Connect with us

Politics

Of Course Democrats Support Abortion On Demand Until The Moment Of Birth

Published

on

While wrapping up a recent segment with an Iowa pro-life advocate, CNN’s Dana Bash let her audience know that despite her guest’s contentions, she had never “talked to a Democrat who wants abortion-on-demand until time of birth.”

Just because Democrats haven’t talked to Bash about personally driving pregnant women down to Maryland’s all-trimester abortion clinic or Warren Hern’s busy Boulder shop — where he admits to performing late-term abortions on perfectly healthy women and fetuses — those places still exist. And they exist because Democrats, including the president, support legal abortion for any reason until the moment of birth.

Numerous states have passed laws that effectively allow unfettered late-term abortions. States like Colorado boast that these policies create “social, moral, and economic benefits.” Washington Democrats have also attempted on numerous occasions to “codify” such policy nationally. The Women’s Health Protection Act, for instance, would have made abortion legal over the first two trimesters and then allowed for the termination of a pregnancy when a healthcare provider (who doesn’t have to be a doctor) determines that a woman’s life is threatened (which no one opposes) or if they detect any mental distress (which can mean anything.) Only one Democrat voted against it.

Of course, rather than repeating what Democrats talk about, Bash could simply ask them to list specific legal limitations they support. I’ve yet to hear one. Every time “pro-choice” politician is challenged to provide a limit (which is rarely), they offer the same tedious answer about how ending a

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

Politics

North Carolina Sends Citizens-Only Voting Amendment To Voters For Approval

Published

on

North Carolina’s GOP-controlled General Assembly passed a constitutional amendment proposal on Thursday affirming only U.S. citizens can vote in elections.

HB 1074 stipulates that “only a citizen of the United States” who is 18 years old and meets existing voter eligibility requirements may vote in elections held in the Tar Heel State. The measure passed the House (99-12) and Senate (40-4) with the support required to be sent to voters for consideration and will appear on North Carolina’s November ballot.

If approved by voters, the amendment will be enshrined in the state’s constitution.

“It’s only fair to the citizens of this state that we ensure that only citizens are allowed to vote in this state, and this bill gives them the opportunity to decide that for themselves,” Republican Sen. Buck Newton reportedly said.

A companion bill (SB 630) containing a citizens-only voting amendment was also considered by the Senate. The final version of the measure contained constitutional amendment proposals seeking to require voter ID for all forms of voting and cap the state income tax at 5 percent. This would strengthen existing state constitutional requirements mandating electors present ID when voting in person by expanding that requirement to include mail-in voting.

Laws requiring voter ID in North Carolina elections were passed in 2018 and 2019 and took effect last year following years-long court challenges.

With HB 1074’s passage, the Senate amended SB 630 to strip out the citizens-only amendment from the measure prior to its approval on Thursday. The bill did not, however, receive a

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court Strikes Blow To Administrative State, Overturns Chevron Doctrine

Published

on

The Supreme Court curbed the unmitigated power of federal agencies with a new landmark ruling delivered Friday.

In a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the high court overturned a 40-year precedent that gave federal agencies broad authority to implement regulations under ambiguous language unless Congress had explicitly prohibited such rules. Chief Justice John Roberts, however, writing the majority opinion to overturn the 1984 precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, stated that “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

The 1984 Chevron doctrine established the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to enforce the Clean Air Act, allowing federal bureaucrats to read their own interpretations into what Congress authorized agencies to do. Justice Roberts wrote that the precedent gave bureaucratic agencies too much power and argued for the judiciary to step in, noting that the “Administrative Procedures Act requires courts to exercise independent judgment.”

“Courts, after all, routinely confront statutory ambiguities in cases having nothing to do with Chevron — cases that do not involve agency interpretations or delegations of authority,” Roberts wrote. “Of course, when faced with a statutory ambiguity in such a case, the ambiguity is not a delegation to anybody, and a court is not somehow relieved of its obligation to independently interpret the statute.”

“Courts in that situation do not throw up their hands because ‘Congress’s instructions have’ supposedly ‘run out,’ leaving a statutory ‘gap,’” the chief justice added. “Courts instead understand

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Texas Rangers Still Won’t Join The MLB’s Rainbow Antics, And Corporate Media Can’t Stand It

Published

on

The Texas Rangers are once again the target of leftist media attacks because of the team’s refusal to comply with the LGBT agenda that has infiltrated the MLB.

The Texas team has for years chosen not to participate in the league’s “pride night” campaign, so left-wing media outlets have targeted it every June since 2021. But the Rangers continue to side with their fans’ values despite the mounting pressure. This year, corporate media have again reached a fever pitch about the Rangers’ refusal to celebrate “pride night.”

“The Texas Rangers are frustrating LGBTQ+ advocates as the only MLB team without a Pride Night,” reads an Associated Press headline from June 24. 

Local news stations NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, ABC San Antonio, and NBC Houston also piled on the Rangers by republishing variations of the AP article. But their audiences on X were quick to correct them, flooding the replies with support for the Rangers.

“I have never been more proud to be a 10th generation Texan,” commented user “Dallas Alice.”

“The Rangers better be careful or they might risk selling fewer tickets to… checks notes… double-checks… yes, LGBTQ+ advocates?” wrote X user Dan Edmonson. 

Former Rangers pitcher Derek Holland also spoke out in support of the team. Responding to yet another hit piece from ABC Dallas criticizing the team for being the “only” one without a “pride night,” Holland posted a meme of the team’s mascot with a caption reading, “That’s a Rangers win.”

Holland further explained his reasoning

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

Continue Reading

Trending