This article comes from the “BuzzLoving.com” website and is written by a Trump-hating leftist calling itself “Milla” — you can see all 81 pages of articles it’s written by going HERE.
“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.
–Original Article headline
Before I get into the article proper, let me state my personal opinion to the rainbow community at large.
You have the right to be whatever you chose to be. Just like I have the right to be myself. You DON’T have the right to demand that I think your way and kowtow to your fantasies on penalty of being beaten, killed or labeled a bigot, a Nazi, or any other derogatory term you come up with. I don’t have the right to sue you for being what you chose to be, but you don’t have the right to try to enforce your fantasies on me via a lawsuit, either. You respect me, I’ll respect you, even if we don’t agree on life choices. Simple. That’s the way a mature person behaves.
End of disclaimer.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-sex marriage, giving a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ couples.
The Supreme Court cited free speech.
Evangelical Christian web designer Lorie Smith has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse messages she disagrees with, it has been decided. This one decision could cause other owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties under laws in 29 states that defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. (Notice the defendant is a biological woman. –TPR)
The statement from the Justice
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He added, “At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”
Shutterstock photo
Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.
Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-sex couple, and it’s unclear if she ever did. Instead, she sued on hypothetical grounds.
(THIS IS NOT “HYPOTHETICAL” Colorado anyone? And the author’s painfully obvious bias is on full display here.–TPR)
Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.
(How many is “many” there, cupcake? — TPR)
“This is a victory not just for me but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith told the press. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.”
“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”
Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman shared that this was a major blow to human rights, writing, “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South & posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with..” Litman added, “That’s where we are headed.”
(Oh oh, Not kowtowing is “racist” now, is it? *facepalm*– TPR)
“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”
The lawyer also clarified, “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed, although to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.”
(Bloviate much? Oh, I forgot, you’re not only a person with a law degree, but you’re also a bureaucrat. Silly me. –TPR)
Another important takeaway
Time wrote, “Put plainly: states can try to pass local anti-bigotry laws, but national religious liberties still supersede them.” The publication also connected how the ruling came a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Court watchers predicted that things would only get worse for women as well as LGBTQ rights.
(“For women?” Really. Sorry, that just won’t wash. Maybe for those females who are still emotional babies, but not for anyone who accepts the responsibility for their own actions. –TPR)
Military paid leave for abortion but not death in the family? Senator Cotton is out there fighting for our troops. But what the Pentagon has done is just plain crazy. This from Senator Cotton.
“It shouldn’t be taxpayer funds giving them three weeks of paid, uncharged leave and then also paying for travel and lodging and meal.”
Now if a family member dies, there is a charged leave, and none of the expenses like travel and meals are paid for.
A press conference was held at the SCV Pregnancy Center in Santa Clarita on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 to voice opposition to legislative attempts to regulate the controversial centers, which are protected by the first amendment.(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Views: 19
At Sierra Pregnancy and Health, Executive Director Cary Wilcox beams with pride holding a plastic model of what will soon be a new mobile clinic thanks to a flood of donations after its “biggest year ever.”
Outside the nondescript nonprofit just 20 miles from the California capital, a sign advertises “abortion pill reversal” — a practice involving the hormone progesterone that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists deems “unethical” and “not supported by science.”
The facility is licensed by the California Department of Public Health as a community clinic but has been flagged as a “crisis pregnancy center” — an industry long accused of misleading women about their services in order to steer them away from abortion.
The Roseville-based center provides free pregnancy tests and first-trimester ultrasounds advertised as part of “pre-abortion screenings” but does not offer abortions or help women get them. Its medical staff includes unpaid retired doctors and nurses who volunteer their time, Wilcox said.
A watercolor painting of a wave hangs above a couch in the consultation room, where clients are warned of abortion-related grief and given pamphlets that ask “is God listening?” A magazine the clinic hands out cites research linking abortion to breast cancer that has been refuted by the American Cancer Society.
Wilcox said part of the clinic’s mission is to “share the love of Jesus,” but she rejects the idea that her industry exists to coerce women out of abortion.
Her clinic is a community resource, she said, pointing to 10,000 diapers and wipes given away in the last year alone and to items such as car seats and baby monitors that parents can “earn” through taking approved parenting classes.
“We don’t force births. Someone can still walk out of here and get an abortion,” she said. “We don’t judge. Our job is to help her make an informed choice.”
Sierra Pregnancy and Health in Roseville, Calif., offers “abortion pill reversal,” which is not authorized by the FDA.
(José Luis Villegas / For The Times)
Across California, where Democratic lawmakers have crafted some of the nation’s strongest abortion rights laws, antiabortion pregnancy centers appear to be untouchable despite repeated attempts to rein them in.
And some are even expanding, boosted by an influx of donations from abortion opponents who object to the enhanced protections enacted in California in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Two state bills to limit them quietly stalled this month, even as the latest package of abortion access laws is otherwise expected to succeed.
Though the issue has become a legal minefield, California Democrats who have vowed to make the state a reproductive rights haven aren’t giving up.
Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta issued a consumer alert last year, warning of potentially misleading practices by crisis pregnancy centers, and created a new process for Californians to file complaints.
Bonta declined to comment on whether there are any ongoing investigations but said the new complaint portal has been “very helpful” and that his office is “prepared to act” on any violation of the law. That could include prohibitions against companies committing fraudulent business acts.
“We’re not just intent on protecting the reproductive freedom that we have but also expanding it, and part of that is Californians getting and having access to truthful and timely and accurate information about abortion services,” he said.
The industry has gotten harder to regulate as it has moved away from the “egregious” misrepresentations that it was built on, Bonta said.
“They’re moving into more of a gray and ambiguous space, where they’re saying things like, ‘Come in and talk to us about abortion options,’ ” Bonta said. “It’s not necessarily false, it might be misleading, but it’s not a black or white violation.”
In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked enforcement of a California law that would have required all clinics to notify patients that the state offers subsidized abortions, birth control and prenatal care. Known as the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act, the bill was sponsored by Vice President Kamala Harris, then state attorney general.
The court’s opinion was led by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that the law unfairly targeted faith-based centers by forcing them to provide a “government drafted script” about services they oppose.
Former client Patti speaks about her experience with the SCV Pregnancy Center in Santa Clarita while she was pregnant with her 9-month-old son Liam at a news conference on Wednesday. The event was to voice opposition to legislative attempts to regulate the controversial centers.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
Crisis pregnancy centers are central to antiabortion activists’ agenda, said Meghan McGuirk, associate director of state legislative affairs and counsel for the abortion rights organization NARAL. “The anti-choice movement is organized and they know what they’re doing. They are going to use every tool they have to try and undermine access to reproductive healthcare,” she said.
Some centers such as the Mendo Lake Women’s Clinic in Ukiah are expanding their services. The center pledges to work to “erase the need for abortion.”
The facility, licensed by the state as a free clinic, claims on its website that adoption can prevent depression “caused by abortion.” (According to the Journal of the American Medical Assn., research has failed to show abortion has a causal effect on mental health.)
There are at least 165 crisis pregnancy centers in California, and they outnumber abortion clinics, according to a report issued last year by the Alliance, a women’s advocacy collaborative.
The report found that many of those centers make “deceptive and misleading” claims, do not have a physician on staff and offer nondiagnostic ultrasounds that are not recognized as a medical service but as a “keepsake” or souvenir.
While abortion access is protected in California, that also makes the state a target for donors looking for crisis pregnancy centers to support, said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda.) She worries that more pregnancy centers will pop up in rural and low-income neighborhoods, where women may struggle to access care.
An abortion rights supporter holds a sign during a rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington in 2018, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a free speech fight over California’s attempt to regulate anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.
(Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)
A bill she proposed this year would have potentially opened crisis pregnancy centers up to lawsuits if they advertise using “false or misleading” statements. But the legislation failed.
“There’s no question that this should be stopped,” said Bauer-Kahan, chair of the Select Committee on Reproductive Health. “It is not just conjecture: They are focusing their energy on states like California.”
California law specifically names “alternative birth centers” as a type of specialty clinic eligible to operate in the state. That means a clinic not part of a hospital that provides “comprehensive” services for pregnant women who spend less than 24 hours at the facility, according to state safety code.
Bonta said although some centers are licensed, it doesn’t mean they are without limits. “Just because you’re licensed to do something doesn’t mean you’re licensed to do everything,” he said.
Pregnancy center leaders maintain that they are upfront about the services they do and don’t provide, but women seeking an abortion still get confused — even by clinics licensed by the state.
A young woman in the Sacramento area confirmed her pregnancy at a Planned Parenthood clinic but could not afford the $450 an abortion would cost there without insurance.
Already a mother of a 1-year-old, she found a pregnancy center online, drawn in by its promise of free medical services for women dealing with unplanned pregnancies. The website advertised a consultation that mentioned parenting, adoption and abortion as options.
A Sacramento woman felt duped and shamed by a local crisis pregnancy center when she sought an abortion.
(Jose Luis Villegas/For The Times)
But the center does not actually provide abortions or make referrals for them — which it also states on its website. The woman didn’t realize that until she was already there.
Inside, she was questioned for over an hour about her “lifestyle,” she said. With her boyfriend by her side, a staffer told them that the odds of a couple breaking up because of an abortion are 80%, and that most people regret it.
Ultimately, she miscarried and did not need any services but left feeling “embarrassed and hurt.”
“They shamed me so much in that room,” said the now 29-year-old woman, who asked not to be named for privacy reasons. “Honestly, I had no idea what I was in for. I didn’t know places like this existed. I thought it was just in movies.”
A bill introduced by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) would have launched a statewide awareness campaign about any services related to pregnancy care and abortion.
Schiavo said she viewed the bill as noncontroversial and simply informational as it pertained to any relevant facility, not just crisis pregnancy centers. But she made it clear in legislative hearings that they were her top concern, calling them “extremely dangerous.”
The bill drew fierce opposition from conservative groups, including the California Family Council, which held a news conference on Wednesday outside a pregnancy center in Schiavo’s district, accusing her of defamation and of judging an entire industry based on a few bad actors.
Abortion critics, including the California Catholic Conference, said the bill was prejudiced and that the state should instead be thanking the centers for helping vulnerable women.
Schiavo called the outrage “really telling.”
“In California, this is really the only way that anti-choice extremists can promote their agenda. [Centers] can just proliferate and thrive and grow exponentially with no restrictions,” Schiavo said. “Women simply having the facts … it completely undermines their whole business model.”
The Los Angeles City Council put crisis pregnancy centers on alert last year, passing an ordinance that fines them up to $10,000 for false advertisement and allows people to sue if they have been misled.
Kelly Pfeifer, a doctor who has performedabortions for 25 years, is among those urging the state to do the same. She testified to lawmakers earlier this month that some of her patients have been given false ultrasound images by the centers to convince them they are further along in pregnancy than they actually are.
She has had patients cry, worried that they would be infertile because of false information told to them about abortion by people they believed were trustworthy health professionals, she said.
“Every day, I see people who have been harmed by these fake clinics,” Pfeifer said. “In any other part of the healthcare system, this would be inconceivable.”
Heidi Matzke has positioned herself as the face of California’s modern pregnancy center movement. She traveled to Washington, D.C., last year to testify against a federal bill aiming to crack down on the centers, and has railed against Planned Parenthood on Fox News.
Her newest pregnancy center will open soon in Sacramento and looks more like a high-end salon than a medical clinic. The 7,000-square-foot facility is stark white and filled with hot-pink furniture and gold-trimmed mirrors. Thousands of dollars have been spent on security cameras, bulletproof glass and graffiti-resistant paint.
The building alone cost $1.5 million — all from donors.
The official motto of Alternatives Pregnancy Center, which opened in 1983, is to provide women with medical care “and alternatives to abortion as we proclaim the hope of the Gospel.”
It provides gynecological care such as Pap smears and breast exams at no cost — rare for crisis pregnancy centers. But like most centers, it also offers the controversial “abortion pill reversal” and something called “abortion recovery classes.”
“If they choose life, they go through this door,” Matzke says of her clients, pointing to a room full of pristine baby clothes given away free. If they choose abortion, they’ll still be “loved on” and supported, she said.
“A woman is more than just a choice that she makes,” she said.
Matzke is a tireless debater; for every scientific study that casts doubt on her services, she holds up another more obscure study that supports them. It’s Planned Parenthood, not pregnancy centers, that are judging their patients, she insists.
“They want to choose life but they need help and they need support,” Matzke said of her clients. “And so when they find a clinic like ours to support them … then a lot of them will step up and choose life.”
California’s leading Democratic lawmakers have ignored Matzke’s invitations to visit her clinics, leery of giving a microphone to her cause. But the license granted to her from the state they represent hangs clearly in her lobby, framed with gold prongs to match her new decor.
Left wishing abortion up to birth. SEBASTIAN KAULITZKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/ iStock/Getty
Views: 15
Don’t declare abortion a national emergency, declare it Infanticide. Some Progressives want to declare Abortion a national emergency. That way mothers to be wont. It would allow all 50 states to open the door for mass murder of children. And in the black community you would see PP racking the Benjamins left and right.
If the Congress would instead pass a bill that would declare abortion Infanticide and put penalties on both the mother, doctor, clinic, and hospital, then and only then would we see abortions slowly go away.
The bill may only pass the House at this time, but if in the future the Republicans were to retake the Senate and White House, it would put those who wish to kill children on notice.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which passed by a vote of 220-210, says any infant born alive after an attempted abortion is a “legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States.” Doctors would be required to care for those infants as a “reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive.”
Doctors would also be required to admit those infants to a hospital for further care. Violation of the standard would result in fines and imprisonment of up to five years, or both.
Sonya Curry hugs her son Golden State Warriors' Stephen Curry (30) as he walks off the court after defeating the Oklahoma City Thunder in Game 6 of the NBA Western Conference finals at Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City, Okla., on Saturday, May 28, 2016. Golden State defeated Oklahoma City 108-101. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group)
Views: 25
So Mr. Curry’s mom after having one abortion, turned it around and had three children, one being Basketball great Stephen Curry. thanks to the folks at Breitbart for the quote below.
“So God is just bringing it all together and showing me to be able to say, ‘Hey, here’s this decision I made at this point, and look at the blessing that he has become,’ and I just thank God for that and I just say to God that it was meant to be,” Curry concluded. “And, to not carry judgment. You don’t have to carry a lot of judgment forever. Give ourselves some grace in making the decision with what we had to make the decision with when we made it. But, my favorite scripture says that all things get worked together for the good, and those called according to His purposes and praise Jesus. It all worked out. There’s Stephen, and look what he’s doing, and it’s just amazing to me.”
Left wishing abortion up to birth. SEBASTIAN KAULITZKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/ iStock/Getty
Views: 37
The left wants you to think that an abortion is just a in and out five minute procedure. Boogie out and dance to some Smokey Robinson tune.
See what you think after reading this.
National Public Radio’s (NPR) airing of a woman getting an abortion has sparked outrage amongst pro-life activists, while some say the audio may have the opposite effect than intended.
The graphic audio of the suction abortion on an 11-week-old unborn child was aired Thursday by the taxpayer-funded radio outlet by reporter Katie Wells. During the clip, a woman can be heard crying and moaning during the procedure, saying at one point, “I can’t,” before one of the workers says, “Yes, you can,” according to Wells.
I almost didn't want to tweet this but it's something everyone needs to know. NPR on the radio this morning played audio of a woman getting an abortion. You can hear the vacuum turning on, crying, moaning, and the doctor telling her it's done.
While the audio angered and saddened pro-life activists on social media, others pointed out that the audio shows the public the “gruesome reality” of an abortion procedure.
“It is horrifying and inappropriate for a taxpayer funded outlet to air the excruciating moments for child and mother of an abortion,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser told Fox News.
“It strikes me that by sharing the audio of a woman getting an abortion, NPR broke one of the foremost rules of abortion advocacy: Never admit or even hint at what happens in an abortion procedure,” tweeted Alexandra DeSanctis Marr of National Review. “The truth is far too awful to look at, particularly if you support abortion.”
“This is what Hell sounds like,” tweeted Lila Rose, President of Live Action.
“NPR thinks they’ve done the abortion industry a favor by highlighting the gruesome reality of undergoing an abortion. Instead, they’ve revealed exactly what the pro-life movement has always known: abortions hurt women and kill babies,” tweeted pro-life organization 40 Days for Life.
Breitbart News previously reported that NPR’s style guide urges its staff not to humanize abortion, which states, “a baby is not a baby until it is born.” The far-left outlet also uses the euphemism “aborting a pregnancy” instead of using “fetus” or “child.”
The race in Washington state for US Senate has gotten real close. So now the MSM and other far left organizations have started to pile on the Republican candidate.
The Seattle Times is threatening Tiffany Smiley for using an image from their report on Starbucks closing its doors. This same leftist paper allowed Murray to use their logo and headlines for her 2016 campaign.
An Arizona judge ruled the state can enforce a near-total ban on abortions that has been blocked for nearly 50 years. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)
Views: 17
Planned Parenthood again tried to get a judge to allow them to resume their mass killing of babies. Again the judge said no.
An Arizona judge rejected a plea from Planned Parenthood on Friday to suspend a previous rule that halts all abortions in the state.
Last Friday, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson announced a decision to allow enforcement of a pre-statehood law that makes it a crime to perform an abortion. This Friday, she rejected the appeal to suspend that ruling.
In her decision, Johnson said abortion rights groups are not likely to prevail in appealing her initial decision so the abortion ban should remain enforceable.
How funny is this from Arizona PP.
Brittany Fonteno, Planned Parenthood of Arizona President and CEO, said she was “outraged” by the ruling.
What happens when you support babies? You get shot. Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
Views: 14
Shot for her beliefs? Woman Shot Handing Out Pro-Life Literature in Michigan. For months now the left was saying how the pro life folks were coming after a woman’s right to kill her baby. Well who’s doing the shooting? Another case of Senior citizens being attacked.
An 84-year-old pro-life volunteer was shot on Sept. 20 while going door-to-door in her community to talk about a ballot measure concerning abortion in Michigan, the group she was volunteering with said.
The woman from Lake Odessa was speaking about Proposal 3, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would advance abortion, according to a Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) press release.
The press release said that the woman was shot in the back-shoulder area while leaving a residence during a heated conversation. The man who shot her was not involved in the conversation and the pro-life volunteer does not know his identity or motive.
Local news outlet WOOD TV8 reported police as saying that the pro-life volunteer was handing out pamphlets when she was shot, after getting into what police called an “alleged verbal altercation.”
The outlet noted that, after getting shot, the woman drove herself to the Lake Odessa Police Department. From there, she was taken to the hospital where she was treated and released.
The RLM press release said that the Michigan State Police are investigating the case, and will forward the results to the Ionia County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.
227
