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

Tennessee Health Worker Announces Resignation With Fiery Letter to Boss

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 21, 2o21:  

Micki Jeans is a CT technologist and works for Ballad Health of Tennessee. Up until October 31, that is, when she will resign. She gave two weeks’ notice directly to Alan Levine, executive chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Ballad Health.

In her nine-page letter of resignation, Jeans gave her reasons: Levine sold out, and in good conscience and as a Christian, she can’t work for him anymore:

You are the sole reason that I am resigning from your company, Ballad Health….

 

You have infringed upon my personal rights and freedoms and the freedom of your employees.

She started from the beginning. For 30 years, she labored faithfully for Mountain States Health Alliance, which became Ballad. And she believed Levine had her best interests at heart. She also believed him when he declared himself to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ:

When you became CEO, I appreciated your spiritual words of encouragement. I was your advocate. When others came against you, I defended you for no other reason than your consistent religious encouragement.

 

I thought you to be a Godly man. I considered you not only a hospital leader worthy of respect but a friend and a fellow brother in Christ.

In July 2021, however, “all that changed. I watched as you adhered to the unconstitutional words of the unelected CDC, FDA, WHO, and OSHA … and even the current, yet corrupt, Biden Administration.… I watched you speak on CNN … urging Americans to take the experimental injections.”

She learned the reason why: He was protecting his company from federal sanctions if he didn’t sell out and go along:

I have recently learned … that if you did not adhere to the guidance of these … organizations, you would no longer receive Medicare/Medicaid funding.

 

You had a decision to make.

 

You could have, and should have, found a way to fight for Medicare/Medicaid funding while going against the unconstitutional mandates….

 

You did not choose wisely.

Instead, Levine chose to segregate his employees by badges they were required to wear, for those vaccinated, and those unvaccinated. He forced them to share their private health information.

In so doing, she wrote, he walked away from his Christian faith:

I was shocked that you would go along this path of division because you have claimed Christianity. God calls us to bring unity and peace, not division. You had the incredible opportunity to use your platform to stand up for what is right.

 

Could you imagine the mountains you could have moved?

 

Unfortunately, you did not use your platform to stand up for freedom.

There was a moment in time when she saw clearly who Levine really was:

The moment you told every single one of your employees via email that we would face disciplinary action up to termination if we did not comply with your badge buddy system, I saw you in a completely different light.

 

When you began to encourage the Covid-19 injections, I felt that you absolutely did not care about the freedom of anybody.

 

As a veteran of the United States Air Force, I value every God-given freedom that I have. In my life, I endured 7 months of captivity and I learned to value and to always fight for the human rights and freedom of every human being.

Jeans had done her homework, even if Levine hadn’t:

I am surprised that you, an educated and Christian man, cannot see right through what Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, and the billionaire global elites on this earth are trying to do. I do hope at this point that you will consider opening your eyes to the evil and corrupt global agenda, of which you are unfortunately a part.

The pandemic is not a healthcare crisis, she wrote, but “a global bioweapon against humanity.” And Levine doubled down by accusing “those who speak the truth of spreading disinformation and misinformation.”

She closed her letter of resignation:

I never would have imagined that I would be fighting government mandates and requirements by [Ballad Health] to receive a non-FDA approved experimental treatment for a disease with a 99.5% survival rate….

 

Medical decisions should be the sole responsibility of the individual.… These rights are God-given, inalienable, and constitutionally secured! Medical tyranny has no place in America or in Tennessee.

Her letter sounded like an application for membership in The John Birch Society:

I will join every group, every person, every doctor and healthcare worker to stand against what you are doing. I will work to unify the people of this community, not divide them. I will work to support your employees, my peers, who have gotten these injections under duress and coercion. I will work to give Ballad Health employees a voice.

 

I will work to educate people about our Constitution and make them aware of the freedoms that God gave them. I will travel, speak, write letters, emails and I will do everything in my power to expose the corruption of our world, our beautiful country, our state, and your company.

 

I will join forces with the Patriots of this great nation to do everything that I can to … combat what you and others are allowing to happen to our nation….

 

I will give my breath and my very life for the freedom of the citizens of this great nation and for our future generations. I will not stand idly by as communism, socialism, and global elites try to take us out. I was a soldier when our military was honorable and defended our freedoms and I am a soldier for Christ. I will fight. I. WILL. FIGHT.

She signed her letter: “Unvaccinated, unmasked, unashamed, and unafraid.”

Levine’s company’s website declares that, when they were considering what to name the new conglomeration of healthcare companies, “People told us they want to receive care from someone who really listens to them. When our health care is at stake, we need to be able to trust our caregiver.… We’re listening.”

Is Levine listening? Will he respond by doing the right thing? Or will Jeans’ letter of resignation be tossed into the round file so he can continue supporting the pandemic canard against his people?

Abbott Violates Constitution in Pushback Against Biden’s Unconstitutional Vaccine Mandates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, October 20, 2021:

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart on Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said he wanted to “set the counterbalance” against the Biden administration’s executive order demanding that employers with more than 100 employees be vaccinated.

He told Breitbart:

I had to stand up and protect those freedoms of people not wanting their bodies basically invaded by a vaccine that they do not want….

 

I talked to too many Texans around the entire state, who were literally crying because they faced either losing their job or compromising their own values and safety by getting the vaccine.

 

One of the catalysts behind my action was to ensure that people would not be losing their jobs.

Abbott’s “action” first revealed itself in June when he signed into law a bill that said that “a business in this state may not require a customer to provide any documentation certifying the customer’s COVID-19 vaccination … to gain access to, or to receive service from, that business.” At that time, Abbott declared that “Texas is open 100 percent, and we want to make sure that you have the freedom to go where you want without limits.”

That, of course, violates the right of a business owner to determine, on his own, whether such “documentation” would be required of his customers.

Abbott compounded his error on October 11 by issuing an executive order declaring that “no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such vaccination [demands].” The June law still allowed businesses to require that their employees be vaccinated, but his October ruling violated that right as well.

When Amanda House, Breitbart’s host of the interview, asked Abbott about his legal strategy in “counterbalancing” Biden’s executive order, he said:

Neither the President of the United States, nor the federal government, have any legal authority — any constitutional authority — to issue their vaccine mandate.

 

Throughout the history of the United States of America, it has been governors in states that have been in charge of [the] health and safety of the people who are residents of those states, not the federal government….

 

[It] is part of the governor’s job … to ensure that the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution … are going to be protected.

Abbott, who obtained his Juris Doctorate from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1984, apparently didn’t learn, or perhaps forgot, that by taking his oath of office as governor he committed to upholding the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the state of Texas. The federal Constitution specifically grants lawmaking power in Article 1 to Congress alone, and not to the executive branch. The Constitution of Texas grants lawmaking power in Article 3 to the state legislature, and not to the governor. And if there is any conflict between state and federal law, the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution sorts it out:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

So, Abbott violated his oath of office by issuing an edict that only the state legislature can make. And then he violated private property rights and freedom of association rights of business owners in his executive order.

As Jacob Sullum wrote in Reason: “Abbott’s order is just as objectionable as the pending federal rule demanding that private companies with 100 or more employees require them to choose between vaccination and weekly coronavirus testing.… Abbott’s order … is no less outrageous than … Joe Biden’s plan to dictate employers’ vaccine policies.”

A vastly better and more effective — and Constitutional — way Abbott could have protected his citizens from an overweening federal government would have been for him simply to declare Biden’s forthcoming executive order as “null and void” in the state of Texas, noting that it was not “made in pursuance” of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Wyoming to Hold Special Session to Push Back Against Vaccine Mandates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, October 19, 2021: 

The Wyoming state legislature has voted to hold a special session next week to consider two bills pushing back against Biden’s vaccine mandates. Republican Governor Mark Gordon has repeatedly said he would fight against the mandates, even threatening to sue the Biden administration if necessary.

The special session would consider two bills being drafted: 1) a bill sponsored by Representative Chuck Gray of Casper that would ban vaccine “passports” and impose a heavy fine on any company using an employee’s vaccination status to hire, fire, promote, or demote him or her; and 2) a bill sponsored by Representative Tom James of Rock Springs that would impose fines and possible imprisonment for any state employee who attempted to enforce Biden’s mandates.

Wyoming is far from alone. At least 19 governors have issued public statements opposing the administration’s declarations, and several have vowed to fight them.

Southwest Airlines is still recovering from pilots’ pushback that virtually shut down the airline last weekend. Amtrak had to cancel trains because of a similar “staffing issue.” Workers for the shipbuilding company Huntington Ingalls are protesting demands from the company’s president that they get vaccinated or else they will lose their jobs.

The union representing pilots for American Airlines has warned the company it will face similar disruptions in service as Southwest if it doesn’t soften its vaccination demands.

Parents in Nevada, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, New York, and South Carolina are protesting school boards’ demands that students, even in grade school, wear masks or face disciplinary action.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is facing rebellion from the police union’s members who are refusing to go along with her vaccine demands. Members of police departments in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Denver are also protesting the demands.

So, Wyoming is not alone.

However, in covering the issue in Wyoming, both the Casper Star Tribune and The Epoch Times got it wrong. Wrote Victoria Eavis for the Star Tribune: “State statutes can’t supersede federal law, according to the U.S. Constitution.” And Isabel van Brugen, writing for The Epoch Times, also got it wrong: “The U.S. Constitution prohibits state statutes from superseding federal law.”

First, the mandates declared by Biden were not law, but executive orders. Under the Constitution (See Article I, Section 1) only Congress can make laws. Second, any law that violates the U.S. Constitution automatically is null and void.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) makes that clear:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Any law that violates the Constitution, in other words, is null and void. That would allow Wyoming to declare Biden’s executive order as null and void and unenforceable in the state. As President George Washington noted in his farewell address in 1796: “Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument for good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Parent Pushback on Children’s Mask Mandates Goes Viral

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, October 18, 2021:  

Perhaps the most viewed video of outraged parents protesting school-board mask mandates for their kids came from Clark County School District in Nevada. In September, not only did a group of parents file a $200 million lawsuit against the school board, a copy of it was hand-delivered to each board member during a meeting.

The complaint stated that the board and the school superintendent “blatantly and maliciously” violated the Constitution by imposing the mask mandate on school children. It complained that any benefits masking might provide are greatly exceeded by the damage done to the educational process. “The ability to pursue an education without being subject to health risks … are not offset by any scientifically provable benefits,” said the complaint.

Said the parents, in announcing the lawsuit as copies of it were being handed out to each board member:

You have been officially served a $200 million lawsuit with six complaints and violations under multiple amendments. Your job is not to be concerned with children’s health. You are not nurses. You’re not doctors.

 

Your only focus is on our children’s education. If the education system here is 50th in the state and you make almost more money than anybody else, it is very clear that you have failed in doing that job.

Accordingly, the parents are not only seeking a repeal of the mask mandate on their children, but $200 million in damages. In addition, the complaint demands that “each defendant be held responsible for breaching the public’s trust to the maximum extent of the law … a category C felony.”

In Tom’s River, New Jersey, things got so heated over the mask mandates that the school board was forced to shut down a meeting. In an interview following the meeting, parent Christina Valenti said:

It’s almost like they can’t go after the adults [to enforce the mandate]. The adults won’t comply, so they’re going after our children.

 

They’re innocent. They’re [at] the lowest risk.

 

If you’re afraid, put it on. If you’re not, don’t. But it’s my choice. I should have that choice as a parent.

 

You’re an educator, educate! Let me parent!

Valenti revealed part of a letter she sent to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy:

Our parents have had enough of state-mandated masks for our children under the guise of safety. They want the choice to decide what is best for their own children.

 

This country was founded on the principle of Liberty, and safety does not come before Freedom.

In Chino, California, dozens of parents gathered on a downtown sidewalk waving signs with slogans that said “Let them breathe,” and “Our children, Our choice.”

In Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, parents filed a lawsuit against the mask mandate, this one aimed at the state’s Acting Health Secretary Alison Beam. The suit claims she doesn’t have the authority to mandate masks in the schools and that her order to do so violates the state’s constitution.

In White Hall, Arkansas, parents of school children have sued the school district for mandating masks. Said parent Laura Golden:

I think it’s everybody’s individual choice. If you feel safe wearing a mask, wherever you go, then that’s great: wear a mask. If you don’t, there shouldn’t be an issue with that.

 

Just like with the flu shots. When the school sent out the flu shot it’s not mandatory. You choose what you think is best for your child. You sign it, your child gets a shot a school. If not, they don’t. There’s no issue around that.

In New York, the Massapequa and Locus Valley school boards took the position of the parents. They sued New York Governor Kathy Hochul, the head of the Department of Health, and the state’s health commissioner:

The lawsuit demonstrates that neither the Health Commissioner, nor the new Governor, Kathy Hochul, have the power to establish a statewide mandate policy as an emergency health measure, that such authority resides only with the Legislature; otherwise, it is a matter for local control.

And in Charleston County, South Carolina, parent Ashley Regan told Fox & Friends that if a student fails to wear a mask the school board will send him home:

Not only do you have bullying students, you are isolating them. You are segregating them. You are discriminating against students who just want to breathe fresh air….

 

I don’t think it’s fair for our students to have to wear a mask all day.

Parents in other states across the country have voiced, and continue to voice, their objections to board-mandated masks for their children. Many of those parents are now reconsidering their decisions to send them to public schools. This is reflected in the 300-percent increase in homeschooling just in the last two years.

Perhaps those mask mandates being imposed by public school boards are the best thing to happen to public education, forcing parents to rethink their decision to let the state educate their children.

Chicago Police Union Chief Tells Officers to Defy City’s Vaccine Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 14, 2021: 

In blunt terms, John Catanzara, head of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, urged his members to ignore Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s vaccine mandate in a video on Tuesday night. He said that her demand violated personal rights as well as the union agreement under which the officers work. If she doesn’t relent, he said, he’s prepared to file suit.

Back in August, Lightfoot rolled out her vaccine mandate ordering every city employee, including police officers, to report their COVID vaccination status by Friday, October 15, or risk being put on unpaid leave. Employees may apply for medical or religious exemptions.

This was too much for Catanzara:

[Her announcement] has literally lit a bomb underneath the membership….

 

What are they gonna do when four or five thousand coppers say, “screw you, I’m staying home?” You’re not making me get this [expletive deleted] vaccination. Don’t pay me. That’s fine. We’ll see you in court….

 

You’re not gonna pay me? You’re gonna make me stay home? You’re gonna have thousands of coppers willing to stay home, not getting paid to not get a vaccine and then, what are you gonna do for manpower on the streets?

Lightfoot is already getting pressure to reverse her decision from aldermen who fear that Catanzara’s threat is real. On Wednesday, Southwest Side Aldermen Marty Quinn (13th) and Matt O’Shea (19th) called on her not to enforce the deadline: “Our main concern is about losing police officers as we face a dwindling police force and rising incidents of crime and violence.”

In 2019 (through October) the city suffered 402 homicides. In 2020, that number jumped 50 percent to 605. Through October this year homicides increased to 629.

Six other aldermen sent Lightfoot a letter urging her to drop the mandate, calling it “an infringement on [workers’] personal freedoms.”

Indeed, the forms the city is requiring in order to apply for religious or medical exemptions are invasive. The city’s “Religious Exemption Request” demands that the applicant “state your reason” for requesting the exemption, and then asks:

What is the principle of your religious beliefs that conflicts with taking the COVID-10 vaccine?

 

When did you begin practicing this religion or following these beliefs?

 

Do your religious beliefs include objections to other vaccines or medications? If so, please explain.

The religious exemption application then requires the signature of a person’s “religious or spiritual leader” attesting to the “sincerity” of his beliefs.

The application for medical exemption is equally invasive. After providing personal information, the applicant must then provide his or her healthcare provider’s information as well. The provider then must show that “the patient has a documented severe life-threatening allergic reaction to such vaccines, and provide appropriate documentation.”

The alternative is that the healthcare provider explain the “physical condition of the patient or medical circumstances relating to the individual … such that immunization is not considered safe. Please state, with sufficient detail for independent medical review, the specific nature of the medical condition or circumstances that contraindicate immunization with the COVID-19 vaccine.”

It is clear that these “exemption applications” are carefully crafted so that neither of them is likely to be granted.

So, Catanzaro created a third: a “conscientious objection” application:

Please be advised that, pursuant to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70 (“Act”), I have a genuine and sincere wish to be exempt from the Police Department’s vaccine mandate.

 

This request is based on my deeply and sincerely held religious, moral, and/or philosophical convictions that are based on belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place my life that is parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths.

 

On the basis of my moral convictions, I do not believe that health and disease should be controlled by vaccination, or, furthermore, that governments should coerce citizens into receiving medical interventions.

 

My refusal to accept a mandatory vaccine is not only grounded in my conscience, but also sanctioned and permitted by this law.

Catanzara urged his members to complete the third form and send it in on Thursday. And then return to work on Friday, fully expecting to be laid off without pay the next day. Said Catanzara:

I can guarantee you that no-pay status will not last more than 30 days.

 

There’s no way [Lightfoot is] going to be able to sustain a police department workforce at 50 percent capacity or less for more than seven days without something budging.

The pushback by police officers against vaccine-mandate overreach is appearing in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Denver. Pushback is also appearing among airline pilots and truck drivers, threatening the delivery pipeline for goods and services.

Catanzara is right: “Whatever happens because of that manpower issue, that falls at the mayor’s doorstep.”

Southwest Airlines Pilot: “Just say NO to Vaccine Mandates!”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, October 13, 2021:

Joshua Yoder, a pilot with Southwest Airlines and co-founder of U.S. Freedom Flyers, told Fox News on Monday’s Tucker Carlson Tonight that “we have all the control, and the control comes from a simple word, and that is ‘no.’ We just don’t need to comply.”

Although Southwest Airlines explained away its cancellation of more than 2,000 flights over the weekend by blaming “the weather in Florida” and “issues” with air traffic controllers, the FAA reported that Southwest was the only airline to report such a large percentage of its flights being canceled during that time.

Yoder made it clear that his group, U.S. Freedom Flyers, had nothing to do with the cancellations:

I will never promote a sick-out or a work action that is illegal. With U.S. Freedom Flyers … we will never promote such a thing.

 

With that being said, we also cannot control the actions of individuals. And I think that you will see massive disruptions in [the] supply chain and in your travel if we just stand up and say “no.”

When Carlson pressed him over the root cause, Yoder added:

I think anyone with a critical mind can point towards the federal government — and the companies that are enforcing these illegal mandates — and see that it’s the federal government’s fault.

He espoused the freedom philosophy:

I believe in freedom and I’m here to support the freedom of my fellow employees and all people across this country.

 

I’m not going to take a mandate. I’m not going to be forced to do something I don’t believe in.

But if pilots and truck drivers and others involved in the delivery of goods and services stand up and say “no,” he said,

This is going to affect how your goods get here from overseas, how they are distributed to the store.

 

The same thing is happening with the truckers. It’s happening in the shipping industry. Those Amazon boxes that typically show up in two days? You might be looking at three weeks.

Yoder’s group issued a statement on the Biden overreach:

The Biden Administration vaccine mandate announcement on September 9, 2021, made it abundantly clear that its focus is not on maintaining our rights and freedoms as outlined in our Constitution, but on its totalitarian rule.

 

Our freedoms and lives have been upended because of a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate. We will not allow this fear mongering campaign to continue on the American people.

Southwest Airlines and American Airlines are both based in Texas, where the governor has just issued an executive order declaring that such enforced vaccinations are now illegal. The airlines have said that because they are federal contractors, the Biden executive order overrules Abbott’s.

Said Southwest CEO Greg Kelly:

I’ve never been in favor of corporations imposing that kind of a mandate. I’m not in favor of that. Never have been.

 

But the executive order from … Biden mandates that all federal employees … all federal contractors — which covers all the major airlines, have to have a [vaccine] mandate … in place by Dec. 8, so we’re working through that.

That doesn’t mean that Yoder’s threats are idle or that he is alone in the fight. The day after Biden issued his imperial command, almost two dozen state governors responded with a statement opposed to his overreach, including Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

And yesterday, a federal judge in Texas issued a temporary restraining order against United Airlines (UA), blocking it from imposing its vaccine mandate on any of its employees. UA originally told its 67,000 U.S. employees that they must be vaccinated by September 27 or lose their jobs.

This court order is the first of its kind, likely not the last. As more and more individuals like Yoder understand the power of the word “no” to federal overreach, the greater the pushback will be against the Biden administration’s use of COVID to impose its draconian and tyrannical mandates on American citizens.

Texas Governor Issues Executive Order Prohibiting Vaccine Mandates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, October 12, 2021:

Through an executive order issued on Monday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott prohibited “any entity” — including privately owned businesses and other non-governmental entities — from requiring their customers and workers to show proof that they have been vaccinated.

On the surface, it sounded good. Abbott said his order was “aimed at protecting the health and safety of Texans, ensuring uniformity across Texas, and achieving the least restrictive means of combatting [COVID’s] evolving threat to public health.”

Some perceived his order as a direct confrontation to the Biden administration, which has ordered all businesses across the land employing more than 100 workers to require their employees to be vaccinated.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

In other words, any laws that violate the U.S. Constitution are null and void. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, [which is] contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

That means that Biden’s executive order was, and is, unconstitutional, as that precious document doesn’t grant any such power to the federal government. By extension, that means that any state may declare itself free from its edict.

Where Governor Abbott erred was in making his own edict that reached beyond his authority as governor of Texas. He should have listened to and followed the path trod by Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota.

When two state legislators proposed a law similar to the decree announced by Abbott, she asked rhetorically: “If we mandate one thing, are we [not] setting a precedent for what we are telling businesses they have to do in the future?”

She expanded on her position during an interview reported by Reason:

I don’t have the authority as governor to tell them what to do.

 

Since the start of this pandemic I have remained focused on what my authorities are and what they are not.

 

Now, South Dakota is in a strong position because I didn’t overstep my authority. I didn’t trample on the rights of our people, and I’m not going to start now.

She warned that when authorities, including governors such as Texas Governor Abbott, overstep their bounds, the result is devastating:

When leaders overstep their authority, that is how we break the country, and if government starts acting unconstitutionally, even if it’s doing something that we like, that’s a dangerous path to walk down.

 

It is not “conservative” to grow government and to tell businesses what to do and how to treat their employees.

Noem is correct. As Robby Soave wrote in Reason: “It is wrong for the government to tell individuals, private associations, and businesses what to do. If they want to require vaccination, it’s really no concern of the state.”

Texas Governor Abbott would have saved himself some political grief by simply declaring that Texas is exempt from the Biden mandate, leaving Texans alone to make their own determinations about vaccinations. But he sullied his reputation as a “conservative” and left himself open to attacks from two Republican candidates running against him in next year’s primary.

“Don’t mess with Texas.” That slogan originated in a 1985 state-wide campaign against littering, but eventually was adopted as a slogan of pride in the state’s independence. It’s one that Abbott should have used instead of issuing his executive order aimed at businesses and citizens over vaccination mandates.

Liberal Judge Blocks Texas Heartbeat law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 7, 2021:  

Obama-appointed liberal Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction — a restraining order — on Wednesday prohibiting anyone from enforcing Texas’s “heartbeat law,” S.B. 8.

His bias was clear from the beginning of his 133-page opinion:

A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.

That is the basis upon which the entire abortion issue rests: that somehow the contrived “right” of a woman to kill her unborn child created by the Supreme Court in 1973 and affirmed in 1992 now serves as a bedrock certainty that such a “right” exists. And the judge takes umbrage at Texas’s attempt to restore sanity and the right to life of an unborn child:

Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.

 

The State created a private cause of action by which individuals with no personal interest in, or connection to, a person seeking an abortion would be incentivized to use the state’s judicial system, judges, and court officials to interfere with the right to an abortion.

 

Rather than subjecting its law to judicial review under the Constitution, the State deliberately circumvented the traditional process. It drafted the law with the intent to preclude review by federal courts that have the obligation to safeguard the very rights the statute likely violates.

Judge Pitman wrote that since abortion is safe, it must therefore be legal:

The Court finds that abortion is a safe and common medical procedure, based on the credible declarations of abortion providers founded on their education and experience.

Perhaps it is safe to the “pregnant person” (his words), but fatal to the child she is bearing. But no ink is spent in defending his or her right to life in Pitman’s opinion.

Besides, he writes, since abortion is now legal and constitutional, any reason to kill the unborn child is sufficient: “[Supporters of abortion] describe a host of reasons why people might obtain an abortion: commonly arising out of medical, financial, and family planning concerns.”

“Others seek abortions after fetal anomalies are diagnosed, which such diagnoses may result in severe disabilities, or death.” This is, plain and simple, the judge’s justification for murder. Chillingly, it lays the groundwork for the argument that if a child suffers such “fetal anomalies” before birth and may therefore be killed, why cannot the “pregnant person” — now a mother — kill her child after birth?

Those who wrote and now support S.B. 8 are “vigilantes,” wrote the judge:

S.B. 8 imposes an almost outright ban on abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy as well as other anti-abortion measures meant to empower anti-abortion vigilantes and target those who support abortion care in Texas.

Unbelievably, the judge writes of the “irreparable harm” imposed on those “pregnant persons” who cannot rid themselves of the inconvenience of a child:

People seeking abortions face irreparable harm when they are unable to access abortions.… These individuals are entitled to access to abortions under the U.S. Constitution.

Pitman received a Bachelor of Science from Abilene Christian University, where his classmates voted him student body president. After that, he earned a Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, and then a master’s degree in international human rights Law from Oxford. So he is no fool.

But he cannot see, or refuses to see, the enormous affront to the Creator of life his ruling supports and defends. Instead, he sees any efforts to protect the lives of unborn children as the work of “vigilantes!”

His ruling makes certain that no one may bring an action against an abortion provide in Texas:

It is ordered that the State of Texas, including its officers, officials, agents, employees, and any other persons or entities acting on its behalf, are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing [S.B.8].

In other words, he enjoins any private citizen from bringing legal action against an abortionist under S.B. 8.

Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for pro-life Texas Right to Life, also sees the entire case for abortion resting on the false “right” to kill the Supreme Court conjured in Roe:

This is ultimately the legacy of Roe v. Wade, that you have activist judges bending over backwards, bending precedent, bending the law, in order to cater to the abortion industry.

 

These activist judges will create their own conclusion first: that abortion is a so-called constitutional right and then work backward from there.

The powers-that-be were delighted with Pitman’s order. White House Press Secretary Jan Psaki erupted:

Tonight’s ruling is an important step forward toward restoring the constitutional rights of women across the state of Texas.

 

The fight has only just begun, both in Texas and in many other states across this country where women’s rights are currently under attack.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland lauded Pitman’s decision, declaring it a “victory for women of Texas.”

Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, exuded that Pitman’s order “is a critical first step in restoring abortion rights and services in Texas.”

The good news in all of this is that babies aren’t being aborted in Texas, despite his ruling. Abortionists remain afraid of lawsuits, resulting in a more than 80-percent reduction in the ghastly procedure since September 1 when S.B. 8 took effect.

And lawyers defending the Texas law immediately announced they will appeal Pitman’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which enjoys the reputation as being, as Katherine Hamilton wrote at Breitbart, “the most conservative federal appeals court in the nation.”

From there, it’s one step to its final destination: the Supreme Court.

By the time the case gets there, however, the issue may be moot. The high court is hearing the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which directly challenges Roe v. Wade and its conjuring of a fake, vicious, and deadly “right to kill.” A favorable decision by the high court reversing Roe (decision to be announced next June) would preclude the necessity of bringing the present case to their attention.

Democrats Pass Radical Abortion Bill in Response to Texas Heartbeat Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 27, 2021: 

Rushing H.R. 3755 — the deceitfully titled “Women’s Health Protection Act” — to the House floor on Friday without so much as a single committee hearing on it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi secured the votes of all but one Democrat in the House of Representatives in passing it, 218-211. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was the only defector who joined every Republican in voting against it. As the White House explained, the bill is intended “to codify this constitutional right [to abort their unborn child].”

Critics more properly called it the “Abortion on Demand Act” or the “Abortion Without Limits Up to Birth Act,” which, if passed by the Senate, would essentially erase every limitation states have erected to protect the lives of unborn children. The deceit begins with the title, as half the babies aborted in this country are female. But nothing in the law says anything about them.

Instead, the bill passed by the House would, as summed up by LifeNews:

Eliminate all state and federal parental consent laws in relation to abortion;

 

Eliminate all state informed consent laws, including those that allow women to view an ultrasound prior to abortion;

 

Prevent states from passing laws to protect babies at 20 weeks, thereby joining countries like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands in not protecting unborn children later in development;

 

Force doctors and nurses opposed to abortion to lose their jobs, and Catholic hospitals could lose public funds unless they perform abortions;

 

Eliminate decades-long limitations on direct taxpayer funding of abortion — including the popular Hyde Amendment, which has saved over 2 million lives since enacted; and

 

In short, overturn all federal and state pro-life laws, and go further to make it illegal for elected officials to even introduce pro-life legislation.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) was unnervingly explicit about what the bill would allow if it were passed into law:

For the first time ever by congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would legally enable the death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time until birth.

The language goes far beyond the “rights” conjured by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992:

A health care provider has a statutory right [emphasis added] under this Act to provide abortion services … and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right [emphasis added] to receive such services.

Rights come from God, not government. And, as the Declaration of Independence clearly stated, “to secure those Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

The bill has virtually no chance of passage, or of even being offered, by the Senate. Under present rules it would take the votes of every Democrat and the votes of 10 Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold required for passage. But Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is pro-life, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is generally pro-abortion, has said that the bill is even too radical for her.

Knowing in advance that the bill had no chance, the Speaker of the House still rushed the bill to the floor to make a political statement. As Carl Hulse, writer for the pro-abortion New York Times, explained, “The House Democrats’ decision … reflects their view that the issue could resonate strongly in the midterm elections next year.” In other words, Nancy and friends think that this political statement in support of murdering unborn children on demand will actually help them fend off the coming Republican tsunami in some way.

On this issue, the Democrats are behind the curve and losing ground. Not only did the Supreme Court allow the Texas Heartbeat Law to stand, it is hearing arguments next month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which is a direct challenge to the constitutionality of Roe and Casey.

It also reveals the moral corruption of Democrats and the Democrat Party on issues as vital as the right to life. They are sealing their fate with this attack on that right. Many are seeing it not only as an attack on the right to life but an affront to the Giver of Life Himself.

As New Jersey Representative Chris Smith noted, “This bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn children and to the value of life itself.”

It may even present an existential threat to the radical Democrat Party as it exposes to the light of day its position on life, and its Giver.

Texas OB/GYN Who Bragged About Doing Illegal Abortion Is Being Sued

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 21, 2021:  

Alan Braid, a Texas OB/GYN, is being sued following an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he boasted of deliberately performing an illegal abortion.

He opened his practice in 1972 when abortion was illegal, but focused on performing abortions once the Supreme Court struck down state abortion restrictions in its historic Roe v. Wade ruling. He boasted:

For the next 45 years … I was a practicing OB/GYN in Texas … providing abortion care at clinics I opened in Houston and San Antonio, and another in Oklahoma.

 

But then, on September 1, Texas law SB8 became effective.

Complained Braid:

[The law] shut down about 80 percent of the abortion services we provide. Anyone who suspects I have violated the law can sue me for at least $10,000. They could also sue anybody who helps a person obtain an abortion past the new limit, including, apparently, the driver who brings a patient to my office.

 

For me, it is 1972 all over again.

So, Braid decided to break the law:

That is why, on the morning of September 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit [i.e., the child’s heartbeat could be detected].

 

I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.

He knew he was setting himself up to be sued:

I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested….

 

I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the next legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly.

Any financial risk the abortionist might suffer is being mitigated by legal help he is getting:

Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.

But it might end his profitable practice if Operation Rescue has its way. The pro-life group filed a complaint with the Texas Medical Board seeking an immediate suspension of his medical license. Said OR’s President Troy Newman:

Because Braid publicly admitted guilt in violating Texas law by killing a baby whose life was protected by that duly enacted law, Operation Rescue filed [the complaint]. The emergency suspension is necessary to prevent [Braid] from further illegal conduct and to ensure the protection of innocent lives.

The official complaint from Operation Rescue stated:

The intentional taking the life of an innocent child whose life is under the protection of the law is a permanent and egregious loss that cannot be restored. It cannot be rectified. It cannot be undone. That human being is lost forever, and that loss represents a grievous crime that cannot be tolerated in the name of civil disobedience, political theater, or financial profit. It would certainly not be tolerated at any other stage of life in Texas.

Two lawsuits have been filed against Braid. Both are from attorneys, and neither has any interest in saving lives of unborn children.

Oscar Stilley, who is currently serving a 15-year sentence for tax fraud under home confinement, told the Associated Press: “I don’t want doctors out there nervous and sitting there and quaking in their boots and saying, ‘I can’t do this because if this thing works out, then I’m going to be bankrupt.’”

Stilley told the Wall Street Journal that he is neutral on the issue of abortion, but he considers the new Texas law as an “end run” around established law and that “he wants to see a clear ruling on whether [SB8] is legitimate.”

 

The other suiter, Felipe Gomez, a resident of Illinois, calls himself a “pro-choice plaintiff” who said that, if he wins, he would likely give the $10,000 reward to an abortion-rights organization.

 

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest pro-life group, said they consider neither lawsuit as having anything to do with saving lives:

Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent lives. We believe Braid published his op-ed intending to attract imprudent lawsuits, but none came from the Pro-Life movement.

To be valid, each plaintiff must first persuade a judge that they have standing to sue, even though neither has personally suffered financial or economic damages because of Texas’ new pro-life “heartbeat” law.

The pressure to reestablish abortion as murder continues to grow. The Supreme Court just announced that it will begin hearing arguments to reverse Roe in the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in December.

Mississippi Abortion Clinic begs Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com com on Tuesday, September 14, 2021:  

Attorney Julie Rikelman, representing Mississippi’s only remaining abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Monday asking the high court to keep its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade intact.

Her brief is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in May to take under review a lower court’s ruling against Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which the governor signed into law in 2018. The Act prohibited nearly all abortions after 15 weeks, providing severe penalties for transgressors, including suspension or loss of medical license, other penalties and fines.

Days after passage a court ruled the Act unconstitutional, holding that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, and its confirmation of that decision in Casey in 1992, overrode Mississippi’s attempt to protect unborn children from being allowed to be murdered by their mothers. An appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court.

After dozens of conferences over the case the high court agreed to review it, with its ruling expected next summer.

Rikelman claimed that “in Casey, this Court carefully considered every argument Mississippi makes here for overruling Roe. After doing so, the Court reaffirmed the “most central principle” of its abortion jurisprudence: that states cannot prohibit abortion until viability [ability of the child to survive outside the mother’s body, usually around 24 or 25 weeks into the pregnancy].”

“The Court reasoned,” wrote Rikelman, “that, until fetal life can be sustained outside the woman’s body, the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy must remain hers.”

There, for all to see, is the fatal flaw in the entire abortionist position: The unborn child is merely a “fetus”, not a human, until “viability” and therefore may be discarded at the will of the mother, for any reason.

But, Rikelman continues, 30 years of precedents confirms the court’s incorrect and disastrous decision: it “presents an even higher bar…. Casey is precedent on top of precedent — that is, precedent not just on the issue of whether the viability line is correct, but also on the issue of whether [the ruling in Roe] should be abandoned … time and time again, the Court has reaffirmed that it is ‘imperative’ to retain a ‘woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability.’”

So, warned Rikelman, Mississippi must be prevented from overturning five decades of error: “Mississippi asks the Court to take the grave step of overruling a rule of law it has repeatedly reaffirmed.”

That is exactly what Mississippi is asking. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, filed in May, the state bases its entire argument on what the Constitution of the United States says, or doesn’t say, about abortion, viability, and a woman’s “right” to terminate her pregnancy:

On a sound understanding of the Constitution, the answer to the question presented in this case [whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional] is clear and the path to that answer is straight. Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes.

 

Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion.

Mississippi declares that “Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong…. Roe broke from prior cases by invoking a general ‘right of privacy’ unmoored from the Constitution…. Casey repeats Roe’s flaws by failing to tie a right to abortion to anything in the Constitution…. So Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”

Mississippi decries the damage done by these “egregiously” wrong decisions: “Roe and Casey are unprincipled decisions that have damaged the democratic process, poisoned our national discourse, plagued the law — and, in doing so, harmed this Court.”

To say nothing of the more than 60 million lives snuffed out by these decisions by the high court.

Mississippi isn’t alone. Some 80 pro-life amicus briefs have been filed in support, insisting that the Supreme Court reverse its decisions in Roe and Casey. Many of them make the case that unborn children are protected “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Missing from the debate is an argument based upon the Tenth Amendment: “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.” Simply put, the Supreme Court doesn’t even have jurisdiction on the matter, as such powers are not given to the federal government but are left to the states and to the people.

For the record, as of 2018 the Supreme Court has overruled more than 300 of its own cases. May the justices reverse themselves on this one and stop the murdering of innocents!

Texas’ Pro-Life Law Infuriates the Left, Satanists, and Portland, Oregon

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 7, 2021:  

The unprecedented pro-life Texas law that the Supreme Court left in place last week has confused the President, confounded the Left, infuriated Satanists, and invoked the ire of Portland, Oregon’s Mayor Ted Wheeler.

Joe Biden, who announced that the Declaration of Independence holds that “all men and women are created by the… go… you know… the thing,” now claims that the Texas law SB8 is “un-American” and that Attorney General Merrick Garland is busy exploring ways the federal government can undo the new law.

Garland said that his Justice Department would actively seek to “protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion.” He’s asked the DOJ to look into how the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) can be twisted into sanctioning anyone in Texas suing abortionists under the new law.

The Satanic Temple, which has been granted tax-exempt status by the IRS as a legitimate church, stated on its website that anyone in Texas wanting an abortion is welcome to “undergo” its Satanic Abortion Ritual. Just call the local number and the ritual, which involves the use of abortion pills, will be promptly arranged. After all, said the group: “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”

The group said nothing about the government’s increasing pressure to demand that everyone get vaccinated, willing or not.

Portland’s City Council is scheduled to vote Wednesday on whether to punish Texas financially. It will decide whether the city will intentionally refrain from purchasing any goods or services from Texas businesses, as well as block any city workers from travelling to the state. Mayor Ted Wheeler explained:

The ban will be in effect until the state of Texas withdraws its unconstitutional ban on abortion, or until it is overturned in court….

 

[The Texas] law does not demonstrate concern for the health, safety and well-being of those who may become pregnant. This law doesn’t not recognize or who respect for the human rights of those who may become pregnant.

 

This law rewards private individuals [who seek to] exercise … control over others’ bodies. It violates the separation of church and state. And it will force people to carry pregnancies against their will.

The Founders understood clearly the proper role of government. In the Declaration of Independence they held “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.”

They added: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

They tasked the government with a few and specific responsibilities, chief among them: protect the rights God endowed at the beginning of life. “The fact,” writes Tony Vets at American Thinker, “that her child is in its prenatal stage of development and therefore resides, temporarily, within her womb does not diminish the child’s right to life.” Besides, killing is against the law:

It is illegal to murder anyone who has been born. It should be not at all different for the unborn, who are no less human for being in the initial stages of development.

Science now proves conclusively that life begins at conception. Knowledge of prenatal development “affirms the humanity of unborn children,” write Melanie Israel and Sarah Perry for the Heritage Foundation. “From the moment of conception, every person possesses inherent dignity and worth. Our humanity doesn’t depend on our age, our stage of development, or our abilities… medical technology has evolved significantly to let all women see the reality that their babies are humans, worthy of legal protection.”

South Dakota has a 12-week heartbeat law and Governor Kristi Noem “directed the Unborn Child Advocate in my office to immediately review the new Texas law and current South Dakota laws to make sure we have the strongest pro-life laws on the books.”

The legal issue of abortion is far from resolved. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, “[The court’s] order [letting the Texas law stand] is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law.” The moment a citizen of Texas sues under the new law against an abortion provider is the moment when pro-abortion forces will leap into action and sue.

As The New American has iterated, the right to life is the core of all the Creator’s rights. In the present war against America, Satan and his helpers focus on that most precious of rights, hoping that the high court will continue to validate its shameful decisions in Roe and Casey that a woman has the constitutional right to kill her child before he or she is born.

California, LA County Pay $800K to Grace Community Church Over COVID Lawsuit

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 2, 2021:  

The statement from Los Angeles County’s attorneys announcing its settlement with Pastor John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church said nothing about the underlying issues. It only said it was withdrawing from the field of battle and paying MacArthur’s church $800,000 to please go away:

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled [in February] that some public health safety measures could not apply to houses of worship, resolving this litigation is the responsible and appropriate thing to do.

When elders of Grace decided in July 2020 to reopen their church for indoor worship, they knew it would rouse the ire of LA County health officials who had banned such worship, using COVID as cover for their illegal and unconstitutional mandates. They prepared for the battle, issuing a statement that said:

While civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state [no authority exists which] grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church.

 

God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church.

 

Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected….

 

Government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries or a nation….

 

God has not granted civic rules authority oved the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church….

 

Government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.

Those government officials demanded under penalty of fines and imprisonment that church officials stop indoor services immediately.

The church ignored the demands and instead filed suit against those officials, claiming they were violating the church’s rights to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The church also claimed it was being discriminated against, as those mandates weren’t being applied equally to secular institutions and organizations.

Sure enough, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of those government officials. The church refused to follow that ruling, and in November, the county went to court.

The church’s attorneys made the persuasive case to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff that the lower court’s ruling couldn’t be enforced until the constitutionality of those mandates had been decided.

And there matters stood until February, when the Supreme Court ruled that most (not all) of those mandates were indeed unconstitutional.

Jenna Ellis, the lead attorney helping Pastor MacArthur’s church fight against the state, rejoiced:

We are very pleased to see Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community Church’s First Amendment protections fully vindicated in this case.

 

It has been a hard-fought battle to preserve religious liberty and we hope that this result will encourage Californians, and all Americans, to continue to stand firm that church is essential.

Lacking further evidence in this case, Ellis’ rejoicing appears to be premature. There was no ruling by a court that the state’s officials were out of bounds constitutionally. There was no admission of guilt by those officials. There appears to be nothing in the record that resolves the conflict between church and state.

Both parties, given the ruling by the Supreme Court (half-hearted that it was), decided to withdraw from the contest, leaving the underlying issue unresolved.

Supreme Court Inaction Grants Major Pro-Life Win

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 1, 2021:  

By allowing the midnight deadline for Texas’ Heartbeat Act to pass without taking action against it, the Supreme Court has granted an enormously important win for pro-life advocates in America.

Under the law, which became effective at midnight, no Texas physician may now “knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child … or failed to perform [such] a test.”

This is strikingly similar to other states’ “heartbeat laws,” but with this difference: Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion activists cannot sue to stop it from going into effect. That’s because “any person … may bring a civil action against” physicians or others providing such now-illegal abortion services. Such a person, prevailing in court against a physician or other abortion provider, will be granted damages of not less than $10,000 for each abortion performed that violates the law, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees.

Pro-abortion Vox claimed the law was “drafted to intentionally frustrate lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.” And the consequences are unequivocally enormous:

The stakes in this case are astronomical. Six weeks into a pregnancy is often very soon after a pregnant person misses their first menstrual period. So they may not even be aware that they are pregnant until it is too late.

 

According to the abortion providers who are suing to block SB 8, at least 85 percent of abortions in Texas take place after the sixth week of pregnancy. Those abortions are now illegal under SB 8.

Even before the passing of the midnight deadline all 11 of Texas’ Planned Parenthood clinics stopped scheduling abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy in mid-August. Other abortion providers, frightened of the financial and public relations costs, “will,” lamented Vox, “almost certainly cease doing so” now that the Heartbeat Law is in force.

As Vox noted, “If no state official [can be] charged with enforcing the law, there’s no one to sue in order to block the law. Checkmate, libs!”

Pro-abortion mouthpiece the Washington Post noted that “the law effectively eliminates the guarantee in Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that women have a right to [abortion] before viability.”

The Texas Heartbeat Law sets the stage for the next act: the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Mississippi heartbeat law — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That state’s law is similar to Texas’ except it prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation.

It also will likely give great encouragement to those states whose “heartbeat laws” have been tossed by courts that claimed they violated the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Casey.

The die is cast. Claimed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, “Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child — finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.”

In the long war the elites and the abortion industry have conducted against the Constitution and the Declaration (“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…”), and by inference the Creator of life Himself, the passing of the midnight deadline for the Texas Heartbeat Law is one of the most important battles that pro-life forces have won.

Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to confirm it in Dobbs, to be decided by June 2022.

Med Student Expelled From Medical School for His Pro-life Views, Files Suit

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 10, 2021:  

A former medical student attending the University of Louisville (Kentucky) School of Medicine (ULSOM) filed suit last month against 13 of the school’s faculty members. He complained that he was ousted just before graduation in retaliation for his pro-life views.

Austin Clark filed suit on July 23 in Kentucky’s Western U.S. District Court, claiming that the faculty members’ harassment violated his right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and his right to due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The harassment included

  • Submitting him to heightened scrutiny under “professionalism” standards,
  • Arbitrarily and capriciously awarding [him] failing grades,
  • His removal from the ULSOM for (a) expressing his pro-life and religious views … and (b) verbally expressing his concerns regarding his … treatment within the medical school.

In addition, the suit complained that “the defendants [including the president, the dean, and the provost] punished Clark for expressing his views regarding … abortion and the sanctity of life … when there were [other] students who … are not subject to the same or similar restrictions, or such severe level of academic discipline as applied to Clark.”

Clark entered the school in the fall of 2016. In his second year, as head of the Students for Life (SFL) chapter on campus, he invited a pro-life speaker to address students. The school tried to quash the event by charging outrageous “security” fees for the event but was rebuffed when The Alliance for Defending Freedom entered the fray.

Ever since then, according to Clark, the faculty had it in for him. He claimed that one Dr. Thomas Neely, an OB-GYN instructor, attacked his intelligence, calling him “stupid” and questioning whether his “brain was working.” Clark claimed that he “was physically harassed and bullied” as well.

The suit asks the court to force ULSOM to reinstate Clark in good standing, give him academic eligibility with the school, purge his student file of negative references to his religious beliefs and activities, and to award him damages and attorneys’ fees.

Upon close inspection, Clark is tangling with a tiger. ULSOM, despite its façade of providing medical training, is in fact Kentucky’s only abortion provider, skirting the state’s laws against public funding of the practice.

One of its instructors, Dr. Ernest Marshall, owns an abortion provider, the EMW Women’s Surgical Center. Two of the school’s instructors perform some 3,600 abortions through EMW, generating an estimated $2.5 to $3 million annually to ULSOM.

Since its affiliation with the abortion provider in 2011, instructors at ULSOM have performed between 25,000 and 30,000 abortions.

As The Family Foundation reported: “The purpose … is to provide abortions and train abortionists in universities located in states that do not allow public funding for abortions. In other words, they come alongside a university and provide a relationship that circumvents the spirit of the state law.” It added: ULSOM “is a part of the supply chain for creating abortionists.”

During an interview in 2020, Family Foundation spokesman Martin Cothran said:

The only remaining abortion clinic in Kentucky is being run as an official or quasi-official arm of the University of Kentucky’s Medical School….

 

Not only is U of L involved in the abortion clinic’s activities, the clinic operates, for all practical purposes, as an extension of the Medical School’s program.

This is the tiger that Clark is tangling with: an outfit that generates millions of dollars annually for murdering tens of thousands of pre-born infants. Clark is not only threatening the culture of infanticide at ULSOM but also its funding.

It is hoped that all of this is brought out when the court examines Clark’s complaint and seeks the response from ULSOM.

AAPS Pushes Back Against AMA’s “Demand” that Everyone Get Vaccinated

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 29, 2021: 

Days after the American Medical Association (AMA) issued its “Joint Statement in Support of COVID-19 Mandates for All Workers in Health and Long-Term Care,” the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) issued a rebuttal: Those workers have “the right to decline.”

In its statement, the AMA listed some 58 healthcare organizations (from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy to the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society) that all signed on to the demand that all workers get the jab.

The AMA statement made it clear that no personal choice is to be considered. No religious exemptions are to be allowed. Everyone — everyone — in the healthcare industry must get vaccinated:

Our health care organizations and societies advocate that all health care and long-term care employers require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine….

 

All health care workers should get vaccinated….

 

Many health care and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis….

 

We stand with the growing number of experts and institutions that support the requirement for universal vaccination of health workers….

 

The health care community leads the way in requiring vaccines for our employees….

The statement acknowledged that some remain unconvinced: “We recognize the historical mistrust of health care institutions, including many in our own health care workforce.”

One of which includes the AAPS, which responded to the AMA:

[We] declare that all human beings have the right to liberty, which they do not forfeit when they serve the sick or the disabled.

 

The ethical commitment to protect others does not require workers to surrender their bodily integrity and self-determination and accept “the” intervention dictated by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority.

Regarding the vaccination itself, the AAPS said that merely “achieving a premature stamp of approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — premature because studies are not scheduled to be complete until the end of 2022 — does not confer safety or effectiveness. FDA-approved products have frequently been withdrawn in the past.”

As a result, “long-term effects of these novel, genetically engineered products cannot possibly be known at this point” in time. These include “autoimmune disorders, antibody-enhanced disease, infertility, cancer, or birth defects.”

The AAPS statement added:

The benefit to the public … is purely hypothetical.… Vaccinated persons can still infect others….

 

[We favor] insistence on fully informed, truly voluntary consent for all medical interventions.

Said the AAPS: “Workers are being conscripted into a mass experiment, one which would not be approved [for these reasons]:

No consent;

 

No disclosure of the experimenters’ conflicts of interest;

 

No control group;

 

No follow-up of subjects for COVID status, immune parameters, or adverse effects;

 

No provision for medical care of the subjects; and

 

No criteria for stopping the experiment if subjects are being harmed.

There is prophylactic and proactive early treatment, which is generally not being provided by the medical establishment. AAPS has produced a guide for home-based care: “A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment – Step-by-Step Doctors’ Plan That Could Save Your Life.” The guide provides detailed instructions for the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCL) or ivermectin, along with zinc sulfate and supplemental vitamin D.

Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS, asked whom the medical profession serves: the state, or their patients?

That is the question we will increasingly face as government forces its power into every nook and cranny of our professional lives.

 

I once belonged to all the standard societies — my specialty, my state and local medical society and — dare I admit this? — even the AMA.

 

But I discovered that none of these societies stood on the principle I hold dear: individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the ability to freely practice medicine according to time honored Hippocratic principles.

 

The AAPS has a record of exposing the lies, canards, and frauds being perpetrated by establishment medicine. For example, the AMA recently claimed that 96 percent of all doctors are vaccinated. The AAPS uncovered the fact that the AMA only quizzed 301 of its members and so it decided to conduct a survey of its own.

Wrote Orient:

The AAPS decided to check out the AMA’s 96 percent claim….

 

It turns out that the AMA’s 300 survey respondents were not inclusive of all doctors. In [our] survey, nearly 60% of some 700 respondents said they were not fully vaccinated.

 

Of these, 80% said “I believe risk of shots outweighs risk of disease.”

The AAPS stands for the same principles as the John Birch Society, which has, and continues to, explore and expose the lies behind the COVID-19 scare.

NYT Exposé: No More Hiding Biden’s Failing Mental Health

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, May 17, 2021:  

In an extraordinary article published on Sunday by the New York Times, a trio of investigative reporters reveal what life is really like inside the Biden White House, alleging the president is slow to make decisions and is given to outbursts of frustration, “often laced with profanity.” “He will,” they wrote, “often snap.”

Based on more than two dozen interviews with current and former Biden associates, the reporters learned that staffers spend an inordinate amount of time preparing Biden for public appearances: “His aides say it takes a lot of behind-the-scenes work to prepare him to project an assured demeanor.”

Additionally,

Keep reading…

States, Cities Declaring Freedom From COVID Rules

This article was first published by TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, April 7, 2021:  

Lawmakers in Texas and at least 19 other states, not to mention municipalities such as San Francisco, are throttling back on the COVID rules that have plagued the country for more than a year.

Plague is the correct term to use, too. According to the Bureau of Economic Research (BRS, just the shock of being out of work — “unemployment shock” — will lead to a three-percent increase in mortality that will ultimately cost, in its estimation, nearly 900,000 lives. That compares to the 570,000 deaths already attributed — though likely inaccurately — to the China virus. (Because of incentives to report any death as COVID-related, that 570,000 figure is likely grossly overstated.)

Keith Jackson, writing at American Thinker, suggested that BRS’ estimate is too conservative:

Keep reading…

Texas Governor Demands “Border Czar” Harris Do Something About Southern Invasion; Still Waiting to Hear Back

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, April 1, 2021:  

It’s been two days since Texas Governor Greg Abbott fired off a letter to Vice President Kamala Harris, President Biden’s “Border Czar,” demanding she do something about the flood of illegals pouring into his state, and he has heard nothing back but crickets.

He called the flood a “surge”:

I write to you about the surge in illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border, which continues to fuel a humanitarian crisis, particularly for unaccompanied minors.

 

Now that President Biden has named you Border Czar in charge of the administration’s response, I want to express to you the threats and challenges caused by this administration’s open border policies.

 

These policies embolden and enrich cartels, smugglers, and human traffickers who continue to ramp up their criminal operations.

 

In many cases, these criminals lure unaccompanied minors into inhumane conditions and expose them to abuse and terror.

Abbott uses the “editorial ‘we’” in his demand:

Keep reading…

House Majority Whip: Biden “Has What We Call Stuttering”

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 10, 2021:

Following Biden’s debacle on Monday, when he stumbled through his announcement that he was nominating two women generals for four-star commands, Neal Cavuto of Fox News asked House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.): “A lot of people are beginning to wonder … is there something we should be worried about, or [is this] much ado about nothing?”

Clyburn responded:

This is much ado about nothing. I think you know as well as I do, I talked with the president about this. He has what we call stuttering.

 

It’s always been a problem with this president. He’s been very open with that. It doesn’t affect his brain at all. But it sometimes affects his speech. So that’s an issue that all of us know is there.

 

I don’t know why we keep trying to make something out of it.

What prompted Cavuto’s question was Biden’s performance on Monday:

Keep reading…

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