Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Do Republicans do anything about de-funding Planned Parenthood?

Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood
Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood

I keep getting comments from people on the blog and on the blog’s Facebook page saying that Republicans never do anything about de-funding Planned Parenthood. Is that true? Or is this belief just held in ignorance by people who don’t follow legislation very closely? Let’s take a look at a vote that’s happening today in the Senate.

Life News reports:

The Senate will cast a vote on Monday to try to break the Democrat filibuster against a bill to stop infanticide.

As LifeNews reported, pro-abortion Senator Patty Murray blocked a vote on a bill from pro-life Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska that would stop infanticide nationwide. And in the House, Democrats have blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a bill that would stop infanticide a total of six times.

Earlier this month. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse had wanted to vote on a bill to protect babies born alive after failed abortions.

The Senate vote would have come days after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law new legislation that allows abortions up to birth and after Virginia Governor Ralph Northam backed infanticide during a radio interview — saying that he’s perfectly content if doctors and parents discuss letting disabled babies die after birth.

Sasse asked of the Senate for unanimous consent to vote on legislation that would offer them appropriate Medical Care and treatment.

However, speaking on behalf of pro-abortion Senate Democrats, pro-abortion Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, stood up and objected to the vote.

The truth is, the House Republicans DID pass some pro-life legislation from 2016-2018. Some of it got signed into law, but most of it died in the Senate, because of the Democrats. 

Also, in the Senate, the new Senator from Tennessee (Marsha Blackburn) has already introduced a new piece of legislation designed to stop taxpayer-funding of abortion. The bill is sponsored by 25 other Republican senators.

Excerpt:

Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced her first bill in the Senate. The proposed law, S. 105, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, is a counterpart to a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to deny funding to abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood.

[…]”Today, I introduced my first bill in the United States Senate, S. 105, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which strips all abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, of federal funding,” she wrote. “Tennesseans and the American people do not want their tax dollars funding abortions. They have made this position clear time and again. Hardworking taxpayers do not want to subsidize the business of abortion providers and entities such as Planned Parenthood.”

The bill has not yet passed the Senate, which is the first step in making it law.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill designed to ban all abortions after 6 weeks:

Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday to protect unborn babies from abortion once they have a detectable heartbeat.

State House Bill 77, sponsored by Rep. Micah Van Huss, would protect almost all unborn babies in Tennessee by prohibiting abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks. Exceptions would be allowed for medical emergencies. Violators could be charged with a felony and face up to 15 years in prison.

The state’s moderate Republican governor Bill Lee has already promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Meanwhile, President Trump is doing his part to defund Planned Parenthood as much as he can using administrative power.

Life News reports:

President Donald Trump today finalized an administrative rule that would partially defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and deprive it of as much as $60 million in taxpayer dollars. This action adds to President Trump’s record of defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion company.

The abortion chain receives about $50 million to $60 million in Title X funds annually, but that could change now that the new rules are being implemented. The administration’s changes to Title X family planning grants have angered the abortion chain Planned Parenthood, prompting a lawsuit, but they provide hope for life-affirming pregnancy centers, which can now compete with the abortion giant for the federal funds.

There really isn’t any point in rank-and-file Republicans complaining about elected Republican legislators. They are doing their jobs of introducing legislation. Sometimes, the legislation passes. Sometimes it’s defeated. The outcome of these votes depends on whether we elect enough pro-life Republicans. Saying that “Republicans do nothing to stop abortion” is not only factually incorrect, but it is actually pro-abortion, because it discourages Republican voters from donating and working hard to be involved in the political process.

In my experience, people who say things like this are cynical losers who have failed at life. Their fatalistic pessimistic outlook makes them feel in control. They justify their inactivity by warning others not to try because the system is rigged. We should oppose these ignorant, conspiracy-minded losers whenever they open their mouths.

Trump names pro-life scientist to National Science Board

Dr. Maureen Condic
Dr. Maureen Condic

On Friday, I was reading an article in the Christian Research Journal by prominent pro-life debater Scott Klusendorf, and he was analyzing a pro-abortion scholar. But he ended his article with this quote, where he mentions some of the best pro-life scholars.

He wrote:

In a 2008 Los Angeles Times op-ed piece, abortion-choice advocates Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling lament that a new generation of pro-life advocates present “a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge” to what once was considered a settled debate.

Pollitt largely ignores that challenge. She dreams of a day when cleaning out wombs is just another form of housekeeping. Nowhere in her text do you get the sense she’s interacted with leading pro-life thinkers such as Francis Beckwith, Maureen Condic, or Christopher Kaczor. And while Pollitt may indeed fire up like-minded abortion-advocates, she’s no pro when it comes to engaging the best arguments from pro-life apologists.

Now, I recognize Beckwith and Kaczor. I’ve purchased their books. They are seen as two of the top pro-life scholars. And I remember I’ve cited Condic as an authority on the science of fetal development, in this post.

It’s great that we have pro-life scholars like Beckwith, Kaczor and Condic, but it would be even better if those pro-life scholars were in positions of influence. They would have to have the right credentials, of course. But we also need someone to put them in high positions.

Life News reports:

A nationally-recognized scientist who has testified in support of unborn babies is President Donald Trump’s new choice for the National Science Board.

Dr. Maureen Condic, an associate professor at the University of Utah who specializes in neurobiology, is widely known for her work on spinal cord repair, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Earlier this month, Trump chose her to fill one of the 25 seats on the National Science Board.

“I’m just thrilled that it’s an opportunity to serve my country and the greater scientific community,” Condic said in response to the news.

She obtained her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley, and is a widely published scientist whose works have appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.

Her work has been instrumental to the pro-life movement in its pursuit to protect unborn babies from painful abortions. In 2003, Condic testified before Congress that unborn babies have the capacity to feel pain as early as eight weeks.

“The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development,” she explained. “This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity.”

She asked lawmakers to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn babies from the “cruel” and unnecessary pain of abortion.

“Imposing pain on any pain-capable living creature is cruelty,” Condic said. “And ignoring the pain experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric. We don’t need to know if a human fetus is self- reflective or even self- aware to afford it the same consideration we currently afford other pain-capable species. We simply have to decide whether we will choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not.”

Many states have passed laws banning abortions when the unborn child can feel pain. And 13 states have laws that include the facts on fetal pain in mandatory counseling. Dr. Condic deserves the credit for her work on the research that supports this legislation.

In addition, earlier this year, the Senate voted on a bill to ban abortions where the unborn child can feel pain:

Next week, the Senate will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 2311), introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). This legislation would protect unborn children by preventing abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the unborn child can feel pain. The House passed a similar bill last fall by a vote of 237 to 189.

Unfortunately, the Democrats in the Senate were able to defeat the Senate bill. Still, it really helps the pro-life cause for Dr. Condic to get into a position of influence. Maybe we will get a second chance to pass this legislation, when we have more pro-life senators like newly elected Marsha Blackburn.

Trump’s State of the Union speech: “Americans are dreamers, too”

Trump's State of the Union pitted America against Democrats
Trump’s State of the Union pitted America against Democrats

I can’t recommend that you go back and watch the speech, because it was so very long. Too long. However, the guys over at the Daily Wire liked the speech a lot, and they gave it high grades. Why? Because Trump put forward conservative principles with examples in a way that linked conservative virtues to America. However, the Democrats sat through almost all of it with stone faces, sitting on their hands.

The best summary I found so far was up at the Daily Caller.

Excerpt:

President Donald Trump delivered a largely conciliatory speech during his State of the Union address Tuesday.

[…]The major policy proposals put forth to Congress were calls for a new infrastructure investment package and the acceptance of a new proposal to reform the U.S. immigration system. “Every Federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with State and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment — to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit,” the president said of infrastructure.

Trump’s immigration package offers a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children in exchange for full funding for wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, eliminating chain migration and an end to the diversity visa lottery program.

The president frequently pointed out guests of the First Lady throughout the speech including U.S. soldiers recognized for valor in combat, firefighters from California, ICE agents, parents who lost their children to MS-13 gang violence, and a North Korea defector.

And here is the detail on one case I liked from the Daily Caller:

President Donald Trump celebrated Staff Sgt. Justin Peck for his role in saving the life of his fellow soldier who was wounded clearing deadly traps form buildings in the former ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.

“Near Raqqa last November Justin and his comrade, Chief Petty Officer Kenton Stacy, were on a mission to clear buildings that ISIS had rigged with explosives so that civilians could return to that city hopefully soon and hopefully safely,” Trump said. “Clearing the second floor of vital hospital, Kenton Stacy was severely wounded by an explosion. Immediately, Justin bounded into the booby-trapped and unbelievably dangerous and unsafe building and found Kenton, but in very, very bad shape.”

Trump went on to describe the incredible medical care administered by Peck, who rose stoically to his feet amid overwhelming applause from the audience.

“He applied pressure to the wound and inserted a tube to reopen an airway, he then performed CPR for twenty straight minutes during the ground transport and maintained artificial respiration through two and a half hours and through emergency surgery,” Trump said. “Kenton Stacy would have died if it were not for Justin’s selfless love for his fellow warrior. Tonight Kenton is recovering in Texas, Raqqa is liberated and Justin is wearing his new bronze star with a V for valor.”

U.S. backed coalition forces cleared ISIS militants from Raqqa in October after four years of occupation. The terrorist group has been eradicated from roughly 98 percent of the territory they held at the height of their power.

Here’s the clip for that one:

This is good because Democrats think that our armed forces need to be disarmed and pulled out of wars against our enemies. That is why Obama pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and cut funding for the military. He thought they were doing harm, and wanted them to stop doing harm. Obama’s allies in the mainstream media go out of their way to paint the US armed forces in a bad light – remember how many months they talked about Abu Ghraib and waterboarding? But Trump counters the Democrats with an example of people in the Armed Forces doing great things. And since Trump is the one speaking, praise for the military is naturally linked with Trump’s Republican party. Republicans believe in the military, and here is an example of why we do. And Democrats sat on their hands and kept silent.

There were lots of examples that helped everyone to understand why Republicans take the positions they do.

Here’s an example – why are Republicans for border security?

And another – why are Republicans opposed to North Korea?

And another – why do Republicans cut taxes for the middle class?

And another – why do Republicans think America is better than some other countries?

When a Republican president points out examples of things Republicans like, other people start to understand that Republicans are not the horrible devils that Democrats make them out to be. When the Democrats refused to clap for goodness, it helps people to think “maybe I’m not a Democrat after all”.

This went on and on throughout the speech. The Democrats were silent for tax cuts. The Democrats were silent for hard working Americans. The Democrats were silent for small business owners. The Democrats were silent for lower black unemployment. The Democrats were silent when the national anthem was praised. The Democrats were silent when the flag was celebrated. What came across over and over again was that what is good for America is bad for Democrats, and vice versa.

It was a great speech, and it moved the ball forward as far as the place of conservatism in the culture.

If there’s one thing that Trump is doing right, it’s nominating originalist judges

Trump picks a strict constructionist for Supreme Court vacancy

Well, so far Trump’s done many things right and many things wrong. Although I think more of the right things are actions (cleaning up regulations, energy development, etc. ) and the wrong things are just horribly damaging tweets. The best actions surely include his habit of nominating judges who will interpret the law as written, instead of pushing a political agenda.

Far-left ABC News reports on the most important judicial pick – Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Excerpt:

More than 2,000 conservatives in tuxedos and gowns recently filled Union Station’s main hall for a steak dinner and the chance to cheer the man who saved the Supreme Court from liberal control.

Justice Neil Gorsuch didn’t disappoint them, just as he hasn’t in his first seven months on the Supreme Court.

“Tonight I can report that a person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said to sustained applause from members of the Federalist Society…

[…]The 50-year-old justice has been almost exactly what conservatives hoped for and liberals dreaded when he joined the court in April. He has consistently, even aggressively, lined up with the court’s most conservative justices. He has even split with Chief Justice John Roberts, viewed by some as insufficiently conservative because of his two opinions upholding President Barack Obama’s health law.

The article notes that liberal legal groups are very unhappy with Gorsuch’s constant focus on what the Constitution says. They don’t like him asking lawyers questions about the Constitution.

More:

Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society executive vice president who has advised Trump on judicial picks, also took issue with Gorsuch’s critics when he introduced the justice at the dinner. “They mischaracterize candor and a demand for rigorous analysis as polarizing,” Leo said.

Gorsuch and Leo embraced on the podium, in front of an adoring crowd of like-minded lawyers, judges and academics. The Federalist Society, which counted Scalia among its earliest backers, has helped Trump identify candidates for federal judgeships and has members in legal jobs across his administration.

Gorsuch made no apologies either for the substance of his questions and writing, or his style. He talked at length about the importance of seeking out the meaning of the Constitution and laws as they were understood when they written.

“Originalism has regained its place at the table of constitutional interpretation, and textualism in the reading of statutes has triumphed. And neither one is going anywhere on my watch,” Gorsuch said.

He went on to note that “some pundits have expressed bewilderment” about the questions he asks in court.

“But while I have you here tonight, I thought I might just settle the matter once and for all by taking a poll. … Should I just keep on asking about the text and original meaning of the Constitution?” he asked.

The response was predictably and overwhelmingly in favor.

Before Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed, I liked Justice Clarence Thomas best. He was the most faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution – better than Scalia.

Gorsuch and Thomas stick to the original meaning of the Constitution

Now that Gorsuch is on the bench, he’s been tracking with Thomas. According to this article from Law 360, he votes with Thomas 94% of the time. Much higher than any of the centrist and liberal judges. The liberal writer of the Law 360 article is predictably horrified that Gorsuch is so good on religious liberty in particular:

As the most controversial rulings came down near the end of the term, however, Justice Gorsuch splintered off from most of his conservative colleagues and exclusively joined Justice Thomas in five separate opinions.

On Monday, for instance, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas supported each other’s concurrences in the major religious freedom case, Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The pair joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion holding that a Missouri playground-funding program closed to religious groups was unconstitutional, but they criticized the court for limiting the scope of its ruling.

In Trinity Lutheran, the court found that a widely available public program that discriminates on the basis of religious status violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The court refused to say, however, whether a program that withholds public funds from groups that would use that money for religious purposes similarly violates the free exercise clause.

In doing so, Justice Roberts made an unworkable distinction, Justice Gorsuch said. “I don’t see why it should matter whether we describe that benefit, say, as closed to Lutherans (status) or closed to people who do Lutheran things (use),” he said. “It is free exercise either way.”

Justice Gorsuch’s desire for an expanded free exercise clause would likely come as a crushing blow to liberal groups and other advocates of church-state separation.

That’s the most important issue to me – my religious liberty. My right to live an authentic Christian life without being bullied by secular leftists in the government. I want people on the Supreme Court to defend my right to behave like a Christian in public.

The conservative Daily Signal had an article up describing even more good news about new judicial nominations.

Excerpt:

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced the addition of five individuals to his outstanding list of potential candidates for a future Supreme Court vacancy.

As was the case with the lists Trump put out during his presidential campaign, these new additions to the list are conservative men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

While there are currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court, rumors abound that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire in the near future.

Whatever mess Trump makes with his Tweets, you have to love this judicial nominees. We would never have gotten nominees like this with Hillary Clinton. And what’s even better is that Trump will be making more judicial nominations in the next 12 months than Obama did in his entire 8 years in office, according to the radically leftist Washington Post. (H/T Curby)

Excerpt:

 Conservatives have a new court-packing plan, and in the spirit of the holiday, it’s a turducken of a scheme: a regulatory rollback hidden inside a civil rights reversal stuffed into a Trumpification of the courts. If conservatives get their way, President Trump will add twice as many lifetime members to the federal judiciary in the next 12 months (650) as Barack Obama named in eight years (325). American law will never be the same. 

That’s good news for liberty, bad news for big government coercion.

Trump budget funds Obamacare, refugees, Iran deal, Planned Parenthood

National Enquirer: "Trump Must Be President", and Rubio has sex and drug secrets
National Enquirer: “Trump Must Be President”

This is from the Conservative Review:

When Republicans initially gained control of the House in 2011, they promised to defund Obamacare, end funding for Planned Parenthood, and cut spending in the first budget bill in March. Even though they only controlled one branch of government, the understanding was that, buttressed by an electoral landslide, Republicans would stand their ground on at least half of their demands. Well, they caved immediately and then promised us they’d fight “the next time” in the fall budget. It became an inside joke among conservatives on Capitol Hill – “don’t worry, we’ll do it the next time” – even though the same rationale for the maniacal capitulation the first time would always persist in the subsequent iterations.

Now, with control of all three branches and a president who sold himself in the primaries as the antithesis of weak-kneed Republicans who don’t know the first thing about tough negotiations, we are in the exact same position. Last night, President Trump signaled that, after not even fighting on refugee resettlement and Planned Parenthood, he would cave on the final budget issue – the funding of the border fence. But fear not, he’ll resume his demand … the next time!

The true-believing Trumpers are telling me that Trump will do all the best things in time, so that I will get tired of all the winning. But the odds are less likely that we get the votes without the leverage of shutting down the government:

If Republicans can’t deliver on any of these basic promises when their political capital is the strongest and they stand the farthest from the next election, what dynamic will change in the next year to provide conservatives with a single legislative victory?

If the budget will never be used as leverage to fight back against the courts, for example, on refugees and visas from the Middle East, what is stopping the courts from erasing even the few remaining benefits of this presidency in its executive orders? If Congress fails to act, the courts will likely “strike down” the executive order against sanctuary cities.

Next time? That’s not what he said when he was running for President. He sounded like such a tough guy, and many people who preferred confidence over resume were fooled. But confidence doesn’t do anything, it’s just appearance. The reality is now upon us. Now we know for certain.

When Trump did some good things at the beginning of his Presidency, I was glad, and blogged about them. Now he is doing horrible things, and showing his true nature as a Democrat. I think it’s fair to mock the people who believed his confident, insulting words – instead of insisting on seeing evidence from past battles that would show his real priorities.