June 2019
S M T W T F S
« May    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

THTP - POLL
General information

Archive for June 1st, 2019

Teach Your Children True Islam From a Young Age

Capitol Hill Outsider

Islam Stuck in 6th Century
By Amil Imani:

Amil Imani
Start to immediately tell them that to know Islam is not a race and Islamophobia is a term used by groups of Muslims and non-Muslim apologists in order to protect Islam from scrutiny. Make sure they understand the term Islamophobia is itself misleading. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. In the case of Islam, however, it often makes practical sense to be afraid. Even most former Muslims themselves, have genuine fears about a religion that advocates the murder of its apostates and victimizes its own members, especially innocent women and children.
Make sure they understand the criminalization of homosexuality under the teachings of Islam. Homosexuality is not only a sin, but a crime. As a crime against God, it is permissible, according to many Muslim scholars, to punish the offender with death.
Be sure they understand once a Muslim leaves the religion of Islam, he or she is condemned to death for turning their back against Islam. Educate them about the founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad and his crimes against humanity.  They must know any criticism against Islam in public can be punished by death. Do not allow them to learn the sanitized version of it in public schools. Make sure they understand that. Most school texts are written by Muslims and it is a pure fabrication.
(Webmaster Comment) (many of the Pearson book publishing company are Muslims and the text books are written in Britain.
According to the “Financial Times” a publication owned by Pearson,The Sovereign fund of Libya initially took a 3.27 per cent stake in Pearson. 3.27% is a significant stake in what is the largest educational publishing company in the world. Pearson is a $9 Billion giant that dominates textbooks, testing, teacher evaluation, IT platforms for schools, and may have the largest investment in lobbying of any publishing company operating in the United States. Pearson is also a major supplier to states who have adopted the Common Core Standard.  So why does it matter that Libya may have had or still has a stake in Pearson?According to a February 2012 study by Citizens for National Security about Muslim Biasedtextbooks in Florida, four are published by Pearson

Pearson basically owns the Education system of America!

IT IS TIME PARENTS WAKE UP AND CHECK OUT WHAT THEIR CHILDREN RE LEARNING, THEY ARE BEINg INDOCTRINATED INTO ISLAM IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS!

For a starter, remember the Somali Muslim cabbies of the Minneapolis airport and their refusal of blind fares with seeing-eye dogs, because dogs are unclean according to their belief. The same cabbies that had a virtual monopoly at the airport also rejected passengers who had alcoholic beverages in their possession.
Be honest and firm about it. Explain that the Muslim book, the Quran, discriminates against women:
[Quran 4.34] “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.”
Muslims always blame others for their misery. They blame the Jews, Christians and America for their fate. No, it is not the Jews or the Christians who are misrepresenting Islam and make them unhappy. It is Muslims and Muslim organizations who are guilty of dissimulation and fraud. Muslims act meekly when they lack sufficient power. Once in power, the real Islam emerges from its shell of dissimulation and puts free people and their way of life to the sword.
First, let’s grasp the definition of indoctrination.
Indoctrination occurs when we present opinions as fact without presenting opposing views. Saying that Islam teaches “Allah is the one true God” is of course a fact, but the statement itself is widely disputed by billions of Christians worldwide, who believe the claim is false. When schools present Islamic beliefs, without balancing those beliefs with opposing views from other religions or even to present secular opposition, then a line has been crossed into indoctrination.  It’s ancient wisdom that our actions speak louder than our words—or when it comes to our children, our screaming.  As parents, most of us seek advice on best parenting tips so that our children listen to us and follow our values and ideals.
The prophet Muhammad understood human motivation and learning styles very well.  At his farewell khutbah (sermon) on Mount Arafat, he reminded believers that he had left behind him the Qur’an and his Sunnah, and anyone who adhered to them would not err.  Thus, the prophet’s Sunnah is the demonstration of the Qur’an which he had modeled to his Ummah, as the Qur’an by itself may not be fully understood by all.
Recognizing that people will do exactly what he did in his life for generations to come, even at the level of imitating how he dressed and ate, he was very careful about each and every one of his actions and words. With all his actions, the prophet not only considered his the current generation, but also the future.  In short. to Westerners, just about all matters range from black to white with an array of gray shades in between the two poles. To Muslims, by contrast, nearly everything is in black and white and with virtually no shades of gray. The former type of thinking is typical of more mature minds, while the latter is that of young children and the less enlightened.
© Copyright by Amil Imani, 2019. All rights reserved.
Email Amil: freeamericanpress@yahoo.com
Read More Articles by Amil Imani

Deep State Panel: “Investigating the Investigators”

JW WEEKEND PLAYBACK

Judicial Watch
Published on May 29, 2019
Judicial Watch hosted a special educational panel on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 to discuss “Investigating the Investigators.” Now that the Mueller report has exonerated President Trump of the false accusations of collusion and obstruction, it is time to look into the politicization of DOJ and the intelligence community in their effort to undermine the president.
The expert panelists include:
Dr. Carter Page -Former Trump Campaign Advisor –
Founder and Managing Partner of Global Natural Gas Ventures LLC
Victoria Toensing – -Founding Partner, diGenova & Toensing LLP

HOW DO THE DEMOCRATIC PRESENTIAL CANDIDATES PLAN TO PAY FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL- THEY HAVE NOT TOLD US THAT PART OF THE PROMISE!

The Winners and Losers of ‘Medicare for All’

Charles Blahous J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Chair
Many Members of Congress and presidential candidates, including Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, have embraced “Medicare for All” (M4A), the catch-all phrase used to describe proposals that would replace our current blend of private and public health insurance with a single-payer system run by the federal government. This month provided two opportunities to learn more about the implications of M4A, one a hearing of the House Rules Committee, the other a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). I was privileged to be a commenter on the draft CBO report as well as to testify at the committee hearing. Below are some of the key findings from the hearing and the report.
New federal costs under M4A would be unprecedentedly large.
I estimated in my testimony that new federal budget costs would be somewhere between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over the first 10 years of M4A. These large numbers represent just the additional federal costs above and beyond currently projected federal spending. Total federal costs of M4A over the first ten years would be much higher, somewhere between $54.6 trillion and $60.7 trillion. This increase in federal spending would be of such a magnitude that even doubling currently projected individual and corporate income taxes would be insufficient to finance it.
We do not know how or whether the federal government could successfully finance its additional spending under M4A.
Multiple experts who testified at the hearing agreed that most of these new federal costs would arise from the federal government’s taking on spending currently done by the private sector—e.g., through private health insurance and individual payments out of pocket. Under M4A the federal government would also assume health spending obligations currently financed by state and local governments. The fact that most of this spending is already being done by someone else does not, however, imply that the federal government could successfully finance it without causing significant damage to the U.S. economy. Indeed, most of the taxes under discussion for financing M4A would leave Americans poorer on average, after the deadweight loss from such taxation is taken into account.
The projected additional costs of M4A’s coverage expansion would exceed the potential savings from eliminating private health insurance administration.
Many proponents of M4A hope that a single-payer system would allow health care to be provided more efficiently, by eliminating private health insurance administrative overhead and profit. However, my projections as well as others have found that the additional costs of providing expanded and more generous health insurance would far exceed the savings from reducing insurance administrative costs. CBO’s analysis is consistent with this calculation, and its text reinforces the point: “[E]xisting evidence indicates that people use more care when their cost is lower, so little or no cost sharing in a single-payer system would tend to increase the use of services and lead to additional (national) health care spending, as well as more government spending.”
Importantly, this additional spending wouldn’t just be a matter of previously uninsured people finally receiving the care they need. Instead, previously-insured individuals would also demand more services, irrespective of those services’ quality, necessity or efficacy. The net effect would be an introduction of new inefficiencies and added costs to our health care system, exceeding the savings that might be gained by eliminating private insurance administration.
Current M4A proposals would sharply cut payments to health providers while increasing health service demand, most likely causing supply shortages, and disrupting Americans’ timely access to health care.
Neither my study nor my subsequent writings or testimony offer judgments of what health providers should be paid. The study simply notes that we do not know what will happen to the timeliness or quality of health services if we cut provider payments from current, higher private insurance payment rates down to Medicare payment rates, as current M4A proposals stipulate.
The CBO report is more explicit that doing so would likely limit Americans’ timely access to health care services (emphasis in bold added):
“Setting payment rates equal to Medicare FFS rates under a single-payer system would reduce the average payment rates most providers receive—often substantially. Such a reduction in provider payment rates would probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care. Studies have found that increases in provider payment rates lead to a greater supply of medical care, whereas decreases in payment rates lead to a lower supply. . . .
In addition to the short-term effects discussed above, changes in provider payment rates under the single-payer system could have longer-term effects on the supply of providers. If the average provider payment rate under a single-payer system was significantly lower than it cur­rently is, fewer people might decide to enter the medical profession in the future. The number of hospitals and other health care facilities might also decline as a result of closures, and there might be less investment in new and existing facilities. That decline could lead to a shortage of providers, longer wait times, and changes in the quality of care, especially if patient demand increased substan­tially because many previously uninsured people received coverage and if previously insured people received more generous benefits. How providers would respond to such changes in demand for their services is uncertain.”
The costs of M4A would be borne most directly by health providers and those most in need of health services.
An irony of the Rules Committee hearing was that it featured positive comments about M4A from the perspectives of physicians and those facing severe and expensive health conditions. While there would be winners and losers under single-payer health care, some of the groups represented at the hearing would be among those paying the largest and most direct costs. Under current M4A proposals, health providers would pay the greatest price up front, for they would bear the brunt of payment cuts that have been proposed to contain the additional costs of M4A’s expanded and more generous insurance coverage. The other group to feel M4A’s costs most severely, at least under the M4A legislation as written, would be those in most dire need of health care services. This is because, as CBO notes, the supply of health services would be reduced relative to demand, making the services less available in the aggregate and putting upward pressure on prices.
This would be particularly problematic for those with income limitations and urgent health needs, because M4A would not target federal resources on those of modest income, nor on those facing severe health challenges. Instead it would provide first-dollar coverage of all Americans’ health care services, from the most routine to the most urgent, from the least expensive to the most, and for the wealthiest patients as well as the poorest. By so doing, it would create much more competition for access to urgently needed health services.
It would be an elementary analytical mistake to compare the imperfect reality of our current health system to an idealized fantasy of perfectly functioning M4A, in which everyone gets more care for less money. That is not how things would work. Instead of cost-saving improvements for everyone, there would be winners and losers. The winners would include state governments as well as those who currently pay for routine health expenses out of pocket under their plans’ deductibles. The biggest losers under the introduced M4A bills would be federal taxpayers, hospitals, doctors and nurses, and patients urgently needing swift access to care.

Photo credit: Senate Democrats/Wikimedia Commons

Dinesh D’Souza SLAMS the Left for hypocrisy over MLK and #MeToo

Published on Jun 1, 2019
The latest revelations about Martin Luther King, Jr. pose a painful challenge to the Left. That’s why the media and the progressive historians have gone into hiding!

Evil of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics Designs – The founder of Planned Parenthood

By Walter M. Weber  days ago

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 28, 2019 issued a decision (pp. 9-34) that upheld an Indiana law requiring the humane disposition of aborted babies. While the Court simultaneously declined to review a separate Indiana law that forbade abortions based on the unborn child’s race, sex, or disability, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that powerfully reveals the ugly eugenics movement in the United States and its connection to abortion as a eugenic tool.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) had filed a friend-of-the-court  brief urging the Supreme Court to review an abortion case out of Indiana. The ACLJ had filed the amicus brief on behalf of itself and parents from 44 families who gave birth to a child with a disability. The case is Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) No. 18-483(There is a separate petition with the same name addressing an Indiana informed consent law. That petition, No. 18-1019, is still pending.)
The state of Indiana had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Both the federal district court in Indiana, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, held that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional and in conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision declaring a right to abortion. Here’s what happened:

Respect for human remains

As the Supreme Court explained, the first challenged statute “excluded fetal remains from the definition of infectious and pathological waste” – i.e., as we phrased it in our amicus brief, abortionists could not “treat the bodies of dead unborn children as just so much ‘medical trash.’” The lower court somehow found this to violate the Supreme Court’s abortion cases, but the Supreme Court strongly disagreed:  This Court has already acknowledged that a State has a “legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.” . . . The Seventh Circuit clearly erred in failing to recognize that interest as a permissible basis for Indiana’s disposition law.  Even Justices Breyer and Kagan, who are generally sympathetic to pro-abortion legal claims, joined the Court’s 7-2 majority in reversing the lower court on this issue. (Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted to deny review of this law.) This aspect of the case should have been easy for the Court – and it was.

Ban on eugenic abortions

Turning to the ban on aborting babies because of their race, sex, or disabilities, the Supreme Court decided not to review the Indiana law, noting that this was the first time the issue had reached a federal appeals court. (The Supreme Court generally prefers to let multiple lower courts rule on an issue before it steps in to resolve the matter.) Nevertheless, there was a very bright spot even on this question: Justice Thomas’s 20-page concurrence. In that opinion, Justice Thomas documented at length the link between Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, the eugenics movement, and the use of abortion as a eugenic tool.
Eugenics, which literally means “good genes,” refers to the “purification” of the human race by the elimination of those deemed “inferior” or “defective.” As Justice Thomas explained, a leading figure of eugenics described eugenics as “the science of improving stock” through “all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have.” F. Galton, Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development 25, n. 1 (1883).

Justice Thomas’s opinion deserves reading in full, but his key thesis is as follows:

The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.

There are key three points here. Let’s look at them in turn.

She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.” Sanger, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Birth Control Rev., Feb. 1919, p. 12 (Racial Betterment). As a means of reducing the “ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all,” Sanger argued that “Birth Control . . . is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation.” M. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization 187, 189 (1922). In her view, birth control had been “accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.” Id., at 189.

As Justice Thomas documented, eugenics was “a ‘full-fledged intellectual craze’ in the United States, particularly among progressives, professionals, and intellectual elites.” Indeed, “[a]lthough eugenics was widely embraced, Harvard was ‘more central to American eugenics than any other university.’”   And many prominent eugenicists of the early 1900s were blatantly racist white supremacists. Indeed, eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard titled his best seller “The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World Supremacy”. (Stoddard worked closely with Margaret Sanger.)
Of course, Justice Thomas explained, “[a]lthough race was relevant, eugenicists did not define a person’s ‘fitness’ exclusively by race. A typical list of dysgenic individuals would also include some combination of the ‘feeble-minded,’ ‘insane,’ ‘criminalistic,’ ‘deformed,’ ‘crippled,’ ‘epileptic,’ ‘inebriate,’ ‘diseased,’ ‘blind,’ ‘deaf,’ and ‘dependent (including orphans and paupers).’” And the Supreme Court itself “threw its prestige behind the eugenics movement in its 1927 decision upholding the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced-sterilization law, Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200.”
As Justice Thomas documented, Margaret Sanger “agreed with eugenicists that ‘the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit”’ was ‘the greatest present menace to civilization.’” Sanger believed “frequent reproduction among ‘the majority of wage workers’ would lead to ‘the contributing of morons, feeble-minded, insane and various criminal types to the already tremendous social burden constituted by these unfit.’” In practice, that translated for Sanger into a particular focus on black people: “in 1939, Sanger initiated the ‘Negro Project,’ an effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities.”

In a report titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” Sanger and her coauthors identified blacks as “‘the great problem of the South’”—“the group with ‘the greatest economic, health, and social problems’”—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. . . . She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’” Ibid.

Second, according to Justice Thomas, Planned Parenthood, the organization which Sanger founded (originally called the American Birth Control League), furthered Sanger’s eugenic aims.

A successor president of the organization, Alan Guttmacher, explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion. A. Guttmacher, Babies by Choice or by Chance 186–188 (1959). He explained that “the quality of the parents must be taken into account,” including “[f]eeble-mindedness,” and believed that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy . . . in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.” . . . He added that the question whether to allow abortion . . . “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” . . . Guttmacher stated that “. . . ‘We’re now concerned more with the quality of population than the quantity.’”

Third, Justice Thomas explained, abortion is now a tool for the furtherance of eugenic goals:

Abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child. As petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs point out, moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics. . . . Eight decades after Sanger’s “Negro Project,” abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity. The reported nationwide abortion ratio—the number of abortions per 1,000 live births—among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women.

The Indiana law that banned abortions based on race, sex, or disability was a response to the eugenic use of abortion. While it is unfortunate that, for now, the Supreme Court has allowed a lower court ruling against the statute to stand, Justice Thomas’s devastating quotation of the eugenicists’ own words – and Margaret Sanger’s appalling embrace of the same mentality – shines a powerful spotlight on a very chilling aspect of the abortion movement and its flagship business, Planned Parenthood.

WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING THIS LYING, BABY KILLING ORGANIZATION?

By Matthew Clark

Planned Parenthood has once again been exposed in a lie.
This time peddling the pernicious propaganda that “thousands of women died” each year from back alley abortions before Roe v. Wade.
The argument is a slight-of-hand by Planned Parenthood seeking to shift any focus on saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year to the blatantly false allegation that ending abortion would lead to the deaths of thousands of women each year. They back this false claim with, you guessed it, made-up statistics. Now even the mainstream media isn’t buying it – with the Washington Post fact checker giving it a maximum pants on fire score of four Pinocchios.
Planned Parenthood is dedicated in its campaign to push extreme, late-term, taxpayer-funded abortion across the country, and it’s not above distorting the facts to do it. We often call it the “abortion distortion.”  The abortion giant presents falsehoods as facts. For example, for years (and still to this day) Planned Parenthood hid behind its “3%” lie – that abortion only made up 3% of its services. We showed you that wasn’t true. And several years ago the Washington Post fact checker finally agreed.  As I’ve detailed numerous times, Planned Parenthood unbundles its services in deceptive ways so as to make abortions seem like a small portion of its services. If it gives a woman a pregnancy test, an std screening, a few contraceptives, and performs an abortion, it counts that as 4 or 5 other services and 1 abortion. You get the idea.  As I’ve explained:

Planned Parenthood’s claim that only 3 percent of its business is abortion is no different than if a car dealership claimed that it wasn’t really in the business of selling cars because the number of new car sales was only a fraction of its total services provided (financing cars, repairing cars, providing manufacture recommended maintenance for cars, cleaning car[s], and so forth). Of course no one would believe such an outrageous claim. Sure, a car dealership does all of those things, but its purpose is to sell cars.

The abortion industry is no different. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is about committing abortion. Sure they provide some other services, but when your only self-sustaining revenue source is one thing and you are responsible for 40 percent of that one thing in the entire nation, that is what you are about. Planned Parenthood is about abortion.

Now Planned Parenthood has been caught in a new – and even more deceptive – lie.
But Planned Parenthood and its abortion allies present these lies with such fervor, such vehemence, that it scares anyone who doesn’t know any better into thinking that they’re rights – and even their very lives – are somehow in jeopardy if they don’t support a pro-abortion ideology.  And leading by example, all the way from the top of its abortion empire, current Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen has continually stated that “thousands of women died every year” before Roe v. Wade due to unsafe, illegal abortions.
Just days ago, Wen told MSNBC:

“We’re not going to go back in time to a time before Roe when thousands of women died every year because they didn’t have access to essential health care.”  Not long before that interview, Wen took to Twitter to attack new pro-life laws in this country with more fearmongering, and stating her “thousands died” figure, warning it could “happen again”:  “Before Roe v. Wade, thousands of women died every year — and because of extreme attacks on safe, legal abortion care, this could happen again right here in America.”

Thousands of women dying tragically, and needlessly, every year is certainly a scary statistic. It would surely have people up in arms. The problem is, it’s not actually true. It’s just made up out of whole cloth.  In fact, the evidence shows the mortality numbers steadily declined as medical procedures evolved, long before Roe v. Wade.  In a recent Washington Post fact check article, Wen’s claim of thousands of deaths every year was investigated, and the statistic was found to have no evidence behind it. According to the article:

Erica Sackin, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, directed us to a 2014 policy statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): “It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year and that unsafe abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths.”  There is no citation in the statement for the estimate of “as many as 5,000 annual deaths,” even though many of the other sentences are carefully documented. None of the citations around this sentence supports the figure, and there is no explanation about how it was calculated.

The article went on to cite additional findings by a leading researcher that make it seem very unlikely that the number of deaths from illegal abortions could have even breached 1,000, let alone 5,000.  “In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”
The truth is the number of deaths from illegal abortions dropped drastically over the decades. Wen and Planned Parenthood just don’t want you to know that. Instead they want you to be afraid, and they will resort to patent falsehoods to convince the American public that abortion is sacrosanct and must be protected at all costs – or thousands will die.  The reality is thousands are dying each day BECAUSE of abortion – innocent babies – and Planned Parenthood is profiting hand over fist as a result. Planned Parenthood is profiting from death while fear mongering with fake death statistics.  As a result, just like with the 3% lie, the Washington Post fact checker gave Planned Parenthood’s “thousands of women died” lie four Pinocchios (the worst rating one can get).
The WaPo fact checker’s conclusion is particularly brutal:

Wen is a doctor, and the ACOG is made up of doctors. They should know better than to peddle statistics based on data that predates the advent of antibiotics. Even given the fuzzy nature of the data and estimates, there is no evidence that in the years immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s decision, thousands of women died every year in the United States from illegal abortions. . . .

These numbers were debunked in 1969 — 50 years ago — by a statistician celebrated by Planned Parenthood. There’s no reason to use them today.

Ouch.
Yet, the reality is Planned Parenthood knows this lie doesn’t hold up, but it just doesn’t care. Its own spokesperson, Erica Sackin, released a statement basically saying we know our numbers are fuzzy, but we demand legal, taxpayer funded abortion anyway.
According to Planned Parenthood’s statement:

“While stigma, fear, and poor tracking mean we can never know the exact number who suffered before Roe v Wade was decided, what we do know is that even one woman’s death from abortion before it was legal is one too many. Abortion is health care, and it is one of the safest medical procedures there is — there is no reason anyone’s health or life should be endangered by politicians bent on keeping people from accessing this basic health care. Yet far too many politicians seem determined to take us back to the days before Roe was decided — where abortion was virtually inaccessible and all those who could become pregnant paid the price.”

More misinformation. More fearmongering. More abortion distortion.
In fact, we’ve detailed in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court the numerous times each year that ambulances come to take women away from Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics – women injured from botched abortions.  Abortion is not healthcare. It’s taking an innocent life – something Planned Parenthood doesn’t want anyone to admit. That’s why it’s desperately fighting the new wave of “heartbeat” legislation sweeping the country. States are outlawing abortion as soon as a heartbeat is detectable. Every one of these laws is a major victory in our fight to defend the defenseless. And every one takes a brick out of Planned Parenthood’s stronghold.  We’re continuing our fight to defund Planned Parenthood, stopping the flood of tax dollars that have allowed it to grow so powerful. The Department of Health and Human Services released a rule blocking millions of tax dollars from being sent to abortion providers. Planned Parenthood is suing to maintain its taxpayer support.
We filed formal public comments supporting the HHS rule and have filed amicus briefs in two of these cases at the trial court level. We will continue to fight in support of the rule defunding millions from Planned Parenthood even if, as is likely, the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The facts are simple. Planned Parenthood intentionally lies. Planned Parenthood intentionally kills babies. And it doesn’t deserve a dime of your tax dollars.
We need you in the fight with us. Sign our petition to stop the abortion distortion and defund Planned Parenthood.
GO TO THE LINK BELOW TO SIGN PETITION
Read the full text of the petition

PRO LIFE     274,607  Signatures as of June 1, 2019


LOGIN

Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

 

POLITICAL HUMOR (REALITY)

THTP OFFICERS

CHAIRMAN
John Nelson - jenkan04@gmail.com
VICE CHAIRMAN
Bob Gilmore
TREASURE
Dick Fankhauser

WP2FB Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com