Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

Christian Group Sues Biden Administration Over Transgender Surgeries

BY PETER MALBIN

SEE: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/christian-employer-alliance-biden/2021/10/20/id/1041289;

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

The Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) is suing the Biden administration over two mandates that force religious nonprofit and for-profit employers to fund "gender transition surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments."

Alliance Defending Freedom on Tuesday filed a motion asking a federal district court in Bozeman, Montana, to cease enforcement of the measures on behalf of the Christian employers group, an organization that provides support to Christian businesses and nonprofits, National Review reports.

The lawsuit maintains that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is misinterpreting and improperly enforcing the definition of sex discrimination included in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to force employers to provide gender transition medical coverage and procedures against their religious beliefs.

The lawsuit says the enforcement of a similar mandate by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that reinterprets "sex" to include gender identity will make religious health care providers "physically perform, facilitate, or promote gender transition surgeries and procedures that are contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs and expert medical judgment."

Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity) or religion. The Act also makes it unlawful to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

The CEA says on its website that its mission is to "unite, equip, and represent Christian-owned businesses to protect religious freedom and provide the opportunity for employees, businesses, and communities to flourish."

CEA President Shannon Royce said "employers and entrepreneurs, like many Americans, are growing increasingly concerned by rising costs that can be blamed in part on oppressive government mandates."

"These gender transition mandates greatly exacerbate this problem by threatening religious employers with punishing fines, burdensome litigation costs, the loss of federal funds, and even criminal penalties," Royce said. "Additionally, the mandate creates a unique quagmire of concerns for religious healthcare providers by forcing them to speak positively about gender transition procedures even if they disagree with them."

In May 2021, the Biden administration prohibited discrimination against transgender people in healthcare.

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Matt Bowman said Biden has "far overreached his constitutional authority" by improperly enforcing federal law "to the detriment of people of faith across the country."

"The government cannot force Christian employers to pay for, or physically perform, harmful medical procedures that contradict their religious beliefs," Bowman said in a statement. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. in 2020, said sex discrimination protections in the workplace include transgender people. Some Christian conservatives are concerned that the decision has impacted religious freedoms and affected faith-based employment.

Archbishop Jose Horacio Gomez, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said at the time that the Supreme Court had effectively redefined the legal meaning of "sex."

How Court ‘Reforms’ Threaten Our Liberties~First Liberty Live!

President Biden's Supreme Court Commission released hundreds of pages of draft materials in advance of filing a final report in November. First Liberty Attorney Jeremy Dys examines what the impact would be if they follow through on the threats. Download the First Liberty Live! app https://firstliberty.org/first-libert... See our upcoming events you won’t want to miss https://firstlibertylive.com/upcoming... Want to stay up to date on the latest news concerning big-tech censorship, court packing, and other attacks on religious freedom? Be sure to become a First Liberty Insider. Sign up for our weekly newsletter today. https://firstliberty.org/newsletter-s...

BUSTING THE COURT PACKERS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep198

DR. SIMONE GOLD-The Uncensored Truth Tour: Time To Make A Stand~LOSS OF OUR RIGHTS, BOYCOTTING PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HOMESCHOOLING, BEING OFFENSIVELY PROACTIVE

Rumble — The Uncensored Truth Tour continues, with America’s Frontline Doctors founder Dr. Gold bringing a bold new challenge to the nation: It’s Time To Make A Stand. Presented by AFLDS.org/Live and hosted by Clay Clark in Colorado Springs, CO. For future event info, visit AFLDS.org/Tour

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY “THOUGHT CRIMINAL”, PROFESSOR MICHAEL RECTENWALD VIDEOS

Dr. Michael Rectenwald is the author of eleven books, including Thought Criminal (2020); Beyond Woke (May 2020); Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom (2019); Springtime for Snowflakes: “Social Justice” and Its Postmodern Parentage (an academic’s memoir, 2018); Nineteenth-Century British Secularism: Science, Religion and Literature (2016); Academic Writing, Real World Topics (2015, Concise Edition 2016); Global Secularisms in a Post-Secular Age (2015); Breach (Collected Poems, 2013); The Thief and Other Stories (2013); and The Eros of the Baby-Boom Eras (1991).

Michael is the Chief Academic Officer and co-founder of American Scholars, a pro-American education platform. He was a Professor of Liberal Studies and Global Liberal Studies at NYU from 2008 to 2019. He also taught at Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Carnegie Mellon University, and Case Western Reserve University. He holds a Ph.D. in Literary and Cultural Studies from Carnegie Mellon University, a Master's in English Literature from Case Western Reserve University, and a B.A. in English Literature from the University of Pittsburgh.

Professor Rectenwald is a pundit and champion of free speech and opposes all forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, including socialism-communism, “social justice,” fascism, political correctness, and “woke” ideology. The notorious @antipcnyuprof (now @TheAntiPCProf), he has appeared on numerous major network political talk shows (Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox & Friends, Fox & Friends First, Varney & Company, The Glenn Beck Show), on syndicated radio shows (Coast to Coast AM, Glenn Beck and many others), on The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders, among numerous podcasts and online shows.

FROM: https://www.michaelrectenwald.com/;

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

SEE ALSO: https://americanscholars.com/ (An Online University)

Fordham Placed in Bottom 10 of College Free Speech Rankings

In FIRE’s second year administering a student survey, Fordham’s ongoing court battles stood out to respondents

for+an+article+about+free+speech+rights+on+campus%2C+the+front+entrance+of+fordham+lincoln+center

BY CHLOE ZELCH

SEE: https://fordhamobserver.com/64756/news/fordham-placed-in-bottom-10-of-college-free-speech-rankings/;

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

Following the university’s court battles against Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Austin Tong, Gabelli School of Business at Lincoln Center ’21, Fordham was ranked 145 of 154 schools in the College Free Speech Rankings survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in 2021. The ranking was determined by feedback from Fordham students.

FIRE is a nonpartisan organization committed “to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities,” according to the organization’s website. FIRE educates students about First Amendment rights.

Fordham has been ranked in FIRE’s list of the worst 10 schools for free speech three times, with statements from FIRE specifically referencing the SJP lawsuit and the Austin Tong controversy.

“Fordham does promise free speech. And right now, it is bad at living up to that promise.”Adam Goldstein, FCLC ’99

This year’s list is based on the opinions of 250 Fordham students. FIRE did not specify how these students were selected or if they were representative of the student body. Students in the survey expressed that they found it difficult to have “an open and honest conversation” about racial inequality, the conflict in Palestine, and many other issues at Fordham.

Adam Goldstein, Fordham College at Lincoln Center ’99, senior research counsel to the president at FIRE, explained that Fordham’s broken promises of guaranteeing free speech to students led to the university’s low ranking.

“Fordham does promise free speech. And right now, it is bad at living up to that promise, according to its own students,” Goldstein said.

Fordham is classified by FIRE as a “red light” institution, meaning Fordham has at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.

Fordham has been issued a red light warning specifically for its IT policies. The policy states that the following actions are banned: “using any IT resource or communication services, including email or other means, to intimidate, insult, embarrass and harass others; to interfere unreasonably with an individual’s work, research or educational performance; or to create a hostile or offensive working or learning environment.”

”While it might be nice if people didn’t insult each other, banning insults is a speech restraint incompatible with Fordham’s other promises,” Goldstein said. “Reforming the IT policy alone would have improved Fordham’s ranking substantially.”  

The survey used 100 points to rank schools, with 88 of those points coming directly from student responses to the FIRE survey. Only 7% of respondents said that it was extremely clear that the Fordham administration protects free speech, while 13% said it was not clear at all.

“Fordham’s campus is not a place for free speech under the current rules in place about public display and protest.”anonymous sophomore

One junior who was surveyed expressed being unable to express their opinion about the prison-industrial complex in class: “My professor immediately shut me down and made me feel like a bad person in front of the whole class.”

A sophomore surveyed said they were concerned by how Fordham responds to student protests. 

“Anytime that I think of wanting to have a protest on campus I think of the severe punishments that the administration has dealt to students in the past,” the student said. “Fordham’s campus is not a place for free speech under the current rules in place about public display and protest.”

“Fordham is free to believe what it chooses, and should be answerable for what it chooses to believe,” Goldstein said. “If Fordham wants to continue onward as an institution that restrains student protest and social media activity, it should remove the free speech promises from its policies and honestly admit that it doesn’t intend to protect free speech.”

Bob Howe, vice president for communications, declined to comment on the ranking. 

Liberal Judge Blocks Texas Heartbeat law

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/liberal-texas-judge-blocks-texass-new-heartbeat-law/;

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

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 provider 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.

Related articles:

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

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

School Boards Group Asks Feds to Invoke Patriot Act, FBI Against Protesters

Schilling: Families are under attack by Democrats Marxist agenda

Rumble — The battle over what America’s children are being taught in school continues to heat up. One America’s Christina Bobb has more.

BY BRIAN TRUSDELL

SEE: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/school-board-biden-fbi/2021/10/01/id/1038813;

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

A group representing local public school boards is asking the Biden administration to invoke the Patriot Act and federal hate crimes legislation, among other measures, to go after parents who have aggressively opposed board policies and members who have adopted measures such as mask mandates and the teaching of critical race theory curricula.

In the open letter addressed to President Joe Biden, the National School Boards Association asserts that ''education leaders are under an immediate threat.''

The request ''to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation'' comes as reports of angry parents expressing opposition to COVID-19 policies and curriculum changes — particularly those tied to critical race theory — have become more frequent.

Videos of loud and demonstrative attendees of school board meetings across the country, particularly Loudoun County in Virginia, have circulated on the internet.

Critical race theory is defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as the concept in which race is a socially constructed category ingrained in U.S. law intended to maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites. It holds that U.S. society is inherently racist.

The NSBA letter, signed by its president, Viola M. Garcia, and interim executive director and CEO, Chip Slaven, asks that the Biden administration mobilize the resources of the departments of Justice, Education, and Homeland Security, and the FBI and its counterterrorism division.

''Additionally, NSBA requests that such review examine appropriate enforceable actions against these crimes and acts of violence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure,'' the letter reads.

''As the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue.''

The letter cited examples of a person in Michigan yelling a ''Nazi salute'' at a protest of mask mandates and another of a ticket for trespassing in Virginia for opposing a mask mandate.

It added that many school board members have chosen to resign or not seek reelection.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Thursday said local law enforcement is largely responsible for local school boards, but "we’re continuing to explore if more can be done from across the administration."

Related Stories:

School Board Recall Efforts to Combat Critical Race Theory Teachings Surge: Report

DeSantis: School Boards With Mask Mandates May Not Be Paid

____________________________________________________________

SEE LETTER HERE: https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf

________________________________________________________________

AND: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/gwendolynsims/2021/10/01/concerned-parents-are-immediate-threat-says-national-school-boards-association-president-some-are-even-domestic-terrorists-n1521073;

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

It’s completely understandable that many parents around the country are fed up. They’re fed up with not only the onerous and arbitrary pandemic-related safety measures but also the racist and radical left-wing ideologies being forced upon kids in our taxpayer-funded schools. America’s parents are concerned and pushing back. What’s not so understandable (unless you’re a leftist) is the reaction to the pushback by those in the top echelons of our educational system. Case in point, on Thursday, National School Board Association (NSBA) president Viola Garcia sent out a hysterical—yet revealing—letter not to school board members or parents, but to the president of the United States, Joe Biden. After fawning all over Biden’s “leadership to end the proliferation of COVID-19,” Garcia proceeds to ask “for federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.” The letter cites several articles describing hostile behavior at school board meetings and other events as evidence of an “immediate threat.” And who does Garcia and the NSBA say is perpetrating this nationwide “immediate threat”? Why America’s concerned right-wing parents, of course.It’s revealing this letter was sent to Biden and not local school boards or local law enforcement. Why would Garcia feel so entitled to contact the president? Could it be she believes Biden owes the left something after supporting his basement-dwelling campaign? Does Biden owe the teachers’ unions and other numerous educational associations something? Is it payback time? Tellingly, Garcia writes that “attacks against school board members and educators for approving policies for masks to protect the health and safety of students and school employees” are also “because of propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula.” She deceptively claims that “critical race theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of a K-12 class.” Tuned-in parents know CRT is taught in public schools but that it has simply been renamed “ethnic studies.” Just ask the teachers’ union.

Related:  Teachers’ Union Commits to Shoving Critical Theories Down the Throats of Students and Parents Nationwide

Like a good little leftist, Garcia throws in the obligatory placation for free speech. “Local school board members want to hear from their communities on important issues,” claims Garcia. “However, there also must be safeguards in place to protect public schools and dedicated education leaders as they do their jobs.” However, also like the left, everything she writes afterward negates that placation. You see, free speech is all well and good until parents don’t agree with the job the school board is doing; then it’s time to sic the feds on them for speaking up while labeling that speech “threats” and “violence.”

“Now, we ask that the federal government investigate, intercept, and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against our public school officials,” writes Garcia, “through existing statutes, executive authority, interagency and intergovernmental task forces, and other extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of our children and educators, to protect interstate commerce, and to preserve public school infrastructure and campuses.” Calling for the federal government to use vague “other extraordinary measures” to “investigate” parents sounds pretty intimidating and threatening to me, Ms. Garcia.

Not only does Garcia, blame parents for “threats and intimidations” instead of her own failed leftist school boards, but she also raises the crazy bar to high by equating upset parents’ attempts to speak at school board meetings as “equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” She even calls for numerous federal law enforcement agencies to target those parents.

“NSBA specifically solicits the expertise and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and its National Threat Assessment Center regarding the level of risk to public school children, educators, board members, and facilities/campuses,” Garcia writes. “We also request the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to intervene against threatening letters and cyberbullying attacks that have been transmitted to students, school board members, district administrators, and other educators.”

Instead of writing a letter to villanize taxpaying parents who don’t agree with leftist policies of leftist school boards, Garcia should wake up and realize that she and her leftist cronies have poked the wrong bear.

I have news for the left: Engaged and concerned parents speaking at a school board meeting are not “domestic terrorists.” Our children do not belong to you. We see you and we see what you are trying to do. The pushback will continue no matter how many letters you write.

______________________________________________________________

AND: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/10/national-school-boards-association-asks-president-biden-to-label-its-critics-domestic-terrorists

EXCERPT: "Note that “a person yelling ‘a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements’ is not a Nazi, as the NSBA is trying to imply. He is calling the school board Nazis. Meanwhile, the fascist clowns of the NSBA would almost certainly object most strenuously to any honest exposition of the motivating ideology behind an actual form of terrorism, that is, Islamic jihad terrorism."

 

Michigan: Federal judge throws out female genital mutilation case against Muslim physicians

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman 1

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/10/michigan-federal-judge-throws-out-female-genital-mutilation-case-against-muslim-physicians;

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

“Our clients have lost so much of their lives,” says the attorney for the FGM doctors.

Yes, and so have your clients’ victims. But now it appears that female genital mutilation can be practiced in America with impunity.

“‘This matter is vindictive’: Federal judge throws out landmark female genital mutilation case,” by Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press, September 28, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):

DETROIT — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the nation’s first female genital mutilation case, delivering a major blow to the prosecution and survivors who had hoped the Detroit case would help end a practice that is still performed on millions of girls worldwide.

In dismissing the four-year-old case, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded the prosecution was vindictive in seeking new charges against the accused, who had previously convinced the judge to declare the federal female genital mutilation ban as unconstitutional.

“The court concludes that the prosecution in this matter is vindictive. The government obtained the fourth superseding indictment, which asserts new and additional charges, in retaliation for defendants’ past success in having other charges dismissed,” Friedman wrote in his ruling. “Such vindictive or retaliatory prosecution is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”

The lead defendant is Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, whom prosecutors allege cut the genitals of nine minor girls during after-hours procedures at a Livonia clinic that belonged to her doctor friend, who also was charged in the case. Nagarwala has long denied engaging in genital mutilation, saying the procedure she performed on minor girls was a benign, religious practice that involved only scraping or “shaving” of the genitalia, not cutting.

Nagarwala’s attorney, Shannon Smith, applauded Friedman’s ruling, but called the ending of this case “bittersweet.”

“Yes, they’ve won, but they’ve never been vindicated in court. Those things never happened. The things the government alleged never happened,” Smith said. “Our clients have lost so much of their lives. The impact on their lives has been unspeakable. It’s hard. They’ve gone through half a decade of being charged and living under these charges.”

Smith also expressed frustration with much of the case being sealed.

“I’m not surprised with how it ended. But what’s really sad is that so much of the case is under seal and is not available to the public,” Smith said. “I can understand why people reading about this are going to be so upset and confused and not understand … but so much of the case is under seal.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined comment Tuesday, noting it has not yet reviewed the judge’s ruling, which essentially ends the case unless the government appeals.

The case involves nine girls, ages 7 to 12, from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

Among the accused were three mothers, including two Minnesota women whom prosecutors said tricked their 7-year-old daughters into thinking they were coming to metro Detroit for a girls’ weekend, but instead had their genitals cut at the Livonia clinic as part of a religious procedure….

Chip Roy Warns Biden: ‘At Some Point The State Of Texas Is Going To Force A Constitutional Showdown’

On the House floor in a nearly hour-long speech, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) excoriated President Biden and Democrats over the issue of continued border crossings into his state.

No, Border Patrol Wasn't "Whipping" Haitian Migrants~Guest: Rep. Chip Roy

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY INTERVIEW: 

Afghan Refugees Accused of Sex Abuse of Minors, Spouse Abuse

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE:https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/09/23/afghan-refugees-at-fort-mccoy-charged-with-sexual-assault-of-a-minor-spousal-abuse-n1480829;

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

They didn’t leave Afghanistan very long ago, and so it is understandable that Bahrullah Noori and Mohammad Haroon Imaad, two Afghan evacuees at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, would behave as if they were still there. The Justice Department announced Wednesday that a federal grand jury in Wisconsin charged Noori with “attempting to engage in a sexual act with a minor using force against that person, and with three counts of engaging in a sexual act with a minor, with one count alleging the use of force.” Imaad was charged with “assaulting his spouse by strangling and suffocating her.” The alleged crimes took place at Fort McCoy, where Noori and Imaad have been staying in anticipation of being placed in some lucky American neighborhood. The Justice Department said nothing about how both men were just following religious and cultural norms that other Afghan refugees are likely to follow as well, or about the implications of that fact for the entire Afghan refugee resettlement project.

Noori’s victims, according to the indictment, “had not attained the age of 16 years and were at least four years younger than the defendant,” who is 20. No one in the establishment media will dare to talk about it, but the fact is that in the culture in which Noori was raised, an unmarried girl who is 16 is getting a bit long in the tooth. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has reported that over half of the girls in Afghanistan are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In one camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty.

And it’s not just Afghanistan: child marriage has abundant attestation in Islamic tradition and law. Turkey’s directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) said in January 2018 that under Islamic law, girls as young as nine can marry. Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria, said in 2016: “Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this.” Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, Iraqi expert on Islamic law, said in 2008: “There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.”

Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, declared in 2014 that there is no minimum age for marriage in Islamic law at all and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology has ruled that “Islam does not forbid the marriage of young children.”

These authorities say these things because hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Related: Some Afghan Evacuees Brought Their Child Brides to the U.S. With Them

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this even today.

And regarding spousal abuse, the Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” (4:34)

Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha, says in a hadith that Muhammad “struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: ‘Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?’” (Sahih Muslim 2127) Another hadith states: “Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’” (Sahih Bukhari 7.77.5825)

In light of all this, no one should be surprised that Bahrullah Noori and Mohammad Haroon Imaad, fresh from Afghanistan’s deeply Islamic culture, should be caught in America behaving like Afghans. The larger question is whether it is wise to endanger women and girls by bringing into the country a large group of people among whom is an unknowable number who think the same way that Bahrullah Noori and Mohammad Haroon Imaad do. But that question will, of course, not be asked. To ask it would be “Islamophobic.”

 

Articles of Impeachment Against Biden Introduced by Four House Republicans

BY MATT MARGOLIS

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/09/22/articles-of-impeachment-against-biden-introduced-by-four-house-republicans-n1480542;

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

New articles of impeachment against the perpetually embattled Joe Biden were introduced on Tuesday by Ohio Republican Bob Gibbs over Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the border crisis, and his efforts to continue the federal eviction moratorium despite warnings from the Supreme Court.

“I take this seriously. I don’t think it’s haphazard. I’m not trying to get media attention for myself,” Gibbs told the Washington Examiner. “He’s done so much damage to this country in less than nine months, which is really scary.”

“He’s not capable of being commander in chief, and that’s obvious by the actions since Day One when he took the presidency back in January,” he added. “Maybe something like this makes the White House think twice before they do some of this nonsense.”

Gibbs’ articles of impeachment has three other sponsors: Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) and Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas). There have been other articles of impeachment introduced in the House, and they, like this new one, will go nowhere so long as Democrats have control of the House—which Gibbs acknowledges.

“Obviously, it’s not going to go anywhere with Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi,” Gibbs conceded. But “it shows that there are some Republicans that think that this president needs to be impeached, he needs to be removed from office one way or another.”

“At some point, they’re gonna be held accountable for their actions, and this is kind of putting them on notice,” he added.

So far, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has refused to support efforts to impeach Joe Biden.

“Look, I’m extremely frustrated with the president. As I said, if you want to be president of the free world, you have to have the trust, faith, and confidence of the American public. President Biden lost that yesterday,” McCarthy said, following the terror attack in Kabul that killed 13 U.S. service members. He said eventually “there will be a day of reckoning.”

Texas ‘Steel Wall’ of Cars Blocks Migrants at Border

Haitian Migrants Take Over Border Patrol Bus Trying To Avoid Deportation

BIDEN'S HANDLERS & DEMOCRATS INVENT "WHIP-GATE" TO MALIGN BORDER HORSE PATROL:

Mark Morgan: Sec. Mayorkas is throwing Border Patrol agents under the bus and here's why:

Tom Homan blasts Mayorkas on border crisis: 'They absolutely know the numbers':

Rumble — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott discusses the approach his state is taking to secure the border that Biden left a ‘disaster’ on 'Hannity.'

BY THEODORE BUNKER

SEE: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/texas-del-rio-border-immigration/2021/09/22/id/1037476;

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

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has taken "unprecedented" measures to deter thousands of migrants from crossing into the state by parking Texas National Guard and Texas Department of Public Safety vehicles along the U.S.-Mexico border near the Del Rio International Bridge.

"We put hundreds of Texas Department of Public Safety cars and created a steel wall — a steel wall of DPS vehicles — that prevented anybody from crossing that dam that you’ve seen people walk across," Abbott told Fox News Tuesday. "We effectively ... regained control of the border."

Thousands of migrants are living in makeshift huts and sleeping in the dirt under the bridge, waiting for their turn to be processed by U.S. immigration authorities. Abbott has blamed President Joe Biden for the situation, saying the federal government is not doing enough to secure the country's southern border. 

"When you have an administration that is not enforcing the law in this country; when you have an administration that has abandoned any pretense of securing the border and securing our sovereignty, you see the onrush of people like what we saw walking across this dam that is right behind me," Abbott said at a news conference in Val Verde County.

Government officials started parking their cars along the border last week. 

"The Texas Department of Public Safety is in full force along the border around the Del Rio area. They have built a barricade with their squad cars and State Troopers. The National Guard is working with them to secure the border," Abbott tweeted.

He added in a statement that "one day there were countless people coming across the border, then the DPS put up all these vehicles, and suddenly, in an instant, people stopped crossing the border in this location. That strategy is working."

Texas will spend an additional $2 billion on security for the border.

"It has been the state of Texas that has had to step up," Abbott said. "Failure to enforce laws that exist in the United States leads to chaos and chaos leads to inhumanity."

Related Stories:

Michigan: Muslim doctor charged with female genital mutilation part of ‘secret network’ performing procedure in US

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/09/michigan-muslim-doctor-charged-with-female-genital-mutilation-part-of-secret-network-performing-procedure-in-us;

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

We are constantly told the opposite by propagandists in the West, but the reality is that female genital mutilation (FGM) is justified in Islamic law. It is practiced by some non-Muslims, but only in majority-Muslim areas where the influence of Islamic culture, mores, and law is all-pervasive.

“It is a religious thing. Do you want to change religion?” said one Egyptian in response to a campaign to eradicate female genital mutilation. “You only listen to what the West is saying.”

The establishment media ignores the fact that FGM is mandated in Islamic law: “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’]).” — Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64

Why is it obligatory? Because Muhammad is held to have said so: “Abu al- Malih ibn Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: ‘Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honor for women.’” — Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75

“Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.’” — Abu Dawud 41:5251

That hadith is classified as weak, but this one is classified as sahih (reliable): “Aishah narrated: ‘When the circumcised meets the circumcised, then indeed Ghusl is required. I and Allah’s Messenger did that, so we performed Ghusl.’” — Jami` at-Tirmidhi 108

If Muhammad had the genitals of his favorite wife, Aisha, mutilated, that is a strong endorsement of the practice from the man who is an “excellent example” (Qur’an 33:21) for Muslims.

Why does it matter whether or not FGM is Islamic? Because the practice will never be eradicated if its root causes are not confronted. As long as those Muslims continue to believe that Allah and Muhammad want it done, for some that will override all other considerations, in the United States and everywhere else.

“Muslim ER doctor charged with female genital mutilation of nine girls aged just seven ‘was part of a secret network which traveled across the US to perform the agonizing procedure,’ Detroit court hears,” by Brian Stieglitz, DailyMail.com, September 16, 2021 (thanks to Henry):

A Muslim doctor on trial for allegedly performing genital mutilation on nine girls, all seven years-old, was also part of a secret network of physicians who traveled across the country performing the brutal procedure, according to federal prosecutors.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was cleared of female genital mutilation charges in November 2018 during the nation’s first-of-its-kind case, when a federal judge ruled that a law banning the practice was unconstitutional.

But the Michigan doctor still faces an obstruction charge for allegedly hiding information during the trial, and was back in court Thursday. That saw prosecutors reveal that doctors in California and Illinois were also cutting young girls as part of a religious rite in the esoteric Indian Muslim sect, Dawoodi Bohras, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Nagarwala was initially charged with mutilation, conspiracy and obstruction along with Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, who allowed her to perform the surgeries at his clinic in Livonia, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.

The same charges were brought against Attar’s wife, Farida, and a woman named Tahera Shafiq, who assisted in the procedure, as well as four women who tricked their daughters into going to the suburban clinic to undergo the practice for religious purposes.

US District Judge Bernard Friedman dismissed all but one obstruction charge against Nagarwala, Attar, his wife Farida and Shafiq in November 2018. He declared a 1996 federal law banning the practice unconstitutional and concluded that it’s up to the states to regulate female genital mutilation.

The obstruction trial was underway until the coronavirus pandemic hit and brought it to a halt. Then, in March, prosecutors issued a superseding indictment with five new charges, including conspiracy to make false statements and witness tampering, the Detroit Free Press reported.

Prosecutors argue that that Nagarwala and her three cohorts lied to the FBI about the mutilations that they were performing and intimidated others in their community to lie if the FBI interviewed them about it.

The four defendants requested Thursday’s hearing to dismiss the case altogether, arguing that the prosecutors were only pursuing the new charges out of retaliation.

‘The government is acting with extreme prosecutorial vindictiveness in issuing yet another superseding indictment nearly half a decade after charges were first issued,’ the defense argued in court filings, seen by the Detroit Free Press, adding that the new charges are ‘retaliation for the defense successfully decimating the government’s case.’

Friedman said Thursday that he would take their arguments into consideration, but was still reviewing the new indictment and would make a decision at a later date.

Nagarwala, who is an emergency room doctor at Henry Ford Health System, was arrested in April 2017 after two young girls accused her of performing the mutilation procedures on them earlier that year.

She denied the allegations and claimed she was performing a religious practice for families in the Muslim sect, Dawoodi Bohras, and that it only involved scraping the membrane of the girls’ genitalia as part of the religious custom.

But doctors’ reports obtained by the Detroit Free Press indicate the children suffered more severe injuries including scarring, a small tear, lacerations and what appeared to be the surgical removal of a portion of genitalia….

Judges Strike Down North Carolina Voter ID Law Citing ‘Discriminatory Purpose’

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/09/18/judges-strike-down-north-carolina-voter-id-law-citing-discriminatory-purpose-n1479693;

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

A state superior court judicial panel ruled on Friday that the North Carolina voter ID law was “enacted, at least in part, for discriminatory purposes” and struck it down.

The judges wrote that the attorneys defending the law failed to prove that it “would have been enacted in its present form if it did not tend to discriminate against African American voters.”

“Other, less restrictive voter ID laws would have sufficed to achieve the legitimate nonracial purposes of implementing the constitutional amendment requiring voter ID, deterring fraud, or enhancing voter confidence,” the judges wrote.

The fight now moves to federal court where the NAACP has filed a federal suit to have the law overturned.

Washington Post:

They noted that they did not find that any individual lawmaker supporting the voter-ID law “harbors any racial animus or hatred towards African American voters,” but rather that the legislature’s Republican majority targeted those voters because they were more likely to be Democrats.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Nathaniel Poovey wrote that the evidence presented during the three-week trial did not support a finding that the state legislature “acted with racially discriminatory intent.” He noted that the measure was a bipartisan one “that was supported along the way by multiple African American legislators.”

So there was no racist intent by any individual lawmaker who voted for the bill and the bill received bipartisan support and support from some black legislators.

What mind-reading skills do the judges who wrote the opinion — Judges Michael O’Foghludha and Vince Rozier Jr. — possess that allowed them to see what’s hidden from others?

Allison Riggs, co-executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a group representing the plaintiffs in Friday’s suit, and pro bono counsel Andrew J. Ehrlich said the ruling sends “a strong message that racial discrimination will not be tolerated.”

“Today’s ruling striking down North Carolina’s latest unconstitutional photo voter ID law is a testament to the overwhelming evidence, including compelling stories of disenfranchisement from voters themselves, which highlighted how the state’s Republican-controlled legislature undeniably implemented this legislation to maintain its power by targeting voters of color,” they said in a statement.

That’s not what the ruling was about — not even close. But don’t stop her now. She’s on a roll.

Both judges were elected as Democrats, which probably had something to do with them parroting Democratic talking points about voter ID. It probably won’t matter. Voter ID is embedded in the North Carolina state constitution and it will take a lot more than a couple of partisan Democratic judges to get rid of it.

GOP Letter: Defense Secretary Must Probe Milley. Phone Calls to Chinese General Were “Treason”

GOP Letter: Defense Secretary Must Probe Milley. Phone Calls to Chinese General Were “Treason”

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/gop-letter-defense-secretary-must-probe-milley-phone-calls-to-chinese-general-were-treason;

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

More than two dozen GOP congressmen have demanded that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin open a special investigation into General Mark Milley’s secret phone calls with his Communist Chinese counterpart.

The 27 congressmen, led by Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a retired Army general, accused Milley of treason in a letter to Austin dated September 16. Milley is chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff,

During the phone call, as The New American reported earlier this week, Milley promised General Li Zuocheng advance warning of any attack should the nations go to war. The revelation appears in a new book, Peril, by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of the Washington Post.

The Calls

Milley rang up the Red Chinese general because of what he perceived to be President Trump’s irrational tilt toward war with the nation. That claim, of course, makes it appear as Milley did the right thing.

“In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike,” the Washington Post reported about the book.

The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.

Woodward and Costa provide two damning quotes from Milley.

  • “General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”
  • “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Milley also discussed seizing control of the nation’s nuclear weapons with leftist House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The hate-Trump leftist called Milley after the mostly peaceful protest in Washington, D.C., on January 6 to say Trump was “crazy.” Milley agreed.

Milley also reminded his underlings that he would have to sign off on any nuclear attack.

President Trump called the Milley’s conversations treason, and said he had no intention of attacking China.

 The GOP Letter

After citing the two calls, the letter from the GOP congressmen accuses Milley of treason.

“Milley called the Indo-Pacific Commander and instructed him to call off all military exercises in the South China Sea, following up by assembling senior officers and mandating that any order to launch a nuclear weapon must include GEN Milley’s involvement,” the congressmen wrote. He also established a “parallel chain of command” with regard to launching nuclear weapons:

To conspire with a communist, malfeasant, hostile, and genocidal government regarding our intentions — or lack thereof — with utter disregard to the implications of said “promise” on our national security or our Service Members, is nothing short of craven (at best) and treasonous.

Mainstream media reports this story as if America were rendered a great service by Gen. Milley, as if he simply were trying to ward off the supposedly unpredictable behavior of the elected President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. To be clear, however, if Mr. Woodward’s account is true, Gen. Milley’s pledge to China is nothing less than outright treason.

Later on 8 January 2021, Speaker Pelosi reportedly contacted Gen. Milley, with the latter allegedly pledging that “the nuclear triggers are secure and we’re not going to do — we’re not going to allow anything crazy, illegal, immoral, or unethical to happen.” 

The conversation with Pelosi, the congressmen wrote, attempted to make national security a partisan issue.

The congressmen thus demanded a formal AR 15-6 investigation of the rogue general, and the results by October 6, and want his security clearance suspended.

Most AR 15-6 probes are informal and deal with minor incidents. One officer handles the probe. A formal investigation deals with serious matters and involves hearings before a panel of officers.

Federal Judge Denies DOJ Demand to Halt Texas’ Heartbeat Law

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/federal-judge-denies-doj-demand-to-halt-texass-heartbeat-law;

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

Federal District Court Judge Robert Pitman on Thursday denied the federal government’s demand for a restraining order against Texas’s Heartbeat Law. He wrote that “this case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the court.”

Texas has until September 29 to present its case. The Department of Justice will have until October 1, two days later, to respond.

The demand from the DOJ was presented on Tuesday, claiming that the Texas law, which became effective on September 1, “prevent[s] women from exercising their constitutional rights,” and that the temporary injunction against that law is “necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas.”

Nothing was mentioned about the “constitutional rights” of the unborn and defenseless child whose life is at stake. The way the law stands now is untenable: 30 seconds before giving birth a mother may choose to have an abortionist kill her child. She will be deemed to be a hero, exercising her “constitutional rights.”

If she kills the child after birth, she is a murderer.

It’s not the life of the child that motivates the DOJ and the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, but politics. He said:

This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear.

If it prevails, if may become a model for action in other areas, by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.

That’s already happening. The Texas Heartbeat Law follows similar “heartbeat laws” passed by more than a dozen states. But it is the first one that liberal courts haven’t been able to quash.

By October 1 Texas’ Heartbeat Law will have been in effect for a month. That means it is already saving the lives of unborn children who otherwise would have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs. As the Texas Tribune noted, Texas abortion clinics “stopped offering abortions that were still allowed under the law for fear of being sued.”

However the judge rules, there is sure to be an appeal to the Supreme Court. As The New American noted, “Roe didn’t uncover a right of a woman to kill her unborn child. The court created the right out of whole cloth — and political ideology.”

That is the dirty little secret behind Roe v. Wade and its sister case decided years later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The emperor has no clothes. There is no such “right” anywhere in the Constitution. As one of abortion’s most liberal supporters, legal scholar Laurence Tribe, noted: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which [the decision] rests is nowhere to be found.”

There is an increasing chance that the entire effort to quash the Texas law before it goes national will backfire. The high court could take the appeal under review, and decide that it made a horrendous error in Roe back in 1973, and compounded it in Casey in 1992. The high court has overturned previous decisions more than 300 times. Those who believe that life, a gift from God, begins at conception, would celebrate such a reversal. It would be one more step towards that joyful day when all courts, state and federal, rule that abortion, at any time, is murder.

Prior to 1973, abortion was murder. It still is.

Related articles:

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

Biden Administration Sues Texas Over “Heartbeat Law”

Veronica Wolski: A medical freedom horror story

IVERMECTIN: NOT ONLY FOR HORSES; FOR HUMANS TOO!

EXCERPTS FROM: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor/:

In providing insight into what was happening behind the scenes of this story, Ross began explaining how Wolski had been admitted to the Catholic AMITA Health Resurrection Medical Center somewhere around August 24 and diagnosed with “’COVID pneumonia,’ although her x-ray showed it was possible chest congestion.” 

Very soon after, Ross, a native of Chicago who now lives in South Carolina, explained, “I started receiving [text] messages” from Veronica begging for help to be moved from this hospital: ‘Get me out, get me oxygen, get me medical transport, get security here if you have to, get me out.’”  

In addition, after investigating the treatments Wolski was receiving, Ross observed “even something as simple as IV vitamins… were denied to her. She wanted her Ivermectin. That was denied to her. She wanted so many things that were not part of the hospital’s protocol. So, we began this fight [and] this advocacy [on her behalf].”  

Catholic hospital ‘ethics committee’ revokes prescription for Ivermectin, bars Ross from premises 

Rumble — From lockdowns to vaccine mandates, COVID-19 has not only attacked public health but has also wreaked havoc on civil liberties. One America’s chief White House correspondent Chanel Rion has more from Washington.

Popular QAnon Supporter, Right-To-Try Advocate, Was Denied Ivermectin, Now Dead In Hospital Custody

SEE ALSO: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-09-22-hospitals-killing-health-freedom-advocates-denying-treatments.html

Christian Medical Professionals Sue New York Over Vaccine Mandate That Allows No Religious Opt-out

BY VERONIKA KYRYLENKO

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/christian-medical-professionals-sue-new-york-over-vaccine-mandate-that-allows-no-religious-opt-out/;

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

Seventeen medical health professionals have filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to halt enforcement of the state’s draconian vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. This vaccine mandate, the plaintiffs argue, attempts to invalidate legal protections for sincerely held religious beliefs.

According to the September 13 Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction, the state’s vaccine mandate puts medical professionals who were praised for their works not so long ago “at risk of professional destruction, loss of livelihood and reduction to second-class citizenship because they cannot in conscience, given their sincere religious beliefs, consent to be injected with vaccines that were tested, developed or produced with cell lines derived from the bodies of aborted babies.”

On August 16, New York then-Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that staff at hospitals, nursing homes, and other long-term care facilities will be required to get their first dose of COVID jab by September 27 or face termination. The actual order, issued by the Department of Health for the State of New York, allowed for the “limited exceptions for those with religious or medical reasons.” It stated:

Covered entities shall grant a religious exemption for COVID-19 vaccination for covered personnel if they hold a genuine and sincere religious belief contrary to the practice of immunization, subject to a reasonable accommodation by the employer. Covered entities shall document such exemptions and such reasonable accommodations in personnel records or other appropriate records in accordance with applicable privacy laws by September 27, 2021, and continuously, as needed, thereafter.

However, on August 26, the New York State Department of Health (DOH) board approved an implementation of emergency authorization of a vaccine mandate for all healthcare workers in the state, while also removing the planned religious exemption as an alternative to inoculation. Vanessa Murphy, a DOH attorney, argued the department is “not constitutionally required to provide a religious exemption,” while adding, “You see that with the Measles and the Mumps requirement for health care workers.”

Some of the medical professionals disagreed. According to the Complaint filed against Governor Kathy Hochul, commissioner of the N.Y. Department of Health Howard Zucker, and N.Y. Attorney General Letita James, the measure violates protections provided under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York State’s Human Rights Law, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs also argue that on June 25, 2021, the declaration of a “State disaster emergency” connected to COVID-19 in the state of New York was rescinded, along with all the executive orders that followed it. Therefore, COVID was no longer a public health emergency, and no more “emergency” orders could be issued. Still, the suit states, Health Commissioner Zucker, and Cuomo’s successor (Governor Hochul) “continue to behave as if the ‘disaster emergency’ had never ended — and never will end” and prepare to enforce COVID “emergency” regulation, or a vaccine mandate.

Further, the plaintiffs point to the wording of the order, which requires healthcare institutions to “continuously require personnel to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19,” suggesting the workers must receive as many booster shots as they are ordered to be considered “fully vaccinated.”

The suit presents evidence that all three vaccines authorized for use in the United States employ fetal cell lines derived from procured abortion in the testing, development, and/or production of the vaccines. And it specifies a number of sincere religious beliefs concerning abortion-connected vaccines. Among them:

a) The plaintiffs oppose abortion under any circumstances, as they believe that abortion is the intrinsically evil killing of an innocent, and thus they also oppose the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines for medical purposes and abortion derived fetal stem cell research.

b) It would be a violation of their deeply held religious beliefs and moral consciences to take any of the available COVID-19 vaccines given their use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines in testing, development, or production.

c) By receiving one of the COVID vaccines currently available, all of which are abortion-connected, they believe they would be cooperating with the evil of abortion in a manner that violates their consciences and that they would sin gravely if they acted against their consciences by taking any of these vaccines.

The suit specifies that even though the plaintiffs are not against all vaccines, they believe it is absolutely unacceptable for the civil authorities to force anyone to be medicated or vaccinated against his or her will, whether or not the therapeutics is abortion-connected.

Attorney Christopher Ferrara of The Thomas More Society, which is representing the healthcare workers in the case, said that “what New York is attempting to do is slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional vaccine mandate,” while being aware of the large number of workers who have religious objections to getting COVID jabs — as many as 20 percent of the workers, per the complaint.

Last Friday, a conservative Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a similar lawsuit against officials in New York for the same reason. 

Meanwhile, the mandate is already causing a disruption in the healthcare services in New York. Last week, Lewis County General Hospital in New York announced it can no longer maintain a maternity ward due to the staff resignations over the vaccine mandate. The understaffing becomes an issue in other healthcare facilities as well. The state’s top officials are yet to address the mounting issue that threatens to undermine a normal functioning of the Empire State’s healthcare system.

1 2 3 13