Connect with us

Politics

Media Reports Mislead On Supreme Court Abortion Pill Decision

Published

on

Numerous media outlets erroneously reported the Supreme Court “ruled in favor” of access to the abortion pill mifepristone, but in reality the court dismissed the case without addressing the merits of pro-life activists’ argument, opening the door to future challenges. 

The reports follow the conclusion of the FDA’s appeal to the Supreme Court against the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s (AHM) challenge to mifepristone’s approval. A U.S. District Court had suspended the approval, but the Supreme Court reversed their ruling.

Attorney Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of The Conscience Project, explained that the technical decision related to the parties legally involved, rather than the substance of the pro-life argument.

“In many respects I can understand and I appreciate the value [of] the main point of the opinion, which had nothing to do with the FDA shenanigans and everything to do with judicial restraint,” Picciotti-Bayer told The Federalist in an interview.

A variety of media outlets amplified the decision as “certainly a win” for abortion access, as claimed by Planned Parenthood Medical Officer Colleen McNicholas in an appearance on MSNBC.

An ABC affiliate reported in Washington, D.C., that the “Supreme Court rule[d] in favor of access to abortion pill,” billing the Court’s opinion as a setback for the pro-life movement.

The Washington Bureau of Fox 8 also called the ruling a victory for abortion advocates,” stating that the “Supreme Court rule[d] in favor of abortion rights.” 

The ruling, however, was not a “blow for anti-abortion advocates” or a rejection of their objections to mifepristone, as reported by NBC.  

Understanding of the case

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Help Find The Grave Of This 14-Year-Old Who Fought For U.S. Independence

Published

on

In 1777, Christopher Jefferson Loving Jr., a 14-year-old boy, enlisted in the Continental Army. Christopher was my paternal grandmother’s great-grandfather. During his service, he would fight in six of the most consequential battles of the southern campaign before suffering permanent wounds a month before the victorious Siege of Yorktown. On this July 4, we honor his memory, along with all the other patriots who fought to secure our freedom.

Below is a transcription of a sworn declaration Loving made in 1819 recounting his valiant service in the fight for American independence. This declaration is also referenced in Alan Pell Crawford’s new book, This Fierce People: The Untold Story of America’s Revolutionary War in the South.

Pension application of Christopher Loving (Loveing):

On this 8th day of October 1819 before me the Subscriber one of the Judges of the General Court and assigned to the Circuit of the Superior Court of Law composed of the Counties of Bath, Augusta, Amherst, Nelson, Albemarle and Rockbridge (Virginia), personally appeared Christopher Loving aged 56 years, resident in said County of Nelson & State aforesaid, who being by me first duly sworn, according to law, doth, on his oath, make the following declaration in order to obtain the provision made by the late Act of Congress entitled “An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States in the revolutionary war” that he the said Christopher Loving enlisted in the year 1777 when he was but

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden’s Real Legacy Will Be As Silencer Of Speech

Published

on

Happy birthday, America. 

Now, shut up. 

That’s the greeting card President Joe Biden and his merry band of deep staters should send to U.S. citizens after spending the better part of the past four years bludgeoning the First Amendment. From “Disinformation czars” to tongue-cutting gag orders on political enemies, the Biden years will be remembered for unrivaled attacks on primary rights. 

As Jonathan Turley writes in his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Joe Biden is “the most anti-free speech president since John Adams.”

“He has created an unprecedented system of censorship through financial support and his public statements. So the idea that he is really the symbol of constitutional fealty is really alarming, it’s so detached from reality,” the attorney, law professor, columnist, and popular television analyst recently said on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”  

Criminalizing Criticism

Turley isn’t spinning hyperbole. Adams’ wholehearted support of the Sedition Act saw a sweeping attack on free speech and freedom of the press at the dawn of the republic. Political enemies were arrested and sent to prison for criticizing the government.  

One of the “most dramatic” victims of the law was a representative from Vermont, Matthew Lyon, who was imprisoned for speaking out against President Adams’ “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice.” He also reportedly featured such rhetoric in his campaign speeches.  

Lyon purportedly won reelection — from his jail cell. 

Sound familiar? 

A Dark Age for Freedom

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

America No Longer Has A ‘Common Cause.’ Our Forefathers Would Be Ashamed

Published

on

I can’t remember the last time Americans were truly united. Maybe Sept. 12, 2001, but I was too young to remember. 

Now the only thing tethering us to one another is our complacency. It’s the one thing we all share. We’ve been fed — and willingly consume — distractions, mostly petty grievances stoked by politicians who thrive on division and chaos, on social media and television. Who has time to care about government overreach or lawfare when our favorite TV show starts in an hour?

We’ve ceded too much power to the government because generation after generation slowly let their foot off the pedal and became willingly complacent via distractions. It’s why we ended up with an administrative state that lets unelected bureaucrats write their own laws. It’s why private citizens were — up until the Supreme Court stepped in this week — allowed to be tried in certain criminal cases without a jury of their peers. We were told government experts know best. We traded political power for expediency, and in doing so we’ve forfeited the “common cause” that was responsible for the inception of this nation.

The American Revolution didn’t begin on July 4, 1776. It began in the decades prior when the British began creating an untenable position for the colonists. There was the Sugar Act of 1764, The Stamp Act of 1765, and The Townshend Acts of 1767; all of which raised taxes on the colonists in various forms to subsidize the British war machine. Colonists

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending