U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE NEIL GORSUCH: “A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON” UNDER THE LAW~BUT IT IS UNDER GOD’S LAW

 MORALLY COMPROMISED
 
 FORMER CATHOLIC, DEEPER INTO APOSTASY NOW
HOW CAN AMERICA APPROVE SOMEONE WITH A SEARED CONSCIENCE, AND NOT INCUR 
THE WRATH OF GOD?

Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
name?’
 
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

 http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/06/16/3CE6BF1100000578-0-image-a-64_1486397965227.jpg
 http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2016/0708/20160708__10DCABELw~1.jpg
 ABOVE: SUSAN SPRINGER, RECTOR OF APOSTATE, PRO LGBT, PRO ABORTION, ANTI GUN, PRO CLIMATE CONTROL, 
ST. JOHN’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, BOULDER, COLORADO
THIS CHURCH PRACTICES CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATIVE MYSTICISM & SPIRITUAL FORMATION & THE PAGAN “WALKING THE LABYRINTH”
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:
EXCERPT: 
 
“Gorsuch
and Stare Decisis
Gorsuch
also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare
decisis
, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather
than overturning it.
“Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires
us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second
Amendment rights of a man before his court. United
States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012
) (Gorsuch,
J. concurring).
What
is stare decisis? It is Latin for “to stand by things decided,”
and is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an
issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued.
Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not
universally true. See, e.g. Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833
. The
doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis
refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical
stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently,
stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents.
Although
courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare
decisis
is not an “inexorable
command
.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the
doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable.
In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to
overrule
precedent
; however, any decision
to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. (Cornell
University Law School
)”
_________________________________________________________
U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE NEIL GORSUCH: 
“A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON” UNDER THE LAW~
BUT IT IS UNDER GOD’S LAW
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 WASHINGTON — During his second day of questioning 
for his Senate confirmation hearing, Trump U.S. Supreme Court nominee 
Neil Gorsuch said that he accepts Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land” 
and its opinion that a “fetus is not a person.”

On Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Gorsuch about a
sentence in his book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in
which he concluded that “[a]ll human beings are intrinsically valuable,
and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always
wrong.”
“How could you square that statement with legal abortion?” Durbin inquired.
Gorsuch, currently a judge with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals,
posited that abortion is different because the unborn are not legally
recognized as people.

“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United
States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes
of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch
replied.
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.
“That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, Senator, yes,” Gorsuch answered firmly.

As previously reported,
on Tuesday, Gorsuch told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley that he believes Roe v. Wade is precedent and has been
repeatedly reaffirmed, and that “a good judge” should treat it
accordingly.
“I think the case most people are thinking about right now and the
case that every nominee gets asked about [is] Roe v. Wade. Can you tell
me whether Roe was decided correctly?” Grassley asked.
“Senator, … I would tell you that Roe versus Wade, decided in 1973,
is the precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been
reaffirmed,” Gorsuch replied emphatically. “The reliance interest
considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go
into analyzing precedent have to be considered.”
“It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was
reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases,” he repeated.
“So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States
Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
When asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to expound on his
views regarding precedent, he explained that “once a case is settled,
that adds to the determinacy of the law.”
“What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward,” Gorsuch said.
Feinstein then inquired if he considers Roe v. Wade to be
“super-precedent,” meaning that it is so ingrained into the legal system
that it would be significantly difficult to overturn.
“It has been reaffirmed 44 times. I can say that,” Gorsuch, known for
ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, replied.

Hoefling
While
some have stated that Gorsuch had to answer in such a manner in order
to be confirmed, 2016 America’s Party presidential candidate Tom
Hoefling wrote on social media on Thursday that those who claim the name
of Christ should proclaim truth no matter the cost.

“The way I look at it, no job is worth having for which you have to
hitch your wagon to genocide, and dehumanize tens of millions of
innocent little boys and girls, and defy God and nature and the
Constitution, and support a coup d’etat by pretending that we live in a
judicial oligarchy instead of in a free constitutional republic,” he
said.
Hoefling pointed to Christ’s words in Mark 8:36, “For what shall it
profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”
“A wink and a nod for the continued mass murder of millions, tens of
millions, of little boys and girls is required for confirmation,”
he lamented. “A wink and a nod for the continued destruction of the
natural family, the way God created it, is now required.”
“The founders of this republic wouldn’t recognize what these people
have created,” Hoefling added. “It’s a national disgrace. And it is
going to destroy us, and our posterity, if we don’t combat and defeat
it.”
As previously reported, Gorsuch
is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder,
Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its website
and is led by female minister Susan Springer. In 2013, Springer
expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”

Many Christians stated that their primary reason for voting for Trump
as president was because they believed he would appoint justices that
would overturn Roe v. Wade.
 Some had remarked that they desired a judge
similar to the late Antonin Scalia.
Scalia, however, noted during his tenure that he opposed both the
complete abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He
said that the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as
he believes the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.
“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law
that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew
Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to
decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to
prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to
prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”
“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the
Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the
equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being
that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think
that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 “60 Minutes”
interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled
to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means
walking-around persons.”

_______________________________________________________ 

GORSUCH JUST LOOKED LINDSEY GRAHAM IN EYES & SAID 1 THING ON ABORTION 
THAT’S SHOCKING THE NATION! 
 Paris Swade for Liberty Writers reports, President Trump said during the
campaign that he would put people on the Supreme Court that would
overrule Roe V. Wade and give abortion rights to the states. Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC.) asked Gorsuch if Trump asked Gorsuch if he would
overturn Roe V. Wade.
SCHUMER OPPOSES GORSUCH FOR LIBERAL REASONS

 

SANCTUARY CITIES & NOW STATES TOO? LOS ANGELES & MARYLAND DEFY FEDERAL AGENCIES

Los Angeles Mayor Is Defiant Against Trump’s Executive Order Regarding Illegals 

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/25664-los-angeles-mayor-issues-letter-of-defiance-against-trump-s-eo-re-illegals;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has thrown down the gauntlet,
defying President Donald Trump’s executive order issued in January,
entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”
That executive order provides a three-step procedure to ensure that
illegals are apprehended and deported: 1) the “name and shame” list of
illegals committing crimes in so-called “sanctuary cities”; 2) threat of
legal action against officials endorsing “sanctuary city” policies; and
3) threat of withholding federal funds if they persist in resisting
federal immigration enforcement officials from performing their duties.

Even the title of Garcetti’s own executive directive is a poke in
Trump’s eye: “Standing with Immigrants: A City of Safety, Refuge, and
Opportunity for All,” even if those “All” are among Los Angeles’
estimated 2.6 million illegals.

Garcetti opens with a summary of West Coast liberalism:

In the centuries since [the city’s
founding], we have grown into the most diverse city on the face of the
earth — a city that champions inclusiveness and tolerance, and welcomes
everyone who seeks to realize their dreams and build their families
here, regardless of national origin or immigration status. [Emphasis added.]

All are welcome to LA — especially those who are in the country
illegally — and to help themselves to all manner of taxpayer-provided
free services, said the mayor:


My vision is to ensure that all Angelinos, regardless of immigration status, are connected to community resources, have access to government services. [Emphasis added.]

Garcetti reminded his citizenry that the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD) has been prohibited since 1979 “from initiating any
action to determine a person’s immigration status and from arresting
anyone due to the person’s civil immigration status.” Since 2014,
according to the mayor, “The Police Department has not honored any ICE
[Immigration and Customs Enforcement] request to hold an individual
otherwise eligible for release from custody absent a judicial
determination of probable cause for that detainer or a valid warrant
from a judicial officer.”

Enforcement of federal immigration laws is the responsibility of
federal officials, says the mayor, and his law-enforcement people are
not allowed to assist them in performing their duties in any way:

Because civil immigration enforcement is a
federal responsibility … the [Los Angeles] Policy Department has never
participated [in] and will not participate in the voluntary programs
authorized by … the [federal] Immigration and Nationality Act … or any
other program….
The City will not assist or cooperate
with any effort of federal immigration agents to use public facilities
or resources [of the city] for the purposes of enforcing federal civil
immigration law.

He ordered the chief of police to affirm that this policy is still in place:

The Chief of Police shall reaffirm and
maintain the Police Department’s existing policies and procedures with
respect to immigration enforcement … and the policy against partnering
with ICE to perform civil immigration enforcement.

Garcetti then ordered the fire department, the airport police and the port police to adopt the same hands-off policies:

The Fire Chief, the Chief of Airport
Police, and the Chief of Port Police shall issue policies and procedures
consistent with the Police Department’s existing policies … including
the policy against partnering with ICE to perform civil immigration
enforcement.

This now applies to city employees: “No … City employee shall assist
or cooperate with, or allow any City monies or resources to be used to
assist or cooperate with, any federal agency or agency in any action
where the primary purpose is federal civil immigration enforcement …
[nor shall any city employee] grant any federal immigration agent access
to any city facility not open to the general public unless such access
is legally required.”

The mayor’s order now officially grants illegal immigrants full
“equal access to [the city’s] facilities, services, and programs without regard to any person’s citizenship or immigration status to the maximum extent that the law permits, [and] foster[s] a welcoming atmosphere for all regardless of immigration status.”

There is more to his order, including keeping any information that a
city employee might have, or might have access to, regarding an
immigrant’s status, private and away from ICE agents. But the message
being delivered is clear: All are welcome to Los Angeles’ welfare
benefits, including illegals, where they may be safely protected from
intrusion by federal officials attempting to enforce federal laws.

It’s also the most blatant pushback against President Trump’s
policies as stated by his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who said, “It
is not acceptable for jurisdictions [such as Los Angeles, and others]
to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Wait until Sessions and Trump get wind of efforts by California
itself to become the nation’s first “sanctuary state”! Senate Bill 54,
entitled the “California Values Act,” is already being fast-tracked in
Sacramento, and says:

In no event shall state or local law
enforcement agencies or school police or security departments transfer
an individual to federal immigration authorities for purposes of
immigration enforcement, or detain an individual at the request of
federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement
absent a judicial warrant.

The Wall Street Journal added that SB 54 would

prohibit police from using personnel or
resources in civil immigration detentions or arrests. It would block
federal immigration officials from entering local jails to conduct
interviews with detainees or gain access to police databases for
immigration enforcement purposes.
In addition, the bill would curtail what
police could tell federal immigration authorities about people in
custody, and limit enforcement in places such as schools and courts.

The contrast with the decision by Mississippi to cooperate with ICE
is startling. Its Senate Bill 2710, just passed by the state senate and
headed for the desk of Governor Phil Bryant, who is expected shortly to
sign it into law, prohibits local governments and universities from
enacting ordinances or policies that would limit enforcement of or
cooperation with federal and state laws and enforcement. In anticipation
of his signing the bill into law, Governor Bryant said — in stark
contrast to California — that “taxpayers expect their state and its
political subdivisions to abide by federal immigration laws.”

The order by LA’s Mayor Garcetti and California’s SB 54 have set in
motion the confrontation between Trump’s policies and California’s
policies of inclusion, regardless of immigration status. There will be
test cases resulting in lawsuits, which will take years to sort out. But
one thing is certain: That coming confrontation is going to be nasty,
with repercussions affecting generations to come.

Related articles:

DHS Issues Report Listing Jurisdictions Failing to Cooperate With ICE Detainers

Number of Former Sanctuary Cities Reversing Policy

Miami-Dade County First to End Sanctuary Status
______________________________________________________

 THIS IS THE MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT I HAVE HEARD AGAINST SANCTUARY CITIES IN AMERICA
 Maryland: Sanctuary for Rape, Murder, Gangs
 Published on Mar 22, 2017

Maryland
wants to be the first Sanctuary State for Foreign Citizens Criminally
Trespassing (aka “undocumented immigrants”). The Rockville Rape and the
spate of murders perpetuated by MS-13 in Montgomery County show that
selective law enforcement that grants immunity to politically favored
individuals like the Clintons or politically favored groups is not law
enforcement but criminal corruption and collusion.

GLOBALIST “RYAN O CARE” REJECTS VETS, KEEPS ALIEN COVERAGE~VETERANS WOULD LOSE CHOICE IN ALLEGED “MARKET BASED” SYSTEM

GLOBALIST “RYAN O CARE” REJECTS VETS, 
KEEPS ALIEN COVERAGE
 Published on Mar 22, 2017

The
fix was in 4 years ago. Regardless of who won the 2012 election, Obama
or Romney, Americans were going to get ObamaCare or its clone,
RomneyCare, shoved down their throats. Now that Trump has won, Romney’s
former running mate, Paul Ryan, is trying to preserve it for the
establishment. Last minute changes removes coverage for up to 7 million
veterans, while keeping coverage for foreign citizens criminally
trespassing. Is this what we voted for?

“GOOD CATHOLIC” & PAPAL PUPPET GOES SOCIALIST 
 Millions Of Veterans Will Be Screwed If This Happens:
Veterans Would Be Forced to Select 
One Plan or the Other 
 Terminally Ill Veteran Has A Message For Trump 

Published on Mar 24, 2017

Will
President Trump stick to his promise of putting veterans first and
reforming the VA? Up to 7 million veterans may be ineligible for
healthcare through the exchanges thanks to new wording in Paul Ryan’s
plan. This means they would be forced to get their health checkups
through the VA, even before massive issues there have been resolved.

Army
Veteran Ken Gould knows all too well about the failures at the VA. He
was sent away multiple times only to become so ill he was forced to seek
private treatment, where he was told he only had 8 months to live. The
VA missed an opportunity to discover his esophageal cancer and
potentially prolong his life.

Please donate to Ken’s GoFundMe and help him and his daughter check some things off the bucket list: https://www.gofundme.com/kengouldlife…
and follow his journey here: https://www.facebook.com/ktbuckelista…

Published on Mar 23, 2017

“Obamacare
2.0” could force millions of veterans into the VA system whether they
want it or not, thanks to the hasty nature of the Obamacare overhaul.

 

“FAKE SCIENCE” PUSHERS CLAIM INFOWARS IS “FAKE NEWS” ON A GRAPH

 http://acsh.org/sites/default/files/ACSH-RCS%20infographic%20v8.jpg
“FAKE SCIENCE” PUSHERS CLAIM INFOWARS IS 
“FAKE NEWS” ON A GRAPH
 Published on Mar 21, 2017

In
a chart created by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)
circulating social media, Infowars is categorized as “pure garbage”,
“ideologically driven” and “poor reporting”. However, a quick internet
search of ACSH reveals they are pro-industry apologists who defends
fracking, BPA in plastics, and pesticides in our food supply. Not
surprising, their funding comes from the who’s-who of energy,
agriculture, processed food, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations
including Monsanto, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and Phillip Morris
International. The big irony here is that Infowars reporter Millie
Weaver uses both journalism and science to not only disprove ACSH’s
claims about Infowars but to reveal one of their main advisors served
time in a federal prison camp for fraud before being hired by ACSH.
Watch our Free LIVE Stream http://www.infowars.com/show

 

DR. PETER HOTEZ: “SNUFF OUT” ANTI VACCINE MOVEMENT~SUGGESTS AN ARRAY OF PUNISHMENTS FOR THOSE WHO CRITICIZE VACCINES

 ANTI-VACCINE CENSORSHIP & RETALIATION
 two women with red tape across their mouths
 Does he mean that anyone who questions the
safety and effectiveness of vaccines or refuses a vaccine should be
penalized in some way?
DR. PETER HOTEZ: 
“SNUFF OUT” ANTI VACCINE MOVEMENT
BY MARCO CACERES
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Occasionally, I come across an article that really
riles me. Okay fine, when it comes to vaccine science and vaccination
policy, I’ll admit this happens almost every day. Still, there was an
opinion published recently in Scientific American that I found
particularly annoying. It’s titled “Will an American-Led Anti-Vaccine
Movement Subvert Global Health?” and was written by pediatrician Peter
J. Hotez, MD, PhD,1 director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development2 in Houston and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine.3

The piece starts out with an image of an old 1902 invitation for
membership by the Anti-Vaccination Society of America. The invitation
reads:

The Anti-Vaccination Society of America. Otherwise: An
Association of “half-mad”, “misguided” people who write, and toil, and
dream, of a time to come, when it shall be lawful to retain intact the
pure body Mother Nature gave, sends GREETING to a “suspect”. “Liberty
cannot be given, it must be taken.” You are Invited to Join Us.1 4

One of the aims of the opinion piece is to tout the gains made
vaccination programs throughout history, while cautioning that these
“gains can be fragile.”1

The primary aim of the article, however, is clearly to warn about the dangers posed to those gains by people who do not get every government endorsed vaccine or decline to one or more of them to their children.
Dr. Hotez cites a report by Daniel Salmon at the Johns Hopkins
Institute of Vaccine Safety and Saad Omer at Emory’s Rollins School of
Public Health claiming that most of the measles cases in the United
States in 2015 can be blamed on “intentionally unvaccinated” people.
1

The purpose of this exercise in fear-mongering by Dr. Hotez appears
to be to create a convenient scapegoat for any infectious disease
outbreak that occurs and, thereby, add weight to calls for forced
vaccination campaigns in the U.S. Dr. Hotez seems to harbor particular
concern about citizen efforts in Texas to protect vaccine exemptions and
the impact that the movie Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe is having throughout the country in raising public awareness about vaccine risks. He describes Vaxxed as a “a faux documentary alleging a vast conspiracy and cover-up at the CDC.”1


Dr. Hotez also mentions the Revolution for Truth march in Washington, D.C. on Mar. 31 sponsored by what he labels as “anti-vaccine groups” in Washington, DC on Mar. 31 and and he ridicules the idea of a vaccine safety commission reportedly being considered by the new administration.

These are all things that are of great concern to Dr. Hotez, who wrote:

I’m worried that America’s anti-vaccine movement has
sufficient strength and momentum to affect vaccine coverage globally.
Whether it’s Hollywood movies, rap music, or soft drinks, the world is
quick to embrace American culture. The “Vaxxed” tour has already begun
with showings so far in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere,
but I’m especially concerned about the large middle- and low-middle
income nations such as Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia,
Nigeria, and Russia. A small drop in measles vaccine coverage in those
nations would lead to measles outbreaks and deaths on a scale that we
haven’t seen since the years prior to EPI (Expanded Program on
Immunization).1

Dr. Hotez added:

Things might only get worse pending the imminent
expansion and export of an American-led anti-vaccine movement. We need to
recognize that the current activities in Texas and Washington DC could
ignite reversals of global disease elimination and eradication efforts
that are now more than 50 years in the making.1

Dr. Hotez is also a vaccine developer and president and director of the Sabin Vaccine Institute’s Product Development Partnership (PDP),5 and he is so
worried about the growth in size and influence of the grassroots
movement of well-educated people, who are questioning mainstream vaccine
science and demanding that their informed consent rights and basic
civil liberties be respected that he is actually calling for this
movement to be snuffed out.

Dr. Hotez closed his opinion by saying:

An American anti-vaccine movement is building and we need to take steps now to snuff it out.1

But what exactly does he mean by this. Does he mean that anyone who
questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or refuses a vaccine
should be penalized in some way? Is he suggesting prison time?
Certainly, he is not suggesting some sort of government sponsored
capital punishment?


For the record, let it be known that Dr. Hotez does have conflicts of
interest in making such a call. The Texas Children’s Hospital Center
for Vaccine Development receives a lot of money from government and
industry to develop and produce vaccines and so does the Sabin Vaccine
Institute.
6 7 8 9 10
And while he has written, “I will never see a penny from our
vaccines,” there is a lot of money flowing into and out of the
institutions in which he has prominent positions and exerts substantial influence regarding vaccine development and promotion.6 Dr. Hotez has been described as an “advocate” and “spokesperson” for the vaccine industry.9 

Dr. Hotez, you’ve left me wondering about how far you’re willing to go. Please elaborate on what you have in mind when you refer to snuffing out a movement. You do realize that you’re talking about people—in many cases, parents who, just like you,1
have a daughter or son with autism? In some cases, more than one
daughter or son with autism. The idea that you would seek to deny their
right to dissent and speak out and tell their personal stories is so
repulsive that I can… barely speak.

References:
 1 Hotez PJ. Will an American-Led Anti-Vaccine Movement Subvert Global Health? Scientific American Mar. 3, 2017.
2 Hotez PJ. How the Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning. The New York Times Feb. 8, 2017.
3 Peter Jay Hotez, MD, PhD. Baylor College of Medicine.
4 Youngdahl K. The Anti-Vaccination Society of America: Correspondence. The History of Vaccines Mar. 8, 2012.
5 Sabin Vaccine Institute. Leadership. Sabin.org.
6 Handley JB. My (real) apology to Dr. Hotez, and demand for the same. Medium.com/@jbhandley Feb. 11, 2017.
7 Pathak D. Grant to develop chikungunya virus vaccine awarded. Baylor College of Medicine Aug. 30, 2016.
8 Deam J. New grant will help develop vaccine to treat deadly Chagas disease. Houston Chronicle July 29, 2015.
9 Gharib M. #NPRWormWeek: The Scientist Who’s Waging A War On Worms. NPR Aug. 8, 2016.
10 Sabin Vaccine Institute. Sabin Vaccine Institute Awarded Funding to Advance Country Ownership of Immunization. Sabin.org (press release) Aug. 25, 2016.