‘I feel very strongly about this issue’: Marco Rubio to introduce 20-week abortion ban in Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 26, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After several weeks of speculation, Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL, confirmed this week that he wants to introduce a bill banning abortions nationwide after 20 weeks, when experts say unborn children can feel pain.
“I feel very strongly about this issue,” Rubio said. “And I’d like to be the lead sponsor on it if we can find language that we can unify people behind.”
Congressman Trent Franks, R-AZ, who authored the House version of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, told LifeSiteNews.com earlier this month that Rubio planned to introduce the Senate version but asked it be kept off the record until Rubio made a public announcement.
Rubio explained the legislation had been delayed due to the fact that he and his colleagues want to be sure the legislation’s wording is constitutionally bulletproof before introducing it.
“What we have among pro-life supporters in the Senate is a difference of opinion about: Which constitutionally enumerated power is this flowing under?” Rubio told Politico. “We just have not yet been able to come to a consensus on that.” Under law, Senate bills must specify which constitutional provision authorizes it.
The senator also left room for the possibility that someone else may eventually take the lead in championing the legislation.
“If someone else would like to do it instead of me, I’m more than happy to consider it,” Rubio said. “But I’d like to be the lead sponsor.”
Rubio, who is expected to be a top contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, had been expected to announce his intention to sponsor the bill since three weeks ago, when he told press outlets that he had agreed to do it.
If Rubio is going to introduce the bill, now would seem an opportune time. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that more than half of Americans support restricting abortion after 20 weeks. In January, Gallup found that 64 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, and 80 percent believe it should be outlawed in the third trimester.
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
It’s likely internal debate over the bill’s language will center on whether to include controversial exceptions for rape, incest, birth defects, and/or the health of the mother.
Franks’ bill was originally introduced with only an exception to save the mother’s life, but under intense media scrutiny and outcry from abortion supporters, it was amended to include exceptions for rape and incest before it passed the House in June.
Pro-abortion critics of the proposed ban argue that excluding such exceptions amounts to forcing victims of crimes or illness to give birth against their will. But pro-life legislators and activists say that the ban doesn’t go into effect until five months into a woman’s pregnancy, giving her ample time to make such a decision.
And a growing number of people conceived in rape and incest have been speaking out against the so-called “rape exception,” arguing that children like them don’t deserve the death penalty for their fathers’ crimes.
Despite popular support for more restrictions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, has said any legislation to limit abortion will be dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
“The majority leader’s opposition to this puts him outside the mainstream of the American public,” Rubio said on Wednesday. “They love to cite polls all the time — and well, I don’t live by polls — but polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans believe that after 20 weeks, abortion should be limited.”
Americans’ awareness of late term abortion has heightened after the recent “House of Horrors” murder trial that saw abortionist Kermit Gosnell sentenced to three consecutive life terms in prison for severing the spines of babies who survived late term abortion procedures at his filthy West Philadelphia clinic.
Around the same time, the pro-life activist group Live Action released a series of undercover videos exposing late-term abortionists and their staff telling patients to flush live babies down the toilet and vowing not to provide lifesaving care to babies born alive after botched abortions.
According to Florida-based political analyst Jeff Henderson, “in calling for moving the abortion ban from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, Rubio has his finger on the pulse of the American electorate.”
Writing for the Sunshine State News, Henderson said Rubio should jump on the opportunity to be a hero on what he believes is a winning issue.
“Since a majority of Americans are with Rubio on this issue, it’s a chance to use one of Democrats’ favorite tactics against them and paint them as out of touch and extremists on the issue,” Henderson wrote. “Rubio would be wise to play up his stance here as much as he can in the months to come and into the 2016 election.”
Pro-life group asks: Pray for abortionists who sell baby body parts
February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - This Lent, a pro-life group would like you to pray for an abortionist - specifically, an abortionist who facilitates the sale of unborn babies' body parts.
The Pro-Life Action League is asking for people to pray for three people in particular throughout the 40 days of Lent. All three were caught on video by the Center for Medical Progress.
Dr. Deborah Nucatola appeared in the first video released last July, sipping red wine and stabbing her salad as she discussed the dismemberment of aborted children, including where to “crush” their bodies for a "less crunchy" technique.
The second is Dr. Mary Gatter, who appeared in the second undercover video, haggling over the prices Planned Parenthood expected to receive for the aborted children's organs and tissue. At one point, she joked that she wants the revenue to pay for “a Lamborghini.”
And the third is Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who was also caught in the first video praising Dr. Nucatola.
Despite the shocking evidence uncovered by CMP, Richards has insisted her organization did not receive any profit for what she dubs its "fetal tissue donation program." She apologized only for Dr. Nucatola's "tone." She has since said that Planned Parenthood will not receive any remuneration for babies' body parts.
"These three architects of Planned Parenthood’s baby parts scheme have devoted their lives to the destruction and exploitation of human life in the name of ‘choice,’" said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "If we won’t pray for them, who will?”
He asked Christians to pray for these three abortion industry profiteers - and for Richards, who is a post-abortive woman - in order to fulfill Jesus Christ's commandment in the Bible, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (St. Matthew 5:44).
“In God’s eyes, what abortion has done to these three women may be worse than what they’ve done to unborn children, who now rest in our Lord’s loving arms," Scheidler said.
For most Catholics, Lent began yesterday on Ash Wednesday, and lasts 40 days.
Texas AG faces ethics probe for saying clerks can refuse to issue gay ‘marriage’ licenses
AUSTIN, Texas, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The attorney general of the state of Texas is facing an ethics investigation for having affirmed the constitutional religious freedom of state workers to decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it goes against their religious beliefs.
Attorney General Ken Paxton took steps to address the issue of conscience protection in his state before and after last June's Supreme Court's Obergefell decision imposing same-sex "marriage" on all 50 states, first issuing a statement the day prior clarifying that Texas law recognizes the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and recommending that state officials wait for direction from his office should the High Court move to redefine marriage.
Paxton then issued a statement two days after the ruling, his office allowing county clerks and their employees to retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and said as well that justices of the peace and judges would similarly retain religious freedoms.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
A month later, a group of some 200 attorneys filed a complaint asserting that Paxton's position encouraged officials to violate the U.S. Constitution and break their oaths of office, according to ABC News.
The complaint was dismissed at first by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, but it was reinstated February 2 by a state Supreme Court-appointed appeals board, which contended that the complaint alleges a "possible violation" of professional conduct rules.
The appeals board decision to reinstate the case does not mean Paxton violated professional ethics, according to the ABC report, but does require him to respond to the complaint in conjunction with the investigation.
"The complaint has always lacked merit," said Paxton spokeswoman Cynthia Meyer, "and we are confident the legal process for resolving these complaints will bear that out."
Paxton was among several state officials across the U.S. who moved to ensure conscience protection in the immediate aftermath the Obergefell ruling, at times garnering the ire of homosexual activists.
Last July, South Dakota's attorney general granted permission to county clerks with conscientious objections to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as another clerk in the office would issue the license.
In a highly contentious case, Davis had asked for a religious accommodation allowing her office to issue altered licenses to homosexuals without her name on them, which was eventually granted by Kentucky's Governor Matt Bevin. However, the ACLU sued, seeking to force Davis to issue the old forms with her full name on them. A federal judge rejected the suit earlier this week.
Last year, homosexual activists sent harassing messages, including threats of violence, to Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk and his family after the Republican legislator sponsored a bill that would have given the state's business owners the freedom to follow their religious convictions in regard to homosexual "marriage."
Paxton faces penalties varying between a reprimand and disbarment resulting from the ethics complaint. The Texas attorney general is also facing securities fraud charges.
This pro-abortion billionaire may run for president
NEW YORK, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - He's an upwardly mobile, socially liberal billionaire whose political affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. He's teased numerous presidential campaigns in the past, but this time he's talking like he's serious. And no, he's not who you think he is.
Michael Bloomberg, who served three terms as mayor of New York City, has confirmed to media sources that he is considering running for president as an independent in 2016.
Bloomberg told told the Financial Times this week that he finds American political "discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," and that he's “looking at all the options."
The 73-year-old tycoon was a registered Democrat before switching parties to run in the less contested Republican primary in 2001. He became a registered independent in 2007.
As mayor, Bloomberg governed as a social liberal who strongly supported abortion and the LGBT political agenda.
In 2011, Bloomberg signed a controversial gag order directed at crisis pregnancy centers. A year later, he endorsed Barack Obama's re-election, saying that abortion-on-demand is part of "the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there."
That's the same year Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $50 million undertaking to expand "reproductive health," including a major partnership with Planned Parenthood-Global to overturn pro-life laws in four nations: Nicaragua, Sengal, Uganda, and Burkina Faso.
Mayor Bloomberg played a pivotal role redefining marriage in New York state, giving the four Republican state senators who voted for New York’s same-sex “marriage” bill the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law. One retired and a second lost his primary fight.
His strong emphasis on health regulations, such as attempting to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, did little to enhance his popularity and were deftly parodied by Sarah Palin. (A state court struck down the proposed regulation.)
The financial heft he could bring into the race, as well as his quirky politics, has tempted Bloomberg to enter presidential politics in the past. He considered a presidential run in 2008 and thought more strongly about a third party bid in 2012, after hosting the inaugural convention of the “No Labels” movement in New York City in 2010, but he backed off each time after not seeing a viable path to victory.
With an estimated fortune of $39 billion, he has said he would be willing to spend more than $1 billion on his campaign in 2016 - but he would only enter the race if the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders.
He called Jeb and Hillary Clinton "two quality” candidates and "the only two who know how to make the trains run." Jeb reciprocated last month, telling CNN that Bloomberg is "a good person, and he’s a patriot and wants the best for the country.”
At least one of his competitors is eager to see Mike run. "I hope he gets into the race," Donald Trump told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Wednesday night. "I'd love to compete against him...I would love to see Michael in the race."
That is likely because polling shows Bloomberg would draw most of his support from the Democratic candidate. "Although he is characterized as the New York counterpunch to Trump, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is more the nemesis of Bernie than he is of Donald," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Bernie Sanders would defeat both Trump and Cruz in a head-to-head match, according to Quinnipiac. But if Bloomberg entered the race, he would win 15 percent of the vote largely from Sanders, giving Trump a one-point victory in the popular vote (and narrowing Cruz's loss to one point).
However, he could throw a major wrench in the Democrats' electoral college total, according to columnist Pat Buchanan.
"Not only would Bloomberg lose the Big Apple, his statewide vote would come mostly from the Democratic nominee, giving Republicans the best opportunity to carry the Empire State since Ronald Reagan coasted to re-election in 1984," wrote Buchanan, who served as White House communications director during Reagan's second term.
“It’s not beyond imagining that he could get in and have an effect on the race,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, told The Hill.
Perhaps sensing this, numerous Democrats - including Senators Claire McCaskill and Jeanne Shaheen - have thrown cold water on a Bloomberg presidential run.
Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, said this week that an independent Bloomberg candidacy "won't be necessary" - because the Democrats already represent social liberals.
"I really think when he takes a good hard look, he will conclude that the issues that are important to him...[have] a natural home among our Democratic candidates," she said. "And so, I think Michael Bloomberg's agenda is well cared-for and advanced among our Democratic candidates, and his candidacy, I think he will find, won't be necessary.""
His entrance into the race would be a true injection of "New York values" - making him the third or fourth New Yorker in the race - alongside fellow billionaire Trump from Queens, the Brooklyn-born Sanders, and onetime New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Annie Linskey, a reporter for the Boston Globe who once worked for Bloomberg, told Fox News on Monday that there is "about a four" percent chance that Bloomberg will run.