Connect with us

Politics

Nebraska Supreme Court Allows Radical Unlimited Abortion Amendment To Make November Ballot

Published

on

A radical amendment that threatens to ram unpopular abortion until birth into the Cornhusker State constitution will make the ballot in November despite its deceptive nature, the Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Friday.

Abortion in Nebraska is prohibited beyond 12 weeks gestation. The “Protect the Right to Abortion” ballot initiative, funded by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, however, seeks to enshrine abortion at any point in pregnancy in the state’s constitution.

The proposed amendment leaves vague, undefined terms like “viability” up to the subjective judgment of a health care practitioner, not necessarily a doctor. As the Thomas More Society lawyers who argued the case noted, the measure could “effectively … abolish nearly 50 years of legislative enactments,” like the state’s dismemberment ban and parental consent requirement, and prevent state legislators from enacting pro-life protections in the future.

A majority of Nebraskans, 72 percent, say they oppose legalizing abortion through birth. The lawsuit heard by the high bench, however, alleged that the ballot measure’s language could mislead voters with strong feelings about unlimited abortion to vote against their convictions.

The lawsuit also asked Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen to withhold the proposed amendment from the ballot because it “is legally insufficient” and violates the Nebraska Constitution’s Single Subject Rule mandating “[i]nitiative measures shall contain only one subject.”

“The proposed initiative contains several subjects, which are not natural and necessary to each other, and which will confuse voters and create doubt after the election,” a brief filed by

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

Politics

Conservative Legal Group Sues Gavin Newsom For Hiding Child Gender ‘Transitions’ From Parents

Published

on

A conservative legal nonprofit is suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom for state prohibitions that prevent schools from telling parents about student requests to identify as a different gender without the student’s consent.

In July, the state’s far-left governor signed Assembly Bill 1955, which bars school officials from notifying parents when their children go by different names or request to use bathrooms for the opposite sex unless the children consent to the notification. The bill further bars any policy that would require schools to inform parents of their child’s gender “transition.” The pro-Trump legal foundation, America First Legal, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to challenge the law on behalf of California parents and the City of Huntington Beach, which has been resisting Sacramento radicalism since conservatives captured a majority on the town council two years ago.

“This law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of parents to make decisions about their minor children regarding all medical treatment — in this case, social ‘transitioning,’” the nonprofit said in a press release. “Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their child. The government cannot intervene in their relationship simply because it does not like the parents’ decision.”

The California law is the first of its kind at the statewide level, as many parents grapple with whether to remain on the West Coast given the hostility toward parents who protest radical gender policy. Last year, California Republican state Sen. Scott Wilk bluntly recommended parents “flee” to keep their children.

“In the

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Melania Trump Must Pick Up Where Michelle Obama Unsuccessfully Left Off In Tackling Childhood Obesity

Published

on

Former First Lady Melania Trump is already preparing to resurface as a presidential spouse next year, and she has an opportunity to drive change and forge unity in confronting the most desperate long-term health crisis in centuries.

Now running with the unprecedented endorsement of a legacy Kennedy, the Trump family may soon reclaim White House authority and with it the opportunity to pick up where former First Lady Michelle Obama left off. Childhood obesity represents one of the few issues on which the new Republican White House can reclaim moral authority and also galvanize a bipartisan political movement with a major push to end this destructive epidemic.

When the Obama family came into office, the epidemic of childhood obesity catalyzed what at first had seemed an optimistic initiative to tackle the health care crisis plaguing our children. By 2009, nearly 17 percent of children aged 2-19 were obese, representing a striking increase from just 5 percent in 1971. In 2017, the number had grown even higher, with more than 19 percent of children in America, or nearly 1 in 5, struggling with obesity. The number of kids and teens coping with “severe obesity” reached 6 percent for the first time ever by 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The first lady’s movement obviously failed, and the campaign did so for two probable reasons: 1) half the country wrote off the celebrity-infused campaign as an unserious example of nanny-state finger-wagging from elites in D.C., and 2)

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Virginia County’s Election Manual Says People Who Show ‘Noncitizen’ ID Cards Can Still Vote

Published

on

An election officer training manual issued by Prince William County, Virginia, appears to instruct poll workers that people who show ID cards which are issued “only to non-citizens” may still vote if they fulfill additional requirements, none of which provide evidence of citizenship.

As the manual states, the Virginia Driver Privilege Card “is not acceptable because it is given only to non-citizens.” Driver Privilege Cards (DPCs) are issued to non-U.S. citizens who are unable to demonstrate any sort of legal presence in the United States, so most holders are likely illegal aliens.

The manual instructs election workers that people who show a Driver Privilege Card may still cast “a regular ballot if (1) they are in your pollbook and (2) have another valid ID or sign an ID Confirmation Statement.” Neither of these requirements proves the would-be voter’s citizenship.

(If the voter can’t even meet those requirements, Prince William County says he may “vote a provisional ballot.”)

Although positive evidence of citizenship is not required to vote in Virginia, the presentation of a card that is only issued to noncitizens suggests that person is not eligible to vote. It is a federal crime — across the entire United States — for any noncitizen to cast a ballot in a U.S. federal election.

By law, the DPC may only be issued to noncitizens who are ineligible for a regular license. Those who are eligible for a regular license include: U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, conditional resident aliens, approved asylum applicants, noncitizens

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

Continue Reading

Trending