Kristen Walker Hatten

Your Daily Outrage: Hollywood, CRR join evil forces (and I call Planned Parenthood)

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

October 12, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Hollywood is, for me, a treasure trove of outrage. So is the Center for Reproductive Rights. I consider CRR’s president Nancy Northup sort of an arch-nemesis, because I have looked upon her face and heard her insane ideas firsthand. Her ideas basically boil down to free abortion on demand for everyone, everywhere, for any reason. She’s pretty dark, you guys. If I were an unborn baby, I would think of her kind of the way Luke Skywalker thinks of Emperor Palpatine.

CRR’s new campaign, “Draw the Line,” is being supported vocally by many who are experts on our health care system, the United States economy, and constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty.

Haha, I was just kidding! It’s being supported by celebrities.

Oh, celebrities! What would we do without you? I’m so glad we have Kevin Bacon and Lisa Kudrow to explain 2,000 pages of controversial legislation to us. How could we possibly form an opinion about total government takeover of health care without Amy Poehler’s input? Please, Meryl Streep and Tea Leoni, share your wisdom with us! Sarah Silverman, use your in-depth understanding of our founding documents to shed light on this complex subject!

You see, CRR wants “unrestricted access” to a wide range of “reproductive health services.” As such, CRR’s people are big supporters of the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, and super-bummed about how often it’s been attacked in the courts. They see these legal challenges as threats to the rights of women everywhere.

From Christian Post:

“Every day, the opponents of our fundamental reproductive rights are passing laws designed to take those rights away,” Streep said in a promotional video for the campaign. “They’re shutting down doctors and clinics across the nation.  They’re making it nearly impossible for millions of women to get the essential healthcare they need.”

Please do not forget: when pro-aborts talk about “essential health care,” they mean exactly the opposite of essential health care. They mean abortions and artificial birth control.

But hold on, because this is my absolute favorite part. I discovered this via the “progressive” website Common Dreams, and they think this is awesome: the crux of CRR’s “Draw the Line” campaign is asking Americans – get ready for this – to sign a Bill of Reproductive Rights.

You heard that right. They are ignoring the actual Bill of Rights – you know, the real one! – and creating their own imaginary one to which they shall be ever loyal.

Let’s play a game! It’s called Which Bill of Rights Is It In? Here’s how it works: I’ll give you an excerpt, and you tell me if it’s from the real United States Bill of Rights, or the Bill of Reproductive Rights! Ready? Here we go:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

Okay, which one is it? If you guessed the real Bill of Rights, you’re right! See that part about “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? The Affordable Care Act does exactly that: it forces religious employers to cover contraception and sterilization even if doing so is against their religious beliefs.

Alright, here’s another excerpt! Which Bill of Rights Is It In?

We the people of the United States hereby assert the following as fundamental human rights that no government may deny, and that our governments at every level must guarantee and safeguard for all … The right to a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive health care—including pregnancy care, preventive services, contraception, abortion, and fertility treatment …

Sometimes when I lie awake at night, I imagine a land where I can invent my own rights, that no government may deny. I would have the right to eat pizza all day without gaining any weight. I would also be able to fly and read minds.

In the Imaginationland created by CRR and lovingly supported by not-super-famous celebs who could sure use the publicity, the real Bill of Rights means nothing, but the Bill of Imaginary Rights is one “that no government may deny, and that our governments at every level must guarantee and safeguard for all.” To hell with religious rights! Who cares about those? Those are for dumb creepy people who live in the South. No, what we really need is abortions. Abortions, birth control pills, and sterilizations.

Note how they throw in pregnancy care. They added that to sound more baby-friendly and less death-obsessed, but if they gave one crap about prenatal care, Planned Parenthood might provide it. Oh wait, I’m sorry, 7.8% of them do! As opposed to the 40% that provide abortions. So it’s obviously a super-important service to them.

If pregnancy care were an essential ”human right” to CRR and their ilk, wouldn’t you expect someone to be screaming that Planned Parenthood needs to provide more of it?

Because I want to make sure I am giving you good information, I called a Planned Parenthood clinic in Garland, Texas and told them I was pregnant and wanted to keep the baby, and asked if they provided prenatal care. I was told that no PP clinics in Texas provide this.

So I decided to try the land of Lala, the city from which all these celebrities are supporting the “Draw the Line” campaign – Los Angeles. I was told that no clinics in the county provide prenatal care, but I could call clinics in outlying areas directly.

And in case you were wondering – I was very polite.

Those are two major locations – all of Texas and all of the sprawling, heavily populated Los Angeles area. What do you think would be the outcry if no Planned Parenthoods in those areas provided abortions?

I’m a fan of intellectual honesty. In the interest of same, I think “Draw the Line” should be renamed “Campaign for Empty Wombs.” That’s what it’s really about. It’s not about caring for women and children, but about making sure women can abort said children for any reason, to be paid for by “the government,” which is to say: me and you. It’s a campaign for the tyranny of a woman over her unborn child, and a commitment to being so condescending to women that they don’t dare tell them: Hey, oppressing your children will not make you less oppressed.

In case you’re keeping track of whom to boycott, here is a partial list of “Draw the Line” supporters. Fair warning: you will have to Google most of these people. Kevin Bacon, Sandra Bernhard, Billy Crudup, Olympia Dukakis, Jenna Fischer, Caroline Kennedy, Lisa Kudrow, Tea Leoni, Audra McDonald, Oliver Platt, Martha Plimpton, Amy Poehler, Kyra Sedgwick, Sarah Silverman, Meryl Streep, Louis Zorich.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook