News

What happens if you ask 13 gay-owned bakeries to bake a pro-marriage cake?

22 Comments

Since Christian bakers are being forced by courts to bake cakes for gay weddings, wouldn’t it neat to see if gay bakeries will bake pro-marriage cakes for Christians?

Well, this blogger did just that:

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses.

So Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words “Gay marriage is wrong” placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is.

If anyone who objects saying that our request for the cake was hateful, this is exactly the type of thing the homosexual activists do to Christian bakeries when they use the state to coerce them to make a cake with an explicitly anti traditional marriage slogans on it.

Here are the videos – WARNING: some have very vulgar language.

Video 1 of 2:

Video 2 of 2:

The videos contain very vulgar language, which is a stark contrast to the apologetic and humble language Christians employ when responding to the wedding-related requests gay activists. We don’t seek to offend, but they are totally OK with offending us.

I’ll just link to a few of previous stories on how gay activists forced Christian-owned businesses to service their gay marriages – through the courts.

News

New study: complication rate for chemical abortions is 5.2%

Leave a comment

Story from Life News.

Excerpt:

The UCSF study, “Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications After Abortion,” is based on a recent study of California Medicaid recipients. It appeared in the December 8, 2014, edition of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

California is one of the states that pays for the abortions of women enrolled in Medicaid. The study looked at the billing data from 50,273 Medi-Cal patients who had 54,911 abortions in 2009-2010.

[…]Nearly 8% (or between one in 12 and one in 13) of women showed up at the clinic or a local Emergency Room (ER) seeking some service within six weeks of their abortions. Some of those were eliminated from further study because billing records appeared to show that they came in for some service unrelated to the abortion. (These were not specified, but this could be something like smashing a finger in the car door, coming down with the flu, etc.)

But even pulling these out and other “complications not validated,” one is left with a substantial number of women dealing with medical problems resulting from their “safe” abortions.

On the billing records of those women returning to the clinic or going to the ER, they found women hemorrhaging, dealing with infections, uterine perforations – the sort of problems we’re supposed to think were relics of the early days following the Roe v. Wade decision when abortionists were just learning their craft.

A surprising number of these were related to the new chemical or “medication” abortion method that was supposed to offer women a safer alternative to surgical abortion.

There were nearly four times as many surgical abortions (34,755 first trimester, 8,837 2nd trimester or later) tracked by the study as there were chemical abortions. (11,319). Yet there were more identified complications associated with the chemical method (588) than they were for the surgical ones (438 for first trimester, 130 for 2nd or later) combined.

The complication rate for chemical abortions was 5.2%, versus complication rates of 1.3% for first trimester suction aspiration abortions and 1.5% for second trimester or later methods. This would make chemical abortions four times riskier than early surgical ones and more than three times less safe than a second or third trimester procedure.

This is hardly the “advance” or “improvement” that women were promised when the government was asked to approve RU-486 more than a decade ago.

I didn’t really want to take Life News’ word for this, so I looked up the study.

They’re right:

RESULTS: A total of 54,911 abortions among 50,273 fee-for-service Medi-Cal beneficiaries were identified. Among all abortions, 1 of 16 (6.4%, n=3,531) was followed by an ED visit within 6 weeks but only 1 of 115 (0.87%, n=478) resulted in an ED visit for an abortion-related complication. Approximately 1 of 5,491 (0.03%, n=15) involved ambulance transfers to EDs on the day of the abortion. The major complication rate was 0.23% (n=126, 1/436): 0.31% (n=35) for medication abortion, 0.16% (n=57) for first-trimester aspiration abortion, and 0.41% (n=34) for second-trimester or later procedures. The total abortion-related complication rate including all sources of care including EDs and the original abortion facility was 2.1% (n=1,156): 5.2% (n=588) for medication abortion, 1.3% (n=438) for first-trimester aspiration abortion, and 1.5% (n=130) for second-trimester or later procedures.

In other posts, I talked about the other risks associated with abortion.

News

Lots of candidates for Boehner replacement in list of Cromnibus NO-votes

1 Comment

Here’s the list of people who voted against the CRomnibus trillion-dollar spending bill that Obama supports.

  1. Wittman, R. (R-VA)
  2. Williams, R. (R-TX)
  3. Webster, D. (R-FL)
  4. Weber, R. (R-TX)
  5. Stutzman, M. (R-IN)
  6. Smith, L. (R-TX)
  7. Smith, C. (R-NJ)
  8. Sensenbrenner, F. (R-WI)
  9. Scott, A. (R-GA)
  10. Schweikert, D. (R-AZ)
  11. Sanford, M. (R-SC)
  12. Salmon, M. (R-AZ)
  13. Rohrabacher, D. (R-CA)
  14. Rogers, M. (R-AL)
  15. Posey, B. (R-FL)
  16. Pompeo, M. (R-KS)
  17. Poe, T. (R-TX)
  18. Perry, S. (R-PA)
  19. Olson, P. (R-TX)
  20. Neugebauer, R. (R-TX)
  21. Mulvaney, M. (R-SC)
  22. Miller, J. (R-FL)
  23. Meadows, M. (R-NC)
  24. McKinley, D. (R-WV)
  25. McClintock, T. (R-CA)
  26. McAllister, V. (R-LA)
  27. Massie, T. (R-KY)
  28. Marchant, K. (R-TX)
  29. Lummis, C. (R-WY)
  30. Lankford, J. (R-OK)
  31. Lamborn, D. (R-CO)
  32. LaMalfa, D. (R-CA)
  33. Labrador, R. (R-ID)
  34. King, S. (R-IA)
  35. Jordan, J. (R-OH)
  36. Jones, W. (R-NC)
  37. Johnson, S. (R-TX)
  38. Hurt, R. (R-VA)
  39. Huelskamp, T. (R-KS)
  40. Griffith, H. (R-VA)
  41. Gowdy, T. (R-SC)
  42. Gosar, P. (R-AZ)
  43. Gohmert, L. (R-TX)
  44. Garrett, S. (R-NJ)
  45. Franks, T. (R-AZ)
  46. Flores, B. (R-TX)
  47. Fleming, J. (R-LA)
  48. Farenthold, B. (R-TX)
  49. Duncan, J. (R-TN)
  50. Duncan, J. (R-SC)
  51. DesJarlais, S. (R-TN)
  52. DeSantis, R. (R-FL)
  53. Crawford, R. (R-AR)
  54. Cotton, T. (R-AR)
  55. Conaway, K. (R-TX)
  56. Clawson, C. (R-FL)
  57. Rice, T. (R-SC)
  58. Burgess, M. (R-TX)
  59. Broun, P. (R-GA)
  60. Brooks, M. (R-AL)
  61. Bridenstine, J. (R-OK)
  62. Brat, D. (R-VA)
  63. Blackburn, M. (R-TN)
  64. Bentivolio, K. (R-MI)
  65. Barton, J. (R-TX)
  66. Bachmann, M. (R-MN)
  67. Amash, J. (R-MI)

The names in bold are the ones I’d like to see named as Speaker of the House instead of John Boehner. He has to go, along with Mitch McConnell. It’s just too much now. They won the election in 2014 and now it’s time to do what they were elected to do. If they can’t do that, then put in someone as Speaker who can.

A couple of stories on this from Breitbart.

First one:

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that conservatives in the House heard “not one word” from House GOP leadership on compromises to make changes to the cromnibus in order to get conservatives to vote for it even though “we were willing to work with them to compromise” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.
“There was no encouragement to conservatives. The Speaker and Majority Leader, these folks knew there’s money for abortion, money for the EPA to hurt states like Texas, Arizona. There’s just all kinds of money in there for things we don’t support. and, Sean, you and I know some of us had gone to our leadership and said, ‘look, we can do this very easily. Let’s do it together with conservatives. That’s the bulk of our conference, don’t make them take a wrong vote. Let’s fund everything for two months. Let us have a vote on defunding Obama’s amnesty, and we’ll even agree that the Senate can take it out if they take the hard vote to do that and let it go from there to the president.’ We were willing to work with them to compromise, and not one word, as you know, the calls went to the white house when in a time that the speaker needed votes he turned to somebody that he really identifies with, the president and liberal Democrats and got them to help him pass this vote” he stated.

Gohmert is one of my favorite congressmen – I hear him all the time on the FRC’s Washington Weekly podcast.

Second one:

Immediately following the House of Representatives’ passage of the so-called CR/omnibus spending bill, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) reacted to the vote.
Bachmann told host Sean Hannity a decision had been made months ago on amnesty, despite efforts to use this bill to take on President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty effort.

“I think the reason why they did it is because the political establishment made a decision months ago this they were going to get amnesty,” she said. “And they were going to pay for amnesty. The executive amnesty is what they didn’t like — President Obama doing it alone. But they wanted amnesty. Let’s not mince words. Both Republican and Democrats, the leadership, the establishment, wanted to have amnesty”

Later in the segment, Hannity turned his attention to King and asked if House Speaker John Boehner made a deal with Obama directly.

“Yes,” King replied. “I think no good ideas outside of that deal were going to be considered unless we could have succeeded on taking the rule down. And at that point we would have had a new ball game. And I think we had a chance, but we failed by a vote to take the rule down.”

Who knew that when we elected so many Republicans to the House and Senate that Boehner would actually be taking over as Democrat leader in the House from Nancy Pelosi? Maybe next time there we can pick a Republican Speaker of the House.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t elect Republicans, I’m saying that we need to primary Republicans who vote for garbage like this so that we get the right men and women for the job. We can start with the 67 we have and keep those, and find as many replacements as possible for the others.