Senators Raleigh Around Life
One vote. In North Carolina, it wasn’t just the difference between winning and losing. It was the difference between looking at a baby and seeing a *life*. And while Governor Roy Cooper (D) seems incapable of that, thank goodness not everyone in his party thinks likewise.
One vote. In North Carolina, it wasn’t just the difference between winning and losing. It was the difference between looking at a baby and seeing a life. And while Governor Roy Cooper (D) seems incapable of that, thank goodness not everyone in his party thinks likewise.
Outside the state capitol, the debate isn’t even close. Americans of every color, age, gender, and party agree: leaving a newborn alone to die isn’t just a crime — it’s a betrayal of who we are as a country. “Pro-choicers” agree. Democrats agree. Young people — old people, men and women — they all understand that every child is worth saving. Inside the Raleigh state senate, unfortunately, things are different. Only a single Democrat — Senator Don Davis — had the courage to stand up to his party, to the governor, and to the radicals driving this debate and say, “Enough.”
Without Senator Davis, North Carolina’s Born-Alive bill would be dead — a fate it would have passed on to generations of helpless survivors. Instead, there’s hope. If the veto override could survive in the Senate, maybe there will be more leaders like Davis fed up with their party enough to push it over the finish line in the House. In a state that lost some GOP seats in the midterm election, it will take every Republican and seven Democrats to hit the magic three-fifths majority to stop infanticide in the Tarheel state. Senator Joyce Krawiec (R) could only shake her head at the fact they even needed to have an override vote. “It’s a sad day,” she said, “when we have to come back here because we have a governor who decided making a political statement was more important than protecting living newborn babies.”
House Republicans are doing everything they can to give the override a shot, especially since they have time to lay the groundwork for success. “When the bill passed the House on April 16 by a 65-46 margin,” CBS 17 explains, “four Democrats voted for the bill (James Gailliard, Charles Graham, Garland Pierce, Raymond Smith).” North Carolinians will need all of them to hold the line — and a handful more.
Testimonies like state Rep. Pat McElraft’s (R) ought to help. When she was working in the medical field, she talks about one horrible day when she walked down to the lab. “I was on a break and went in to visit with the pathologist in the pathology lab and I asked him, I said, ‘What are all these little pigs doing in these buckets?’ He told me, ‘Pat, look again,’ and I did. They were perfectly formed little human babies in those buckets,” she said, getting emotional. Looking straight at the other aisle where Democrats had been arguing the problem is “non-existent,” she told them about a doctor at the hospital who would drown newborns who survived abortion. “It happens here,” she insisted.
Meanwhile, up in Wisconsin, infanticide fanatic Governor Tony Evers (D) seems to be suffering from the same delusions as Roy Cooper. His extremism on the issue has turned into outright anger, prompting an unglued Evers to launch into profane tirade against President Trump — and the other 82 percent of Americans who don’t think killing infants on a hospital table is a “personal choice.” At the Milwaukee Press Club, Evers was so incensed at the president’s anti-infanticide comments that he unleashed in front of a room full of reporters.
“To say that doctors in the state of Wisconsin are executing babies is just blasphemy. It doesn’t happen… That is just a horrific thing to say,” he started. Then, getting angrier and angrier, he told Republicans that if they were “so [bleep] interested in making sure moms and babies are well, they should really get behind my Medicaid expansion bill. The president is the president,” he fumed. “He’s going to do this kind of crap as long as he is president.”
“This kind of crap” as in saving innocent lives? Liberals may be beholden to their bankrollers in the abortion lobby, but there’s something deeply disturbing about their vehement response to something so basically human as protecting our own. They’re either wildly cheering this child sacrifice or they’re almost deranged at the thought of stopping it.
As for “blasphemy,” Evers used to be the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction. Surely, he knows the meaning of the word? If he does, then voters have more cause for concern than ever. Webster’s defines “blasphemy” as “impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.” So either Evers thinks abortion is god — or he believes it’s sacred. Either way, it wouldn’t be the first time a Democrat has tried to call the slaughter of innocent children holy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was adamant about abortion being “sacred ground” in 2013.
Sacred to whom? The innocent children who never have a chance at life? Or maybe the women, who experience the trauma, guilt, and regret years after the procedure’s over? If this infanticide debate has taught us anything, it’s that nothing’s sacred to extremists. Not even life.
If you’re tired of the far-Left fanaticism, make your voice heard! Join our End Birth Day Abortion campaign and send a message to House Democrats that every child is worth saving.
Originally published here.
Easter Message Makes a Basket Case out of Left
According to Pew Research’s latest poll, there’s a big jump in the number of people who think Christians are a target of discrimination. And the spat over Governor Doug Ducey’s (R-Ariz.) Easter social media post might be the perfect explanation why!
In the three years since the Obergefell ruling, men and women of faith haven’t exactly had an easy time of it in business, education, medicine, the wedding industry, and — as so many of President Trump’s nominees can tell you, politics. Navigating a culture where once-common values are now considered “intolerance” has come as a shock to a lot of Americans. Today, evangelicals are one of the most victimized groups in the country, people say — climbing eight points since 2016.
And it’s not hard to see why. Christians are getting grilled for their faith everywhere from Senate confirmation hearings to human rights commissions. They’ve been fired from jobs, suspended, vandalized, fined, or punished because they want what the Founders came to America to give them: the freedom to live out their faith in everyday life. In a country where three-quarters of the population identifies as “Christian,” that shouldn’t be controversial. But thanks to a powerful minority of secularists, it suddenly is.
Governor Ducey, an outspoken conservative with a great record, has never made a secret of his faith. On Easter, he did what Christians all over the country were doing: celebrating. On Facebook, he posted a picture of the cross and a verse from John 11:25, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.’” Underneath the photo was this simple message from the governor: “He is risen! Have a happy and blessed Easter!”
Nothing about the post was offensive or even mildly inappropriate. Until now, when the Arizona Republic insists it’s consulted legal “experts,” who say the governor was in the wrong for using his official account to endorse a religion. Charles Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Center, insisted that it amounted to a “proclamation of faith” and endorsing a religious like this, in his opinion, “violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”
Alex Luchenitser, another supposed “expert” from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued, “There’s a clear message of favoritism toward Christianity.” Funny, they didn’t seem to mind when Barack Obama wished everyone a Happy Ramadan from his official White House account in 2013 and 2015. This is selective outrage meant to marginalize Christians — and Christians alone.
If the goal was to intimidate Governor Ducey, good luck. He has no intentions of backing down, tweeting to critics, “We won’t be removing this post. Ever. Nor will we be removing our posts for Christmas, Hanukkah, Rosh Hashanah, Palm Sunday, Passover, or any other religious holiday. We support the First Amendment and are happy to provide copies of the Constitution to anyone who hasn’t read it.”
Good for him! That’s exactly the kind of pushback our leaders must put forward against ridiculous attacks like this one. Hats off to Governor Ducey for his boldness. Even as recently as Tuesday, he stood up to the Arizona Republic’s @mpolletta and refused to be silenced. “With respect to your ‘experts,’ people don’t lose the right to free speech when they run for office. So, no, we STILL won’t be taking the post down. Not now, not ever.”
Originally published here.
The End of an ERA? Republicans Wish.
Democrats love to say that Republicans are the ones stuck in the past, but liberals will need a time machine to resurrect their latest bill: the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). After conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly exposed the 1972 proposal for the radicalism it was, the crown jewel of radical feminists back in the day flamed out before it was ever ratified. But thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), nothing is off the table in the radical new House — not even something as antiquated as the ERA.
In a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing Tuesday, the two sides didn’t agree on much — except this: passing the ERA would be a major coup for the abortion industry and codify special rights based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. FRC friend and ranking member Mike Johnson (R-La.) took on the bill’s proponents, exposing the ERA as a trojan horse for the Left’s real agenda: “end[ing] the laws that protect the sanctity of every human life.”
Using a recent article from the National Organization for Women as proof, he quoted the liberal group’s take, which is that “an ERA — properly interpreted — would negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception.” “Look,” Johnson said, “the fact is that now there is essential agreement between pro-life and pro-abortion groups that the language of the 1972 ERA is likely to result in a powerful reinforcement and expansion of abortion rights.”
Of course, there are some conservatives who think another ERA push is a liberal pipe dream. Not so fast, says FRC’s Director of Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy, Patrina Mosley. Back in January, Virginia helped get the national conversation rolling with its own version of the measure. It was popular enough to get voted out of committee, 8-6, showing just enough spark to get imitators introduced in a handful of other states. “Women are continually used as props to push an agenda,” Patrina has warned. “The ERA is not about women, it is really a smokescreen for abortion,” she insisted.
And potentially, much more than that. As Rep. Johnson said, “Of course, we all believe — I’m the father of two daughters, one of whom is sitting in this room today — that women should be protected from discrimination based solely on their sex. And that is the law today… [but] … the people’s right to protect the unborn would be eliminated if the ERA were to pass.”
Before the witnesses concluded, Rep. Johnson inquired as to whether or not the term “sex” in the ERA would include the Left’s expansive definition of the word that includes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” “The ERA would prohibit the discrimination on the basis of sex,” Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of the Stanford Law School, responded. “If there is discrimination on the basis of sex in the treatment of gay, lesbian, or transgendered people. then it will count…”
It would take a supermajority of states and a very determined Left to pass the ERA, but as we’ve seen from the new Democrat party, never say never.
Contact your House member and urge them to vote NO on this stalking horse for taxpayer-funded abortion!
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
