roe v. Wade (decided in 1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (decided in 1992). The court ruled in Roe that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided a “fundamental right to privacy” that protected a pregnant woman’s freedom to abort her unborn child. The decision in Casey upheld that alleged right.

Following the reversal, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that what the “petitioners [Planned Parenthood and the abortionist bringing the suit] are asking this court to ultimately do is to declare a right to abortion under the Idaho constitution when — on its face — there is none.”

This is the same flaw that ultimately tripped up Roe and Casey: nowhere in the federal Constitution is abortion even mentioned. And the 10th Amendment specifically reserves to the states the power to make decisions on issues not mentioned — nor powers granted to the federal government — in the Constitution.

To make that point crystal clear, Justice Robyn Brody wrote in the majority opinion:

[E]ven if Petitioners have carried their burden of demonstrating that irreparable harm will flow from immediate enforcement of the [state’s] Total Abortion Ban, this alone cannot permit the extraordinary remedy Petitioners seek….


As noted in our June 30, 2022 order, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs has “altered the landscape” of long-standing federal constitutional law.


In Dobbs, the Supreme Court held that the United States Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly contain a right to abortion and returned the “profound moral question” of abortion to the “people and their elected representatives.”

To emphasize the point further, Justice Brody quoted from that monumental Dobbs decision:

We hold that [Roe v. Wade (1973)] and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (1992)] must be overruled.


The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The issue of abortion is one of life and death, a “profound moral question” that the Constitution doesn’t address. Said the U.S. Supreme Court:

Abortion presents a profound moral question.


The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.


Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

The issue isn’t settled yet, though, as the Biden administration is suing Idaho over its pro-life laws. And other states with similar laws that became effective following the Dobbs decision, including Wyoming and Louisiana, are being sued by Planned Parenthood. So, the issue remains unsettled and will likely remain so until the moral side of the issue is resolved, and the culture of death is excised from the body politic.

But for Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center, Friday was a day for celebration:

This is the day that the pro-life movement has worked towards for decades!


Precious children with beating hearts now finally have legal protection in the state of Idaho — and to God be the glory!

Department of Justice Sues Idaho in First Lawsuit Following Dobbs Decision

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 3, 2022:  

The lawsuit announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the first of many likely to emanate from that federal department. It’s suing to invalidate Idaho’s nearly complete ban on abortion due to become effective on August 25.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was fulfilling a promise to use every tool at his disposal to neuter or invalidate as many of these state laws as he could:

On the day Roe and Casey were overturned, we promised that the Justice Department would work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom. That is what we are doing, and that is what we will continue to do.


We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that pregnant women get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law. And we will closely scrutinize state abortion laws to ensure that they comply with federal law.

The federal law that Garland claims overrides Idaho’s pending law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that provides funds to state hospitals under Medicare — along with the obligatory federal strings that are always attached to such grants of federal largesse.

EMTALA requires, says the department, “hospitals that receive federal Medicare funds to provide necessary stabilizing treatments to patients who arrive at their emergency departments … state law cannot prohibit the provision of that care.”

That “stabilizing care,” according to the department, might include an abortion, and Idaho’s pending law “directly conflicts with EMTALA and stands as an obstacle” to implementation of that federal law.

Said Garland:

Every hospital that receives Medicare funds must provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a patient who arrives in an emergency room suffering from a medical condition that could place their life or health in serious jeopardy.


In some circumstances, the medical treatment necessary to stabilize the patient’s condition is abortion.

In response, Idaho’s governor, Brad Little, said he will “vigorously uphold state sovereignty” against what he described as “federal meddling.”

The DOJ’s 17-page complaint makes it clear that that is where the battle will be fought: over “state sovereignty.”

The Supremacy Clause — Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, what if that law — the EMTALA — is found to be unconstitutional? If the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to hear this case on appeal, it very well might be, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Garland and his department are just assuming that the Supremacy Clause will allow them to ride roughshod over Idaho’s pending abortion law. But if the phrase “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” is taken literally (as intended by the Founders), then EMTALA is unconstitutional, as such “meddling” (Brad Little’s word) involves powers “not delegated to the United States” and not “made in pursuance” of the Constitution.

The present complaint isn’t likely to make it to the Supreme Court. It will probably be settled — hopefully in favor of Idaho — at a lower level. But given the high court’s ringing endorsements of what the Founders intended in Dobbs and other recent decisions, it is likely that such federal overreach will be exposed for what it is: unconstitutional federal tyranny over the states and their citizens.

On Tuesday, Kansas Voters Can Undo State’s Court Ruling Granting a “Right” to Murder an Unborn Child

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 1, 2022:  

On Tuesday, Kansans have a unique opportunity to override their state’s high court’s ruling from 2019 that a mother has an inherent right to kill her unborn child.

Pro-life advocates are calling the ballot issue the “Value Them Both Amendment,” and are giving Kansas voters a clear choice: toss the high court’s ruling granting an “inherent” right to pregnant mothers to kill their unborn child, or not.

The ballot reads:

Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion.


To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.





At the moment polls show “Yes” leading “No” at 47-43. But millions of dollars are being spent to sway voters on both sides.

A “Yes” vote affirms that there is, despite the 2019 high court ruling, no constitutional right to abortion in the Sunflower State, and consequently any legislation relating to abortion rests with the people’s elected representatives.

A “No” vote would leave things as they are, giving abortion promoters a major victory. let their voices be heard on the issue.

In 2019, in appealing a previous ruling, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas ruled that, according to their interpretation of the state’s constitution, a pregnant mother had an inherent if not clearly enunciated right to kill her unborn child. From that decision:

Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides: “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are now asked: Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, “Yes.”


We conclude that, through the language in section 1, the state’s founders acknowledged that the people had rights that preexisted the formation of the Kansas government. There they listed several of these natural, inalienable rights—deliberately choosing language of the Declaration of Independence by a vote of 42 to 6.


Included in that limited category is the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.

The decision had but a single dissenter, and the court ruled for abortion 6-1.

The decision tomorrow in Kansas is being cast as a “bellwether” moment, as the vote is the first of at least four other opportunities — in California, Kentucky, Montana, and Vermont — for voters to “clarify” their intentions on the contentious issue.

Houston Doctor Sues Hospital for Defamation Over Covid Opinions

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 26, 2022:  

In March 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Houston ear, nose, and throat doctor Mary Talley Bowden offered to serve patients whose primary physicians refused to see them.

She began using ivermectin, and then, as her personal experience with it as part of a multimodal treatment protocol grew, she began sharing her results on her Twitter account.

She had privileges at Houston Methodist Hospital, and when the hospital CEO Marc Boom learned about her tweets, he used the hospital’s Twitter account to respond. In November of 2021 he tweeted:

These opinions, which are harmful to the community, do not reflect reliable medical evidence or the values of Houston Methodist, where we have treated more than 25,000 COVID-19 inpatients, and where all our employees and physicians are vaccinated to protect our patients.


Dr. Bowden, who has never admitted a patient at Houston Methodist Hospital, is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based on science.

In January, Bowden sued the hospital to obtain information about how much money it had received from treating those 25,000 patients.

On Monday she sued again, this time claiming that Boom’s tweets were defamatory and had damaged her reputation and her practice.

The lawsuit claimed that

Without notice, they published false and defamatory statements to the press and on social media, affording no due process, acting contrary to and with reckless disregard for both the letter and spirit of Methodist’s bylaws.


Beginning in November 2021, Methodist and Boom, took to Twitter and published a series of statements of fact about Dr. Bowden that injured Dr. Bowden’s reputation, exposed her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, financial injury, and impugned her professional judgment, integrity, honesty, and veracity as a licensed medical professional.

For proof, her attorneys quoted 19 disparaging responses to Boom’s tweets, including repeating the phrase “spreading misinformation,” “spreading dangerous misinformation,” and “spreading Covid misinformation” from Boom’s original tweets.

Bowden claimed that Boom and Houston Methodist Hospital not only knew their statements were false, but that they knew that the compliant media would spread the canard across the land.

Her attorneys wrote:

Dr. Bowden’s opinions were not and are not harmful to patients or others in the community.


Dr. Bowden has extensive first-hand experience treating COVID. She is considered an expert by other physicians who believe in outpatient treatment of COVID.


She has kept over 4,000 patients out of the hospital, and no one who has received early treatment under her care has died.


Dr. Bowden has had no serious adverse reactions from using Ivermectin.


Methodist and Boom’s Statements are provably false.

They are suing the hospital for $25 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages to be determined by a jury, and other costs and expenses recoverable under the law.

They justify this amount:

In this case, Dr. Bowden seeks presumed damages, actual damages (past and future mental anguish and past and future injury to reputation), special damages (including career damage and impairment of future earning capacity) and punitive damages as a result of the defamation and defamation by implication.

Lawyers defending the hospital will be hard-pressed to deny Bowden’s claims:

Prior to publication, Methodist and Boom knew from the hospital’s own data collected from its patients and from their review of scientific studies and reports about Ivermectin and other off-label medications and the efficacy and risks of the vaccines, including VAERS data, that Dr. Bowden’s statements were true and were supported by an abundance of reliable medical evidence, including expert opinions from other renowned medical professionals.


Methodist and Boom knew that Dr. Bowden’s use of Ivermectin to treat patients with COVID had not harmed a single patient, and that there was no public record of any patient complaints.


Moreover, Dr. Bowden was collaborating with 2 ENTs at Methodist to publish data related to all the COVID patients Dr. Bowden was testing, so for Methodist and Boom to say that Dr. Bowden was “dangerous” was clearly reckless disregard for the truth. Methodist and Boom published the Statements in spite of their actual knowledge of the truth, and in order to disparage and discredit Dr. Bowden’s professional reputation.

Bowden’s attorneys, Madhu Sekharan and Steven Biss, are likely taking the case on a contingent basis. They are basing their position on a prior case, Don King Productions, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., where the court ruled:

An intention to portray a public figure in a negative light, even when motivated by ill will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood. (Emphasis added)

The New American will keep readers informed as the story develops.

Biden’s Bizarre Statements on Gun Control Walked Back by Press Secretary

This article first appeared at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, June 1, 2022:  

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was forced to walk back and cover for a bizarre rant her boss made on Monday. On his return to Washington following a trip to Uvalde, Texas, Biden said:

[While a senator] I sat with a trauma doctor, and I asked him — I said, “What’s the difference?” I said, “Why are they dying?” And they showed me x-rays. He said, “A .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out, may be able to get it, and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”

He followed this other-worldly comment with another:

So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is of — there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting.

He tripled down with this:

And remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weapons.

Ed Morrissey, senior editor at Hot Air, responded to the first canard: “Needless to say, a 9mm round does not ‘blow the lung out of the body.’ That’s an idiotic claim to make on both ballistics and anatomy.”

As for the second, in the last decade, American citizens, exercising their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, purchased more than 15 million 9mm handguns. Not for one moment did they consider their purchase irrational, especially in light of the rise in violent gun crime in Democrat-controlled cities.

Thirdly, anyone knowing anything about the human body can safely conclude that Biden’s so-called visit with a “trauma doctor” was conjured for political convenience.

White House Press Secretary Jean-Pierre was only partially successful in covering for her boss. When she was asked, “Would … Biden ever consider a … restriction on handguns here?,” she answered, “He does not support a ban on the sale of all handguns, to answer your question.”

As for the second canard uttered by the increasingly mentally deficient occupant of the Oval Office, she said nothing. But fact-checkers have called out Biden for repeating the third lie about the Second Amendment, earning him Four Pinocchios from the Washington Post and a False label from PolitiFact on three other occasions dating back to 2020. At the time the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, there was no intention by the Founders to limit possession of any form of firearm.

Such infringements began in earnest with passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, under the Democrat Roosevelt administration.

To repeat a lie when one knows it’s a lie is a form of mental illness. It’s called “pseudological fantastica” or “mythomania,” a lifelong behavior pattern of making up elaborate stories about oneself; an urge, wrote Dr. Dan Brennan at WebMD, “that [a person] can’t control.”

Oklahoma senatorial candidate Representative Markwayne Mullin said that Biden has “no idea of what he’s talking about,” adding that “the 9mm is the most popular self-defense round in America and the caliber of choice for his own Secret Service.”

Georgia Republican Representative Austin Scott said that Biden’s bizarre claims are “proof that Biden has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about,” while Representative Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) added, “It’s unfathomable that our commander-in-chief is this out of touch with the American people.”

Navy Board Rules Against High Command’s Orders Mandating Covid Shots

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, May 24, 2022:  

A Navy administrative separation board voted unanimously last Friday that Navy Lieutenant Billy Moseley did not violate the command that he take the Covid vaccine. He refused the order, but rather than file a religious exemption request, he went straight to the board for its decision. Moseley knew that under orders from the Secretary of Defense the branches of the military weren’t allowing religious exemptions to be granted.

Moseley, a 22-year Naval officer, risked everything in taking his case to the board. But his religious convictions prevailed. As his attorney, Davis Younts, explained:

LT Moseley opposes the vaccine for religious reasons and could have submitted a religious accommodation request. However, when he learned that the Navy and the other services intended to implement a blanket denial policy, he began to prayerfully consider other options.


After consulting with legal and medical experts, he became convinced that as an officer he had an obligation to take a stand against the unlawful order and be a voice for thousands of enlisted Sailors.


LT Moseley risked his twenty-two-year career and his military retirement because of his faith and his commitment to his oath of office as a military leader.

Younts successfully argued before the board that “the order for military members to receive the experimental COVID 19 injection was not a lawful order.”

Under orders from U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the branches of the military began dismissing those requesting a religious exemption. According to the Military Times, by the end of April the Marine Corps had dismissed 1,968 corpsmen, the Navy had dismissed 798 sailors, the Army had dismissed 345 soldiers, and the Air Force had dismissed 287 airmen.

Others chose to apply for religious exemptions, and when they were denied, some went to court. Court rulings in February revealed the blatant anti-religious and anti-Christian bias of Austin’s order.

Steven Merryday, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, heard a lawsuit from 23 such service members and, after hearing of the blatant religious discrimination being practiced in the blanket denials, wrote:

The plaintiffs claim the regulations … in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption or accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine.

Two weeks later, Tilman Self, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, found the same pattern of discrimination. He heard the complaint from an Air Force member who had not only been denied a religious exemption but had been harassed and punished for even making the request, and wrote:

Although the Air Force claims to provide a religious accommodation process, it proved to be nothing more than a quixotic quest for Plaintiff because it was [quoting from another judge’s ruling on the same issue] “by all accounts … theater.”…


Despite thousands of requests for religious exemption, the Air Force hadn’t granted a single one of them when Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

Since then, the military branches have been very slow in granting religious exemptions in spite of the rulings. As of April 27, the Air Force had granted only nine exemptions, the Marine Corps just three, and the Army but one.

However, Moseley’s attorney is optimistic as other cases that he and other attorneys are handling are being heard across the country, putting additional pressure on Austin. As Younts wrote:

Although this [is] only one case of thousands and we have many more clients facing prosecution by the military, we are encouraged that the truth was revealed in this Board, and we hope this ground-breaking case sends a strong message to the Department of Defense.

Pending Missouri Bill Protects Doctors From Sanctions for Prescribing Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, May 18, 2022:  

When Missouri Governor Mike Parson signs HB 2149 into law as he is expected to, doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for their patients won’t be subject to sanctions, penalties, or loss of their medical licenses.

Overwhelmingly passed by a 130-4 vote in the House last week, the bill’s language is crystal clear:

The act of lawfully dispensing, prescribing, administering, or otherwise distributing ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets for human use shall not be grounds for denial, suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action by [any state medical] board.

The bill also prohibits pharmacists from questioning or otherwise interfering with the dispensing of these prescriptions to their patients:

A pharmacist shall not contact the prescribing physician or the patient to dispute the efficacy of ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets for human use unless the physician or patient inquires of the pharmacist about [their] efficacy….

It’s about time. As Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson noted when his state passed a similar law late last year:

Ivermectin has been used in humans since the 1980s…. In 2015 its discoverers won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work in uncovering it and bringing it to market…. By 2017, ivermectin had demonstrated antiviral activity against several RNA viruses…. Before the pandemic, scholarly literature had also recognized ivermectin’s anti-inflammatory capacity…. For more than three decades, ivermectin has also shown itself to be very safe….

The same goes for hydroxychloroquine:

In 2004, long before the Covid-19 pandemic began, a lab study revealed that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro and thus that it should be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections…. It is widely recognized in the medical community that hydroxychloroquine is generally safe, so safe in fact that it may be prescribed to pregnant women and children of all ages.

Peterson’s opinion is backed up by no fewer than 304 footnotes, with more than 275 of them referring to medical studies, articles from medical journals, statements from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other medical authorities.

In many states, however, the potential for sanctions has intimidated physicians into shying away from such remedies, despite such evidence of their effectiveness. Henry F. Smith, Jr., M.D., practices medicine in such a state, and posed the following scenario:

Now let’s imagine [a] patient calls in. This patient … has a dry cough, scratchy throat, muscle aches, and a low-grade fever. This patient had a COVID test kit at home and tested positive.


The physician wants to prescribe a medication with no risk of bacterial resistance and a very benign side-effect profile.


He’s read lots of literature to suggest it will be helpful. There are a significant number of double-blind studies showing it to be effective in the treatment of SARS Co-V2. It has been used in multiple countries with excellent results.


Except, in this case, the physician will find it impossible to prescribe that medication. It will be impossible because that medication is Ivermectin. And somehow it has been removed from the market.

Why? Smith follows the money:

[Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s Molnupivinir] have exactly one company-sponsored study each to vouch for their efficacy. Merck’s drug, by its own testing, is only 39% effective in reducing severe disease and/or death. There are no long-term safety data for either medication.


Yet both have received emergency use authorization and have suddenly popped up on government-approved treatment protocols….


As I look towards the end of my career, I’ve seen a lot of profit-oriented behavior by pharmaceutical companies.


I think of the me-too drugs, molecules that are only slightly different than their now off-patent predecessors aggressively marketed to physicians.


I’ve seen pharmaceutical reps actually reimburse physicians for a certain number of prescriptions written for their medications.


I’ve seen manipulation of the rules regarding inhaled medications to maintain their patents long after they would have expired.

But this banning of treatments proven to be efficacious is beyond anything Smith has seen in his decades of medical practice:

But if they actively suppressed the adoption of useful medications during a pandemic, then this is beyond the pale. It would suggest a total collapse of any morality or sense of responsibility within the pharmaceutical industry and their partners in the regulatory agencies.

The money flowing to drug companies is nearly incomprehensibly large. According to Morningstar, Pfizer collected nearly $40 billion in sales of its Covid-19 vaccine in 2021, while Merck reported gross sales in 2021 from all sources of nearly $50 billion, 17% over the year before. Merck’s profit rose from $4.5 billion in 2020 to $12.3 billion in 2021, an astounding 273% jump in just one year.

While Big Pharma was raking in obscene profits, even more obscene were the deaths directly attributable to the lack of the two remedies.

As Smith noted:

Let’s do some mathematics. As of this writing [February], there are roughly 890,000 deaths recorded in the United States related to COVID-19.


I think most people understand that a lot of these deaths are not due to the virus but from other comorbid conditions. The CDC has long stated that the number of deaths from COVID where there was no comorbid condition (in other words, healthy people who died from COVID) is roughly 7% of the total (65,000).


In several meta-analyses, Ivermectin was shown to be roughly 65% effective at preventing serious disease and/or death. So, in the best-case scenario for them, our public health organizations, by suppressing Ivermectin, may be responsible for roughly 40,000 deaths.

Once Missouri Governor Mike Parson signs HB 2149 into law he puts an end to the holocaust in the Show Me State. Missouri will then join more than two dozen other states in the union allowing medical freedom from sanctions for practicing medicine according to the Hippocratic oath: “Primum non nocere”: First, do no harm.

Poll: 54% Think Abortion Should Be Illegal

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, May 5, 2022:  

The latest Fox News poll reflects a pro-life trend that has been growing for years. In a poll completed just before Politico announced the leak of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Monday, Fox reported that a majority thinks abortion should be illegal “all (11%) or most of the time (43%).” Those who think abortion should be legal “is [at] a record low and it’s also the first time the portion saying ‘illegal’ has been above 50% on a Fox News poll.”

The trend favoring the pro-life position has been apparent for years. Back in 1998, Gallup asked, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” At the time, 15 percent said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Ten years later, that percentage was 18 percent, and since then it has moved higher, to nearly 20 percent.

According to the Pew Research Center’s latest polling results, 39 percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Last June, Gallup found that 52 percent of Americans take a pro-life position on abortion, wanting all (19 percent) or almost all (33 percent) abortions made illegal. That same poll found that only 32 percent of those polled think abortions should be legal up to the moment of birth.

A January 2021, a Marist poll found a majority of those polled were pro-life and oppose all or nearly all abortions. A poll conducted later that year by CBS News reported that 55 percent of Americans say abortion should either be more limited or should not be permitted at all.

A Morning Consult poll conducted last year found that a majority of those polled want abortions to be made illegal either in all cases or only legal in very rare cases such as rape or incest, or when the pregnancy directly affects the life of the mother. Those exceptions constitute less than two or three percent of all abortions, which means, as Steven Ertelt of Life News put it, “Most Americans support making virtually all abortions illegal.”

Another measure of growing opposition to abortion comes from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which reported that since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, states have imposed more than 1,300 restrictions on the procedure, including more than 100 last year alone.

At least one of them — Texas SB 8, the “Heartbeat Law” — made headline news, especially as other states such as Oklahoma and Idaho passed nearly identical laws.

In commenting on the Texas law, former Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul pointed out that

It is no coincidence that Roe v. Wade came at a time when respect for natural rights of life, liberty, and property, was on the decline.


Roe contributed to the decline….

The ultimate solution, Dr. Paul wrote, was to reverse the trend by recognizing that abortion is the taking of an innocent life:

The way to reverse these developments is to restore respect for the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, of all human beings, both born and unborn.


The cause of life is inseparable from the cause of liberty.

It’s taken 50 years, but the trend, and the momentum, is unmistakable. The Supreme Court “leak” is now propelling forward the conversation that states and their citizens must have on the issue. And they’re increasingly moving back to the Declaration of Independence’s crystal-clear statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Federal Judge Ends Challenge to Texas Heartbeat Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, April 27, 2022:  

In a terse statement, a federal appeals court has dismissed all lawsuits pending against Texas state officials and administrators who have challenged the state’s “heartbeat” law:

Having received the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court that named official defendants may not enforce the provisions of the Texas Heartbeat Act … this court REMANDS the case with instructions to dismiss all challenges to the private enforcement provisions of the statute and to consider whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge.

Put another way, the ruling dismisses all attempts by pro-abortion advocates and providers to overturn Texas’ “Heartbeat Act.” And it requires the lower court to consider whether those bringing those challenges even have legal standing to do so.

In short, this ends the matter: Texas’ “heartbeat” law stands, and will continue to save an estimated 100 babies from being murdered in their mothers’ wombs every day.

The Texas law prohibits Texas officials from enforcing the law but allows private citizens to do so. It empowers them to sue anyone suspected of aiding or abetting an abortion after a heartbeat is detected (usually after six weeks of pregnancy). That would include physicians and their assistants, those providing advice and counsel to a woman considering ending her pregnancy, and those providing transportation to and from the abortion clinic.

The penalties against those providers are tough and have, for all intents and purposes, ended the abortion holocaust in the Lone Star State.

More than 20 lawsuits have been filed since the law became effective last September, and 14 of them were filed against Texas Right to Life (TRL). Said TRL President Jonathan Saenz:

This final federal court decision for life leaves no doubt that the Texas Heartbeat Act is the law of the land in the Lone Star State. We are grateful to the federal courts for upholding this groundbreaking law and protecting pre-born babies.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling: “Another legal loss for those challenging SB8 — the pro-life law that is saving babies every day.” So did Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, tweeting:

Very proud of my team for bringing win after win for the unborn in Texas! The Texas Heartbeat Act is one of the greatest pro-life laws in the nation, and I’m glad to defend it. Tens of thousands of babies have been saved in Texas because of SB 8 and our victories in court!

One lawsuit — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson — sought to exploit an opening the Supreme Court allowed back in December: that anti-life challengers could bring action against state licensing officials. That opening has now been firmly shut.

All eyes are now on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, heard by the Supreme Court in December with an expected ruling in June. Optimists are hoping the high court will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states, where it rightfully belongs.

But they could be disappointed, as the Supreme Court is only considering “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

For now, pro-life supporters are celebrating, as well as thousands of babies who have been saved from the holocaust since the Texas Heartbeat Act became effective last September.

Ousted San Francisco School Board President Blamed Her Loss on “White Supremacists”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 18, 2022:  

In a remarkable fit of outrage, Gabriela Lopez complained on Twitter on Thursday about being unceremoniously ousted as president of San Francisco’s Unified School District board earlier in the week:

So, if you fight for racial justice, this is the consequence. Don’t be mistaken, white supremacists are enjoying this. And the support of the recall is aligned with this.

A twitter follower called her out for her extraordinary lack of awareness as to the real reasons why she and her two compatriots was booted:

Your tweet reflects a major lack of awareness. Over 70% [73.86%] of the [146,432 who voted in the recall election, or 108,148] voters chose “yes” on the recall, in a city already extremely diverse.


They can’t have all been mass-duped. Isolating and labeling these people as bigots or enemies of racial justice won’t help you out.

Washington Post journalist David Weigel, who has been following the recall effort closely, agreed: “The ‘yes’ vote for recall was racially diverse … the ‘white supremacist’ charge just didn’t convince anyone.”

Even the editor-in-chief of the far-left Mother Jones chimed in, claiming that her ouster had nothing to do with any “white supremacy” conspiracy funded by Trump supporters or conservative billionaires. It had everything to do with her incompetency. Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffrey reviewed the vast “array of irritants” that led to the ouster not only of Lopez but also board members Alison Collins (78 percent to 22 percent) and Faauuga Moliga (71 percent to 29 percent).

First, San Francisco schools stayed closed due to the pandemic far longer that most other school districts in the country. The board consequently spent little time planning on how to reopen them, dismaying parents with students being required to stay at home.

Second, rather than planning for reopening the schools, the board decided unanimously to rename 44 of them. Their ideological screen excluded any historical figure who had “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those figures included U.S. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Also included were two-time Secretary of State Daniel Webster, Paul Revere, and Francis Scott Key, the author of the “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

This move so outraged even the liberal parents living in San Francisco that the board was forced to cancel its plans. Lopez made half an apology, claiming that the board’s plans to rename the schools began in 2018 “with a timeline that didn’t anticipate a pandemic. I acknowledge and take responsibility that mistakes were made in the renaming process.”

And then there was the kerfuffle over painting over a mural done in 1930 in one of the schools depicting snippets of George Washington’s life experiences. The board considered them racist and voted to paint over the mural. This so alienated art historians, the local NAACP, and other liberal elites that the board at first backtracked and then decided that rather than paint over the mural it would order that the mural be covered instead. The cost was $815,000 when the board was running a deficit in excess of $125 million.

The board decided to intervene in the admissions process of Lowell High School, one of the highest-rated public schools in the country. As Jeffery noted: “Admission was determined by ‘merit,’ i.e., GPA. Lowell was also overwhelmingly Asian American (the biggest group) and white.”

This the board couldn’t abide and voted to change Lowell’s admission practice to a public lottery instead, in order to make the student body more “representative” of the community, regardless of ability. What really set off the parents was that the board “rammed through [the] change without allowing for public input, apparently violating state sunshine provisions and triggering … lawsuits,” according to Jeffrey.

Back in April of last year an enterprising individual uncovered some “anti-Asian” tweets issued by one of those ousted on Tuesday, Alison Collins. One of them read, “Where are the vocal Asians speaking up against Trump? Don’t Asian Americans know they are on his list as well?”

The board issued a vote of no confidence as a result, and Collins filed suit claiming that her First Amendment rights had been violated. The suit was for $87 million. Happily, a judge threw out her lawsuit but only after the board had spent $400,000 of taxpayer monies defending themselves against it.

In June 2020, the district’s school superintendent, Vincent Matthews, tried to intervene and asked the board to bring in an outside consultant to help them deal with some of the real issues. But the board declined after learning that the consultant had once worked for a charter school.

As Jeffrey concluded, Tuesday’s vote had nothing to do with “white supremacy” but “a vote against incompetence.” Voters, she wrote, “felt like the board was playing politics, very ineptly.”

Mayor London Breed now has the opportunity to put the board back on track when she installs her own candidates to replace those booted on Tuesday. As for the other four board members? They won’t be eligible for their own recall vote as they haven’t been on the board long enough.

District Judge Stops Air Force’s Persecution of Officer Seeking Religious Exemption From COVID Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 17, 2022: 

In a decision fraught with national implications, a Trump-appointed judge in Georgia ruled on Tuesday that the Air Force cannot continue to pressure a reserve officer into taking the COVID vaccine.

Although technically the ruling affects only the future of a 25-year reservist, the judge’s reasoning lays substantial groundwork for future cases against the religious discrimination currently being applied by all the military services of the United States.

The religious discrimination was blatant, as Tilman Self, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, noted on the first page of his ruling. The plaintiff’s superior officer, in rejecting her final request for a religious exemption to taking the vaccine, wrote: “Your religious beliefs are sincere, [they’re] just not compatible with military service.”

Although that statement was a single individual’s opinion, it reflected the Air Force’s general view of religion. As Judge Self noted: “When considering the Air Force’s abysmal record regarding religious accommodations requests, it turns out that he was dead on target.”

In his 32-page ruling, Judge Self took considerable pains to expose the hypocrisy and disdain for those holding strong religious beliefs.

First, any claim by the Air Force that it has in place a procedure to process religious exemption requests is a sham, a fraud, a ruse, nothing but “theater”:

Although the Air Force claims to provide a religious accommodation process, it proved to be nothing more than a quixotic quest for Plaintiff because it was [quoting from another judge’s ruling on the same issue] “by all accounts,… theater.” …


Despite thousands of requests for religious exemption, the Air Force hadn’t granted a single one of them when Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

The issue is about the Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “Even in a pandemic [wrote Self, quoting still another judge’s ruling on the same issue], the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

Judge Self exposed the Air Force’s blatant disdain for those holding sincere religious objections to taking the vaccine:

As of January 31, 2022, the Air Force hadn’t approved a single religious accommodation request, but it had disapproved 2,787 of them and had another 2,443 requests pending.

Not only was the Air Force not granting any religious exemptions, it was punishing those requesting them:

The Air Force … informed Plaintiff that “any refusal to receive [a] COVID-19 vaccine … may be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice…” and that “continued refusal will result in involuntary reassignment” … without pay, benefits, or regular responsibilities.

The plaintiff was being “forced to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs, and her livelihood.” She complained that “the Constitution prohibits Defendants [the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Surgeon General of the Air Force] from forcing her” to make such a choice.

The judge exposed the Air Force’s deliberate intention to deny religious exemptions to everyone requesting them:

Like every other religious-based request and appeal filtering its way through the Air Force’s accommodation process, it was … rubber-stamped with disapproval and denial.

He reminded the defendants that “constitutional protections remain commandments, not suggestions,” and that he agreed with the plaintiff that they “have violated the Constitution because they essentially forced her to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs and her livelihood.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys had no defense:

Defendants don’t say much in response to Plaintiff’s arguments that their COVID-19 vaccination requirement substantially burdens the free exercise of her religion. And how could they? Very few scenarios paint a bleaker picture than giving up your livelihood in order to follow your religious beliefs.…


Defendants simply don’t explain why they have a compelling interest in Plaintiff being vaccinated while so many other Air Force service members are not [vaccinated].

Judge Self then touched the third rail of the whole business of vaccinating against the COVID-19 virus:

Plaintiff’s natural immunity coupled with other preventive measures begs the question: Does a COVID-19 vaccine really provide more sufficient protection?


This is especially curious given the number of people who have been and continue to be infected after becoming fully vaccinated and receiving a booster — including the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Additionally, he exposed the Air Force’s hypocrisy and its anti-religion stance:

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination requirement allows service members to refuse vaccination for secular reasons while disallowing refusal based on religious reasons…. No matter whether one service member is unvaccinated for a medical reason and another unvaccinated for a religious reason, one thing remains the same for both of these service members — they’re both unvaccinated. In other words, both of these service members pose a “similar hazard” to Defendants’ compelling interest in “stemming the spread of COVID-19” within the military.

He then called out the defendants’ personal hypocrisy in allegedly supporting and defending the Constitution while violating it:

Given “the Nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom [,]” Plaintiff’s harm — a constitutional injury involving her right to freely exercise her religion — is not a mere trivial grievance…. And, what real interest can our military leaders have in furthering a requirement that violates the very document they swore to support and defend?

Stephen Crampton, senior counsel with the Thomas More Society, which assisted the reservist with her complaint, said:

This is a great victory for religious freedom.


The Air Force had granted over 1,500 medical exemptions by the time we filed this lawsuit, but not a single religious exemption — not one. After we filed, it suddenly decided to start granting or claiming to grant religious exemptions, albeit only a handful.


It is disgraceful how the military in general has disrespected fundamental First Amendment rights.

He then added a hopeful footnote:

We are grateful that the court has restored the Free Exercise rights of this courageous officer and are hopeful that her victory will help to protect the rights of conscientious objectors everywhere.

Democrat Governors Rescinding School Mask Mandates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 9, 2022:  

Democrat governors in four deep blue states who are, in the words of former Senator Everett Dirksen, “feeling the heat,” are beginning “to see the light.” Oregon Governor Kate Brown, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Delaware Governor John Carney, and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont all announced on Monday that they were rolling back their indoor masking requirements, including for schools.

The heat is coming from several different directions. The November midterm elections are rapidly approaching, Joe Biden’s polling numbers are tanking, the “Freedom Convoy” of truckers protesting the mandates continues unabated, and hospitalizations from the virus are dropping, in some cases precipitously.

The light is being reflected in decisions by these “four horsemen of the Apocalypse” to back off on their mandates. They are still totalitarians, but are willing to shift the masking decisions to local authoritarians — schools boards and teachers’ unions.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called the decisions a result of an “epiphany” experienced by those governors:

The medical science didn’t change, the political science changed.


They feel the heat. They know that voters have been tired of perpetual lockdown policies. They know that they have basically offered no offramp, and they know that they’re fixing to get whooped at the polls.


And so that’s what’s causing the epiphany.

That “epiphany” has reached the White House. Said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, “We certainly understand, and have seen in polling that the public is tired of COVID. We understand that. So are we. And there have been good signs recently where there has been a decrease in hospitalizations around the country.”

But that epiphany hasn’t yet reached the U.S. House of Representatives. Every single one of the 221 Democrats in the lower house voted against Representative Ashley Hinson’s (R-Iowa) bill, the Unmask Our Kids Act. If passed into law, her bill would allow parents to opt out of masking for their children.

In her plea on the House floor before the vote, Hinson said:

Across the country, children are struggling. Despite being nearly two full years into the pandemic, tens of thousands of students started off this year still being forced to learn behind a screen, cut off from their peers.


And many school districts are mandating masks for children of all ages against their parents’ wishes.


Parents should have the option to send their kids to school in person, and to decide whether they want their kids to wear a mask at school….


That’s at the heart of this issue — parents should be empowered to make the choices that impact their children’s physical and mental health, their development, and their future.

Following the party-line vote that defeated Hinson’s bill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called out the Democrats:

House Democrats are playing politics and want you to believe they’re following the science. If they really trusted the science, they would have voted for Ashley Hinson’s Unmask Our Kids Act because the data against school-mask requirements are abundantly clear.


Instead, 221 House Democrats voted against it, allowing schools districts to continue to impose mandates on young kids. That’s not only unfair to children, it is harmful for many of them.

Unless those House Democrats see the light, and soon, it will further harm the prospects of their party keeping control of the House in the November midterm elections.

The four Democrat governors are happily awakening, thanks to the heat, and rescinding mask mandates in schools. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, a dozen states imposed mask mandates in schools. May the decisions announced on Monday by the governors of four of them galvanize the others to take similar action.

Court Rules Against Virginia Governor Youngkin’s Mask Freedom Order

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 7, 2022:  

At the same time that Loudoun County parents sued the local school board for ignoring Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s executive order allowing parents the freedom to unmask their children, seven other school boards were suing Youngkin over the same issue.

On Friday, the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, ruled against Youngkin and his “mask freedom” order.

At issue is the apparent contradiction caused by Virginia’s General Assembly. First, it issued an order to all school boards in the state to “provide such in-person instruction in a manner [designed] to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that had been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC].”

It also granted governors temporary powers to react to emergencies. Then-Governor Ralph Northam used those powers to issue executive orders mandating all teachers and students to be masked at all times. Under the same powers, current Governor Glenn Youngkin repealed Northam’s order, allowing parents to decide what’s best for their children attending school.

The boards argued that if Youngkin’s order “is enforced, [and] the universal masking policy is undermined … they would be unable to enforce the universal masking policy” required by CDC guidelines.

Youngkin, on the other hand, asserted that those school boards “are not allowing parents to choose whether to send their children to school without a mask.”

Circuit Court Judge Louise DeMatteo put both the General Assembly’s rule and Youngkin’s order “on equal footing” and then decided in favor of the General Assembly, negating (for the moment) Youngkin’s order.

She wrote:

While the General Assembly has granted the Governor significant and sweeping general powers to address an emergency … it does not follow that the Governor, even in an emergency, can direct the School Boards to ignore the General Assembly’s deference to CDC guidance….


School Boards will likely succeed on the merits of their claim that [Youngkin’s executive order] is contrary to the clear language of [the General Assembly’s rule]….


[Therefore] the Court concludes that the School Boards’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with regard to optional masking of children should be granted.

Youngkin’s office has stated it will appeal her ruling immediately. Her ruling doesn’t impact the parents’ lawsuit in Loudoun County, which is proceeding on its own through the courts.

Other factors are in play as well. Time is running out for those school boards, as more and more evidence is being reported, even by the CDC itself, that masking is ineffective, and that young students are the least likely to catch the virus. As parents learn that the issue is essentially a local one, they are likely to continue to make their complaints against current school-board masking policies heard loud and clear.

Ultimately, school-board elections will resolve the issue, making such rulings as the one issued on Friday irrelevant.

Top Virginia Officials Join Parents in Suing Loudoun School

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 4, 2022:  

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, his Attorney General Jason Mirares, and the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Jilian Balow asked a court on Wednesday to allow them to join the parents suing the Loudoun County School Board.

The parents complain that their students attending Loudoun County public schools are still required to wear masks all day (including during sporting events). This, despite Youngkin’s executive order freeing them to allow their students to go maskless if they so desire.

On his first day as governor, Youngkin signed nine executive orders, one of them directly repealing an order issued by his predecessor, Governor Ralph Northam, commanding all students be masked as part of the protocol adopted by the state to mitigate transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

As Youngkin explained:

Recent government orders requiring virtually every child in Virginia wear masks virtually every moment they are in school have proven ineffective and impractical. They have also failed to keep up with rapidly changing scientific information….


[While a] universal masking requirement in schools has provided inconsistent health benefits, the universal requirement has also inflicted notable harm and proven to be impracticable. Masks inhibit the ability of children to communicate, delay language development, and impede the growth of emotional and social skills.

He reminded parents that they have the right, under the Code of Virginia, “to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child,” adding:

Permitting parents to make decisions on where and when to wear masks permits the Commonwealth’s parents to make the best decision for the circumstances confronting each child. Parents can assess the risks and benefits facing their child, consult their medical providers, and make the best decision for their children based on the most up to date health information available.

He then declared that the previous mask mandate was void, and that parents “may [now] elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.”


He further declared that school boards may not inflict special demands on parents requiring them to justify their decision not to have their children masked.


This so rankled the Loudoun County School Board that they decided, despite the evidence and the new order from Youngkin, to declare that any student violating the district’s commands for all-day, full-time masking would be suspended.

Here is an excerpt from the letter sent to parents from the Loudoun County School District:

Students who willfully continue to refuse to [wear a mask] as required by Loudoun County Public Schools will be suspended from school [and that] a student who is suspended because of non-compliance with [the mask mandate] may return to school only when they agree to [wear a mask] throughout the entire school day and at all indoor school-related events.

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares explained why he supports the lawsuit filed by the parents:

Parents know what is best for their children and should be able to decide if their children wear a mask for eight hours a day. For this reason, the Attorney General, Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction are seeking a motion for temporary injunction and a motion for temporary restraining order.

What’s galling most to the tyrants running the public schools in Loudoun County, Virginia, is the whole idea that parents — supposedly uneducated and untrained in how children ought to be taught — now have the power to decide for themselves what’s best for their children.

The Circuit Court for Loudoun County will decide the matter.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Announces Two More Pro-life Bills

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 24, 2022:  

Coinciding with Friday’s March for Life attended by thousands in Washington, D.C., South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s announcement of two new anti-abortion bills adds to the pro-life momentum continuing to build across the land. From her office she announced:

Today, as tens of thousands of pro-life Americans participate in the annual March for Life in Washington, DC, Governor Kristi Noem announced the text of two pro-life bills to protect unborn lives.


The first will ban abortions once a child’s heartbeat can be detected; the second will ban telemedicine abortions in South Dakota.

Noem’s first bill is the third so-called heartbeat law in the country, succeeding those passed by Texas and Mississippi. Texas bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around the 10th week of pregnancy, while Mississippi’s law bans abortions after 15 weeks. A lawsuit challenging the Mississippi law — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Noem’s announcement also coincides with the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that “discovered” the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. The court doubled down on that highly controversial decision years later.

Said Governor Noem in announcing the new bills:

Every human life is unique and beautiful from the moment it is conceived. Every life is worthy of our protection, worthy of the right to live. We hope that this year’s March for Life will be the last and that the Supreme Court will finally protect every unborn life. But until that comes to pass, these bills will ensure that both unborn children and their mothers are protected in South Dakota.

The South Dakota law is modeled after the Texas heartbeat law in that only private citizens can bring civil action against abortionists or those aiding them in performing an abortion. This has so far successfully thwarted the abortion industry from obtaining a court’s injunction against enforcement of the law.

South Dakota’s new law has teeth: There is a minimum $10,000 penalty against the abortion provider, along with legal fees and other financial penalties if the lawsuit is successful. This aspect of Texas’ heartbeat law has virtually shut down abortions in that state.

Thanks to South Dakota’s already-strong stand against taking the life of an unborn infant, abortions in that state have been reduced by 80% over the last ten years.


Gov. Noem reinforced that South Dakota is a strongly pro-life state:

The Constitution clearly delegates defending the lives and safety of the people to the [state] government as its chief role. That includes defending the rights and the lives of unborn children.…


As soon as the High Court overturns Roe v. Wade, our state laws already in place should protect every unborn South Dakota child….


Science tells us that an unborn child’s heart starts beating as early as six weeks after conception. Any abortion after that point stops that heartbeat — stops that life — stops that gift from God.

The second bill announced by Noem bans so-called “telemedicine” abortions: abortions facilitated by two drugs, mifepristone (which deprives the fetus of nutrients) and its follow-up drug, misoprostol (which induces labor to expel the remains of the dead infant). These were formerly available online, but this bill would effectively codify Noem’s executive order issued last September banning the purchase of such drugs over the internet.

Under the new bill, those drugs may only be prescribed during an in-person consultation with a physician licensed in the state. The bill also bans the drugs from being delivered by mail, and forbids them from being provided in schools or on state properties.

These two bills follow eight other pro-life bills Governor Noem signed into law last year, including a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and a bill protecting the life of an infant born alive, regardless of the circumstances of that child’s birth.

In addition, South Dakota has a “trigger law” enacted in 2005 that would ban all abortions at any time “on a date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.”

That’s one of the most egregious aspects of Roe v. Wade: The high court overruled every state’s power granted under the Constitution to regulate abortions, thus unleashing a tsunami of abortions — an estimated 65 million lives have been lost in the holocaust that began back in 1973.

Quinnipiac Poll Has Biden’s Approval Rating at Record Low

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, January 13, 2022:  

President Joe Biden’s job approval rating dropped another three points, reported Quinnipiac University on Wednesday. In November, Americans gave him a negative 36-53 percent (approval-disapproval) rating. His current rating stands at 33-53 percent.

His polling numbers have continued to drop at Quinnipiac. The last seven polls have shown his approval rating dropping from 49 percent to 46 percent to 42 percent to 38 percent to 37 percent to 36 percent, and now to a record low of 33 percent.

His approval rating among Democrats is dropping as well. In November, 87 percent of them approved of his performance. Since then, his approval rating has dropped by 12 points, to 75 percent.

Everywhere Quinnipiac looked, those polled gave Biden a failing grade. On the economy, 34-57. On his foreign policy, 35-54. On his response to COVID-19, 39-55.

He promised to unite the country. Forty-nine percent of those polled told Quinnipiac that he’s doing more to divide than to unite.

A majority — 54 percent — told Quinnipiac pollsters that they think the U.S. economy is getting worse, with 70 percent saying the present state of the economy is not very good or just plain poor.

This dismal performance by Biden is flowing over into the midterm elections, according to Quinnipiac. Forty-three percent of those they polled want Republicans to regain control of the House of Representatives while 42 percent prefer Democrats to retain control. In the Senate, 45 percent favor Republicans gaining control in November, with just 41 percent want the Senate to remain in Democrat hands.

The damage being wrought by Biden’s collapsing poll numbers extends to how Americans view the Democratic Party as a whole: More than six out of 10 (62 percent) say the Democratic Party is more committed to individual politicians that to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Biden, whether he knows it or not, is engaging in self-immolation. His speech yesterday in Georgia lit the fires of discontent not only among his Republican targets but among his supporters as well. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Joe Biden he heard yesterday wasn’t the Joe Biden he knew from his days in the Senate, declaring his speech “profoundly unpresidential.”

McConnell added,

[Biden] called millions of Americans his domestic enemies … [shouting] that if you disagree with him, you’re George Wallace [a segregationist].


If you don’t pass the laws he wants, you’re Bull Connor [a white supremacist], and if you oppose giving Democrats untrammeled, one-party control of the country, well, you’re Jefferson Davis [president of the Confederate States].

McConnell said, “Look, I’ve known, liked and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday.”

In researching for this article, this writer found no mention of Biden’s descent into dementia and possibly Alzheimer’s disease. But WebMD had plenty to say about the end stages of that dreadful and debilitating disease:

Sometimes, people with Alzheimer’s disease lash out for no clear reason. They may get upset or angry easily. They may curse, hurl insults, or scream. They might even throw things or resist caregivers by pushing and hitting. This kind of aggression usually starts when people get to the later stages of the disease.


No one knows for sure why it happens. Aggression may be a symptom of Alzheimer’s disease itself. It could also be a reaction when a person feels confused or frustrated.

The WebMD website lists possible triggers for behavior exhibited by Biden on Wednesday:

  • The environment around them, including loud noises, too much activity, or clutter;
  • Confusion from being asked too many questions at once, trying to understand complex instructions, or feeling the stress of caregivers;
  • Being criticized or told they were wrong;
  • Feeling rushed; or
  • Confusion about what was happening.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions. But whether he knows it or not, Biden, and his falling approval numbers, increasingly bode ill for Democrats, and the Democratic Party itself, in the November midterm elections as well as the presidential election in 2024 if Biden decides to run for reelection.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann