—

Fact-Based Film ROE V. WADE Shares Truth Behind America’s Most Controversial Court Decision

By Jubileecast News Mar 12, 2021 12:13 AM EST

An investigation into the facts of the controversial case known as Roe V. Wade turned into an equally controversial film from filmmaker Nick Loeb, releasing on streaming platforms April 2. In ROE V. WADE, Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Dr. Mildred Jefferson square off in a national battle in this untold conspiracy that led to the most famous and controversial court case in history.  

Conceived as a “fact-based, not a faith-based” film, ROE V. WADE exposes decades of lies perpetuated to normalize abortion. “The Roe V. Wade case has been misconceived by both sides,” said Loeb. “This film explores the underpinnings of the case, and exposes truth wherever we find it. Cancel culture has targeted this film from production to release, making this an uphill battle, but truth will win the day.” 

Much like Oliver Stone’s film, JFK, that examined facts leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy, Loeb’s film likewise weaves together facts about the Roe V. Wade case-not borne from a desire to revise history, but to reveal the facts that had been purposefully concealed. Unlike Stone’s film, which in spite of its own controversies won multiple Academy Awards, Loeb’s film has been panned widely ahead of release. In truth, most mainstream media won’t deign to watch the film simply because the film seemingly targets a sacred tenet of “liberal think.” 

Among the shocking revelations in the film include the fact that two of the Supreme Court Justices had family members working for Planned Parenthood at the time of their decision. What should be more appalling perhaps to America’s “woke” culture, Mildred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School who played an important role in the case, as the film shows, and was president of the National Right to Life organization, has been expunged from history. Her life and legacy were effectively “canceled” because of her pro-life stance. Where is the liberal media waiting to champion this accomplished woman?  

More nefarious, despite all the rancor in the country over legal votes, no one wants to admit the initial intent of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. “The black vote has been disenfranchised in this country primarily by abortion,” says Loeb.  

The dynamic cast includes: Jon Voight (Justice Warren Burger); John Schneider (Justice Byron White); Steve Guttenberg (Justice Lewis Powell); Robert Davi (Justice William Brennan); Nick Loeb (Dr. Bernard Nathanson); Stacey Dash (Dr. Mildred Jefferson) Corbin Bernsen (Justice Harry Blackmun); Jamie Kennedy (Larry Lader); Joey Lawrence (Robert Byrn); Tom Guiry (Fr. James McHugh) and more. Get all the latest news at roevwademovie.com and follow the film on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at @roevwademovie. 

Tags :  ROE V. WADE ROE V. WADE movie ROE V. WADe FILM Pro-Life abortion Faith based movie

March 21, 2021

Office of Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinios
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Duckworth,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster.
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—-

I read something about you from 2006:

Duckworth praised for stance on abortion

Jeff Zeleny and John Biemer, Tribune staff reporters. Jeff Zeleny reported from Washington and John Biemer from ChicagoCHICAGO TRIBUNE 

Tammy Duckworth, the Democratic hopeful in Illinois’ west suburban 6th Congressional District, was extolled here Thursday by one of the nation’s most influential abortion-rights groups as the candidate to replace retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, whom the organization depicted as the “leading anti-choice zealot” in Congress.

“Wouldn’t you just love to put this brave, courageous woman in the seat of Henry Hyde?” said Ellen Malcom, president of EMILY’s List, a grass-roots network that gives political and financial backing to Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights.

Senator I wanted to tell you about an opportunity I had back in 1995 and it dealt with corresponding with Carl Sagan about the issue of abortion. I know this is an issue that you care deeply about.

Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

_

Recently I have been revisiting my correspondence in 1995 with the famous astronomer Carl Sagan who I had the privilege to correspond with in 1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1996 I had a chance to respond to his December 5, 1995letter on January 10, 1996 and I never heard back from him again since his cancer returned and he passed away later in 1996. Below is what Carl Sagan wrote to me in his December 5, 1995 letter:

Thanks for your recent letter about evolution and abortion. The correlation is hardly one to one; there are evolutionists who are anti-abortion and anti-evolutionists who are pro-abortion.You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness. But if you think God is necessary to understand the world, then why do you not ask the next question of where God came from? And if you say “God was always here,” why not say that the universe was always here? On abortion, my views are contained in the enclosed article (Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan {1990}, “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.)

I was introduced to when reading a book by Francis Schaeffer called HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT written in 1968. 

Francis Schaeffer

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and in his December 5, 1995 letter Dr. Sagan went on to tell me that he was enclosing his article “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I am going to respond to several points made in that article. Here is a portion of Sagan’s article (here is a link to the whole article):

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

 “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.

The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed.

Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground? We had to weigh the arguments of both sides for consistency and to pose test cases, some of which are purely hypothetical. If in some of these tests we seem to go too far, we ask the reader to be patient with us–we’re trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail.

In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?

Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held–especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions–that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names–pro-choice and pro-life–were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.

Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound–including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?

As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt 

When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson. 

  

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:

An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN. 

I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism. 

How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong. 

This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.” 

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!

Carl Sagan asked, “Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?”

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Speaker of the House John Boehner, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

—

—

Nick Loeb on His Abortion Drama ‘Roe V. Wade’: ‘They Are Still Trying to Cancel This Movie’

 MARCH 28, 2021 BY DEWAYNE HAMBY0 COMMENTS

As the abortion drama “Roe V. Wade” releases this year, it ends a long journey for writer-director Nick Loeb, who has faced criticism and challenges

along the way.

At the red-carpet premiere at the Conversation Political Action Committee last month, Loeb responded to the effort to try and “cancel” the film: “There still is one. It’s ongoing.”

In 2018, during filming, Loeb reported that cast and crew had walked off the set when they found out the movie’s pro-life slant, prompting producers to step security and safety measures. In addition to Loeb, the cast includes Academy Award-winner Jon Voight, John Schneider, Joey Lawrence, Steve Guttenburg, Stacey Dash, Robert Davi, Corbin Bernsen, and Jamie Kennedy.

“I’m very tenacious,” he said, referring to the ongoing criticism. “I keep on fighting. That’s my personality.”

Loeb conceived the film as an ode to conspiracy thrillers like Oliver Stone’s JFK, using the story of abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson and the lobbying that led to the infamous Supreme Court decision. The film’s ensemble cast unravels the decision from its genesis to reaching the highest court in the land.

“I was sort of amazed that out of the most famous court case in American history, and no one’s ever made a feature film,” Loeb said. “I think maybe because it was so controversial, whether to the left or the right.”

Stripping away all the legal drama, however, the writer-director-actor said the core of the film is really its pro-life message.

“I think the true heart of the film, at the end, is that life begins at conception,” he said. “And really, there’s a baby there. I think really, that is the message of ‘Roe V. Wade’.”

“Roe V. Wade” will release April 2 in theaters and on-demand. It is currently available for pre-release through iTunes

March 17, 2021

Office of Senator Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Shaheen,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster.
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—-

Senator I wanted to tell you about an opportunity I had back in 1995 and it dealt with corresponding with Carl Sagan about the issue of abortion. I know this is an issue that you care deeply about.

I read this about you!!!

Jeanne Shaheen is a fierce advocate for women. Throughout her career, she has done whatever it takes to protect a woman’s access to a full range of health care services. In the Senate, she has worked across the aisle to bolster women’s rights and helped lead opposition to partisan efforts aimed at overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

_

Recently I have been revisiting my correspondence in 1995 with the famous astronomer Carl Sagan who I had the privilege to correspond with in 1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1996 I had a chance to respond to his December 5, 1995letter on January 10, 1996 and I never heard back from him again since his cancer returned and he passed away later in 1996. Below is what Carl Sagan wrote to me in his December 5, 1995 letter:

Thanks for your recent letter about evolution and abortion. The correlation is hardly one to one; there are evolutionists who are anti-abortion and anti-evolutionists who are pro-abortion.You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness. But if you think God is necessary to understand the world, then why do you not ask the next question of where God came from? And if you say “God was always here,” why not say that the universe was always here? On abortion, my views are contained in the enclosed article (Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan {1990}, “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.)

I was introduced to when reading a book by Francis Schaeffer called HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT written in 1968. 

Francis Schaeffer

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and in his December 5, 1995 letter Dr. Sagan went on to tell me that he was enclosing his article “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I am going to respond to several points made in that article. Here is a portion of Sagan’s article (here is a link to the whole article):

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

 “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.

The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed.

Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground? We had to weigh the arguments of both sides for consistency and to pose test cases, some of which are purely hypothetical. If in some of these tests we seem to go too far, we ask the reader to be patient with us–we’re trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail.

In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?

Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held–especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions–that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names–pro-choice and pro-life–were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.

Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound–including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?

As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?

——-

End of Sagan Excerpt 

When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson. 

  

C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below

Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:

An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN. 

I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism. 

How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong. 

This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.” 

(Adrian Rogers pictured above)

They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!

Carl Sagan asked, “Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?”

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Speaker of the House John Boehner, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

—

—

Roe v. Wade’ Review: Much Like What Made The Babies Who Were Aborted, Creating This Film Took Balls

written by ECTApr 1, 2021

Brave. That word describes every person in the crew and every cast member, including their family members, who agreed to make this Roe v. Wade. Okay, insane also. Brave and insane.

In just under two hours, they have laid down the gauntlet in front of the Hollywood Woke Elite. This is a very real, very disturbing film about abortion and the corrupt nature in which it was allowed to be passed into law. I’m no law expert. I have never read a John Grisham novel. I also have never watched an episode of ‘Law and Order’. I can confirm that these two things will be absolutes in my life. I didn’t watch this move with any kind of preconceived notion of the case.

I have always known about the case, just none of the details. Rightly so, I live in Democratically controlled California and if it wasn’t taught to me in the public school system, I wasn’t keen on seeking out legal dissertations on decades old court cases.

I won’t bore you with the facts of the case, except to say that it was set into motion when a young woman, Norma McCorvey became pregnant with her third child. Unable to properly care for any more children, she was encouraged to lie and say that she was raped so that she could receive an abortion, which was illegal in Texas in 1969, except in such instances. She was introduced to two young, female attorneys, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington who took on the case.

In the end, the decision to legalize abortion was granted and the Texas abortion ban was deemed unconstitutional.

The film follows Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a gynecologist, who helped to usher in the ability for women to legally have an abortion. Together, with Lawrence Lader, a political strategist and an atheist who saw abortion as a way of correcting the errors of contraceptive failure while limiting population growth, they manipulated the entire country with false stats and used each other as sources in op-eds on the subject of abortion. In their early days together, Nathanson and Lader, looked to create a thriving business as there seemed to be no shortage of women who were looking to find simple solutions to a challenge problem. They are cold and callous when discussing how to make their business grow, strategizing on how they can speed up the process.

Depending on your outlook on abortion, you truly do hate Dr. Nathanson for much of this movie as he calmly narrates his good fortunes in performing all of these abortions.

I really liked this movie. That does not make this a perfect movie, however. Where ‘Roe v. Wade’ falls short, is in the script. Many scenes were so heavy-handed with dialogue that felt more preachy than informative. They felt written, they didn’t feel natural. While that’s my only gripe, it’s sort of a big one because there were moments where I was taken out of the film because of the heavy-handedness.

It’s important to note that not all of the scenes were like that and ‘Roe v. Wade’ is very much a movie worth watching. Directors Nicholas Loeb and Cathy Allyn deserve a ton of credit for not holding back any punches. Clearly, they are passionate about this subject and there are several holy-shit-did-they-just-show-that moments that outweigh any shortcomings I might have found with the script. We have discussed on ‘The Unoffendable’, how donuts automatically start off at ‘commendable’. Pizza is that way too, except in one scene in which a pepperoni is peeled off of the coagulated cheese.

That’s all I’ll say, but it made for a great “oh shit” moment as I applauded the courage it took to shoot and edit that scene that way. There are zero punches pulled and I, for one, appreciated the hell out of that.

Until I had seen this film, I didn’t know who Dr. Bernard Nathanson was. I’m going to assume that the same will be true for most of the people who read this review. There is a revelation near the end of the film, that is so gut-wrenching that I ended up not hating the doctor, but felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy for him.

I’ve seen reviews where people have ravaged Loeb for his directing prowess, basically implying that he had none. The ability to generate actual human emotion after watching a film, is a true sign of a good director. I legitimately felt like trash after watching this movie, but because I felt I had been duped by this whole case. I felt terrible for Dr. Nathanson. I felt terrible for Norma McCorvey, the single-mom who started all of this.

Nicholas Loeb and Cathy Allyn, along with their entire cast and crew, have created a movie in ‘Roe v. Wade’ that will haunt you long after you finish watching it.

For more information on this film: www.roevwademovie.com

CAST / Character

• Jon Voight – Justice Burger
• Nick Loeb – Dr. Bernard Nathanson
• Robert Davi – Justice Brennan
• Stacey Dash – Dr. Mildred Jefferson
• Jamie Kennedy – Larry Lader
• Joey Lawrence – Robert Byrn
• Cobin Bernsen – Justice Blackmun
• Steve Guttenberg – Justice Powell
• Greer Grammar – Sarah Weddington
• Wade Williams – Justice Rehnquist
• Mindy Robinson – Ellen McCormack
• Richard Portnow – Justice Douglas
• William Forsythe – Justice Stewart
• Justine Wachsberger – Linda Coffee
• Tom Guiry – Father James T. McHugh
• Chris Lemmon – Phil McCombs
• Octavius Prince – Cyril Means
• Alveda King – Guthrie Jefferson
• Jessica Sefaty – Sandy Ryer
• Roger Stone – Washington Post Reporter

April 4, 2021

Office of Senator Brian Schatz, Hawaii
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Schatz,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster. 
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—

I read this about your abortion views:

Senator Schatz has voted against efforts to protect the lives of babies born alive after failed abortions, and against efforts to protect taxpayers who don’t want their hard-earned tax dollars paying for elective abortion. Senator Schatz has also voted consistently against the confirmation of judges and justices who will respect the constitution, and against executive nominees devoted to protecting life domestically and abroad.

Senator let me answer some objections to the pro-life view.

Below is an excerpt from a paper by Carl Sagan on abortion followed by an excerpt from a sermon by Adrian Rogers. 

Carl Sagan noted: “If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Government [should] protect the weak from the strong…”

Sagan said this only to attempt to poke holes in this argument. 

Adrian Rogers answers back with some logical points: 

• 
  “I can do whatever I want with my body. A woman’s body is hers to do with as she wishes. She has freedom of choice.” 

No, you don’t have complete control over your own body. You don’t have a right to ingest crack cocaine or be a prostitute. You can’t even ride a motorcycle in this state without a helmet on. We don’t have an absolute right to our own bodies.

And the child is not merely “part of the mother’s body.” He or she is a new life, altogether different, with their own unique DNA, circulatory system, often a different blood type than the mother, and certainly their own unique fingerprints. The nucleus of a human cell has 46 chromosomes, 23 from the father and 23 from the mother. The child is is as much a part of the father as the mother. It is life, and it is life from God. The mother is carrying a completely different person. She does not have freedom of choice in God’s sight to kill another person, even if that person is living inside her body. The baby is in her body; the baby is not her body. I have no right to kill an unwanted guest in my home. They may cause me inconvenience, but I have no right to put them to death. 

• “Without abortion, the poor will be overburdened.”

We’re told having a child overburdens the poor. But 53% of those getting abortions have no other children. Over 33% are going back for the second, third, and fourth abortion. In many instances they are professional women who do not want their profession interrupted, or have conceived through illicit sex, or just don’t want to be bothered with a child. 

• “Life begins when the child begins to breathe.” The baby is already receiving oxygen through the umbilical cord.
• “Abortion is sometimes necessary to save the mother’s life.” Only in the rarest instances. In fact, former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Coup said that with medical advances, abortion is never needed today to save the mother’s life: “With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial birth abortions are not needed to save the life of a mother.” Dr. Jerome LeJune, world famous geneticist, said he would set out to save the life of a mother, and if in the process the child dies, it would be tragic. “I would do everything I could to save the life of the mother, but I would never attack and kill an unborn child.” With today’s medicine, the need for an abortion to save a mother’s life is extremely rare. 
• “What if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest?” Only one-tenth of 1% of today’s abortions are performed on babies conceived because of rape. This argument does not hold water. Of course, rape is a terrible, horrible, heinous crime, but the baby didn’t commit the crime. Ethel Waters, who is now in heaven, sang many times in the Billy Graham crusades. A great Gospel singer, she was born out of a pregnancy due to rape. Who would say Ethel Waters should not have been born to bless the world? Ruth, an ancestress of the Lord Jesus Christ, was a descendent of Moab, born out of an incestuous relationship. You can’t play God in cases like that. 

Let me ask a question. If there is a one month old baby in the crib, born to a victim of rape, would you kill the one month old baby? If you wouldn’t, don’t kill the baby when it is one month before being born. 

• “There may be a danger of deformity.” There may be. Are we going to eliminate everyone we feel is defective or deformed? To be allowed to live, how perfect do you need to be? If we eliminate the deformed in the womb, why don’t we eliminate the deformed after birth? An eminent professor at Yale University now advocates just that: keep the baby for a while to decide whether or not you want the child to live (infanticide). If we are going to eliminate the deformed, who draws the line where we stop? 
• “I’m personally against abortion myself, but I don’t want to take away someone’s right to choose.”You hear politicians use this as an “out” all the time. Let’s suppose we had been alive back in the days of Nazi Germany. Suppose people were saying Hitler ought not to be killing the Jews in the Holocaust. But suppose one of our politicians were to stand and say, “I am personally against killing Jews, but what somebody does in his own private gas chamber is his business.” Do you see the parallel with “I’m personally against abortion, but what somebody does with their own body is their business”? 
• “I choose not to have this baby.” No, you already have a baby. Your choice is, are you going to choose a live baby or a dead one? You already have a baby; that’s the point.
• “Unwanted babies are victims of child abuse.” Statistics prove children who were unplanned or unwanted when conceived are no more apt to be abused than others. And there are many loving couples standing in line saying, “Give us that baby. We will love and take care of it.” 
• “We need to be concerned about the population explosion.” The old “population bomb” myth was put to rest years ago. In fact, many countries are below zero population growth now. There are childless couples wanting babies, begging for babies, wanting to adopt babies, and can’t get them. We may be eliminating the person who has the cure for cancer because we put them to death.

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Speaker of the House John Boehner, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

—

—

Roe v. Wade

• PG-13

• Biography/History, Drama

CONTENT CAUTION

HeavyKidsHeavyTeensMediumAdults

CREDITS

IN THEATERS

• TBD

CAST

• Joey Lawrence as Robert Byrn; Nick Loeb as Bernard Nathanson; Jamie Kennedy as Larry Lader; Lucy Davenport as Betty Friedan; Stacey Dash as Dr. Mildred Jefferson; Greer Grammar as Sarah Weddington; Octavius Prince as Cyril Means; Tom Guiry as Father James T. McHugh; Justine Wachsberger as Linda Coffee; James DuMont as Henry Wade; Mindy Robinson as Ellen McCormack; Jon Voight as Justice Warren Burger; Corbin Bernsen as Justice Harry Blackmun; John Schneider as Justice Byron White; Richard Portnow as Justice William Douglas; William Forsythe as Justice Potter Stewart; Jarrett Ellis Beal as Justice Thurgood Marshall; Alveda King as Guthrie Jefferson; Robert Davi as Justice William Brennan; Steve Guttenberg as Justice Powell; Wade Williams as Justice William Rehnquist; Summer Joy Campbell as Norma McCorvey

HOME RELEASE DATE

• April 2, 2021

DIRECTOR

• Cathy Allyn, Nick Loeb

DISTRIBUTOR

• Quiver Distribution

REVIEWER

Adam R. Holz

MOVIE REVIEW

On Jan. 22, 1973, nine Supreme Court justices made abortion the law of the land in America. It was the culmination of a cultural struggle years in the making.

Roe v. Wade tells the story of what many consider the most important case in Supreme Court history. It’s a tale told from an insider’s dramatized perspective, that of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a New York physician at the heart of this complex and multilayered story. Bernie (as his friends call him) narrates each twist and turn in the path toward Roe v. Wade’s legal outcome … and takes us decades further, too, as he realizes with horror the tragic legacy of his life’s work.

The story begins in 1949, after Bernie’s girlfriend confesses that she’s pregnant and wants and abortion. He finds someone willing to perform the procedure. But the blood on her dress when she gets out of the cab afterward tells us it has not gone well. Indeed, she soon dies, resulting in Bernie’s multidecade personal crusade to help desperate women obtain safe and legal abortions. “I became a doctor to make sure no girl ever had to go through that again,” he tells us.

By 1970, Bernie has connected with Larry Lader, whom he labels “the father of the abortion movement,” a man personally mentored by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. If Bernie’s motivations seem deeply personal, Lader’s seem darker. He’ll stop at nothing to make abortion on demand the law everywhere—and he’s more than willing to reap any financial benefits of the movement.

Lader and Bernie convince emerging feminist icon Betty Freidan to spearhead the cause. Soon, Lader’s “pro-choice” movement fuses with Freidan’s Equal Rights movement to form a potent force bent on granting women the right to abortion in the name of freedom, privacy and equality.

Lader expertly manipulates the media while Bernie pulls made-up statistics out of thin air to support their cause. But what’s truly needed is someone to serve as a pawn in their legal strategy to take their battle to the Supreme Court. With help of two fledgling lawyers in Dallas—Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee—they find their mark: Norma McCorvey.

She’s perfect, they say: young, inexperienced, a runaway with a criminal record, an alcoholic, a drug addict, a lesbian and a girl with only a 9^th-grade education.

In other words, she’s someone they can easily manipulate to accomplish their bigger goal of making abortion legal.

POSITIVE ELEMENTS

At the heart of this historical story are two interwoven philosophical questions: When does life begin, and does an unborn fetus deserve constitutional protection? We see both sides of this legal, ethical and theological debate play out here.

On the pro-life side, Robert Byrn is an articulate voice challenging anyone who suggests that life doesn’t begin at conception. He’s joined in the movement by the first black, female graduate of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Mildred Jefferson. Father James T. McHugh, a Catholic, also plays a pivotal role in energizing the emerging pro-life coalition.

On the other side, Bernie seems to be a sincere believer in his desire to help women (not unlike Abby Johnson in the movie Unplanned). At first, he believes he’s helping those who have “nowhere else to turn.” As the story unfolds, however, Bernie begins to have doubts about what he’s doing—doubts that come crashing down on him when ultrasound technology enables him to see clearly what he’s been doing for so many years. (More on that in Spiritual Content.) “It’s a person!” he cries, hands covered with blood mid-procedure, as he falls to the floor in tears.

Years later, he tells a Washington Post reporter that some part of him always knew that he had been embracing a lie, but it took literally seeing an abortion’s horror through the lens of an ultrasound machine to make him see the truth.

The Supreme Court justices themselves aren’t depicted in a flattering light. Chief Justice Warren Berger initially stands against Roe, but later flips to the other side of the argument. In the end, newly named Justice Byron White is the one of only two justices to vote against Roe. And we hear his strong, consistent opposition to abortion most clearly.  

Dr. Jefferson’s mother quotes Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as saying, “We cannot win if we are willing to sacrifice the futures of our children for immediate personal comfort or safety.” Other spiritual leaders who are said to be against abortion include Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi.

Early in the film, we watch as a New York state senator gives an impassioned plea for restricting abortion by reading from a work called “Diary of the Unborn.”

SPIRITUAL ELEMENTS

Bernie notes early on that he came from a Jewish family, yet he describes himself as an atheist. At a crisis moment, however, as his faith in what he’s doing begins to crack, he goes to a Catholic church and has a yelling match with God, impugning the Almighty’s character. But Bernie eventually regrets what he’s done and realizes the gravity of it, calling out in tears, “God forgive me for what I have done. I’m so sorry, God. What have I done?” In the end, he’s baptized as a Catholic.  

Speaking of Catholics, Larry Lader tries to make Catholics his villains in his public relations campaign for abortion. The film, however, depicts Catholics (mostly in New York City) as forming the bulwark of the nascent pro-life movement. Multiple scenes take place within St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and we see artwork featuring Mary holding baby Jesus.

Dr. Jefferson encourages those fighting the legal battle to make their arguments apart from references to God or spiritual convictions, because she believes references to faith will weaken their legal case.

Amid feminist protests we hear the voice of a street preacher quoting Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way that seems right to man. And in the end it leads to death.”

Bernie tells of how he and Lader utilized a national network of rabbis and Protestant clergy across the country whom they worked with to secure abortions in places where the procedure wasn’t legal, receiving a kickback for those referrals.

A Klan meeting of women includes a burning cross. Real archive footage of Norma McCorvey shows her wearing a large cross.

SEXUAL CONTENT

Bernie and his wife kiss twice.

Bernie and Lader vacation together (alone, without their wives) in St. Croix in the Caribbean. We see them ogle the backside of a woman wearing a revealing swimming suit. In another scene, they “hold court” with two adoring young women in bikinis, bragging about their exploits as leaders of the abortion movement. Another female character wears a formfitting shirt.

It’s clear that Bernie and a girlfriend have been having sex. A woman comes to a rabbi in Chicago seeking information on where she can get an abortion. She has a man with her, whom the rabbi assumes is her husband until it becomes clear that he’s an illicit lover.

Norma McCorvey is obviously unmarried and pregnant. The entire story is set against the backdrop of breaking free from old social mores, including “restrictive” sexual attitudes.

VIOLENT CONTENT

We see Bernie’s girlfriend wearing a dress with bloodstains on the front. A doctor performing abortions in a hotel in Chicago has blood on his hands (literally). Police kick in a door and raid the hotel, and they (and we) see multiple buckets of aborted fetuses in a closet. 
Bernie verbally walks doctors through a new procedure involving improved suction techniques. He talks through what happens, including the necessity to “reassemble” pieces of the aborted fetus to make sure that they’ve all been removed.

In an utterly heartbreaking scene, Bernie brags to someone about having performed an abortion on his own girlfriend at the time. He says it didn’t bother him, but we see him weeping as he assembles the pieces of his daughter’s little body in a tray.

We repeatedly see women lined up on beds awaiting their abortions, in what almost seems like an assembly line. Bernie seems to move quickly from one woman to another, and he places and moves medical implements between their legs (though nothing explicit is shown). We see jars full of syphoned blood and flesh in hospitals and clinics.

CRUDE OR PROFANE LANGUAGE

We hear one or two uses each of “h—,” “d–n,” “heck” and two misuses of God’s name. When police break violently into a hotel room where a doctor is performing an abortion, someone seems to voice an unfinished s-word.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL CONTENT

As mentioned, Norma McCorvey is described as a drug and alcohol abuser. Various characters drink socially at events and meals throughout the film.

OTHER NEGATIVE ELEMENTS

Bernie says of Margaret Sanger: “Margaret opened clinics in poor, black neighborhoods, and called it ‘The Negro Project.’ … Her goal was to reduce the Black population, either through birth control or sterilization. She literally wanted to stop Black people from having babies altogether.”

Another flashback-esque scene purported to have taken place at Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926, pictures Sanger speaking to a group of female KKK members. With a cross burning in the background, she says, “The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously. The result, an increase in Negroes more than among whites, is that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” (End credits show a book cover from Sanger and quote a portion of it where she talks about speaking to a group of KKK women.)

Supreme Court justices are presented as petty, insecure and jockeying openly for position and influence. They seek to influence each other’s votes, sometimes with those of more seniority threatening more junior memebers. We also learn that two justices had family members that volunteered for Planned Parenthood. One judge’s perspective is shaped by his wife and daughters, who essentially gang up with him at dinner one night and suggest that voting against Roe would be equivalent to voting against women’s equality—and against his only family.

Larry Lader masterminds a public relationships campaign to put abortion in a more positive light. We never really see what drives him, but money would seem to be at the top of the list. He understands that he needs media coverage (we hear that Time magazine ran pro-abortion stories four times a year for years because of him), as well as the role that Hollywood plays in reinforcing the pro-abortion worldview.

CONCLUSION

How does culture change over time? What influences its currents of conviction to flow this way, or that?

We may think of cultural change as a vague, ephemeral thing that simply happens mysteriously in the swirling ether of society. But what Roe v. Wade reminds us is that such currents of change have a source. They flow from individuals and their commitment to ideas and ideals, for better or for ill.

In particular, the film shows us how two men—one driven by warped idealism, one propelled by murkier motives—radically impacted American culture with their behind-the-scenes advocacy for abortion. Lader and Nathanson understand how the levers of power work; this story shows us how they unabashedly pulled them, over and over again.

The result: a Supreme Court decision that has ultimately led to the deaths of 61 million babies since Jan. 22, 1973, with 40% from Black mothers (according to the film). It’s a staggering, sobering and sorrowful reminder of the stakes involved in this issue. And it’s also a call to action for those who fiercely defend the cause of the preborn.

Roe v. Wade is a difficult movie to watch. It may not be quite as gut wrenching as 2019’s Unplanned. But brief, graphic images of aborted babies here will push this story out of bounds for many sensitive viewers.

For those who can absorb some briefly horrific scenes, however, this is an important film. Like Unplanned, Roe v. Wade takes what can devolve into an abstract debate and makes the stakes shockingly clear. It also reminds us, through one man’s painful journey, that even if you’ve embraced a lie for much of your life, there’s still time to turn around and make a redemptive influence in the lives of others.

Focus on the Family is deeply invested in equipping and encouraging the pro-life movement. To learn more about how you can get involved, we encourage you to check out our See Life 2021 digital event. And for more coverage on Roe v. Wade, check out Focus on the Family’s Daily Citizen coverage here.

March 24, 2021

Office of Senator Maggie Hasson, New Hampshire
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Hasson,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster. 
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—

I read this about your views on abortion:

Born-Alive Survivors bill tries to illegalize abortion.

Hassan voted NAY Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act 

S.311/H.R.962: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: Congress finds the following: 

• If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
• (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
• In the case of an attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.

Opposing argument from Rewire.com, “Born Alive Propaganda,” by Calla Hales, 4/12/2019: From restrictive bans at various points of pregnancy to a proposed death penalty for seeking care, both federal and state legislators are taking aim at abortion rights. The goal? To make abortion illegal, criminalizing patients and providers in the process. One kind of bill making a recent resurgence is the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.” These bills aim to further the false narrative that abortions regularly occur immediately before or, according to the president, at the time of birth. Intentional action to end the life of an infant is already illegal. This is covered by federal and state infanticide laws. These bills do nothing but vilify physicians who provide reproductive health care. 

Legislative outcome Referred to Committee in House; Senate motion to proceed rejected, 56-41-3 (60 required). 

I wanted to talk to about abortion too. Below is a quote from the book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? By Francis Schaeffer and C.Everett Koop:

As another example, a publication of Nurses Concerned for Life, Inc., considered these facts, reported in the PITTSBURGH PRESS on November 1, 1974:

A 26-year-old woman requested an abortion of her 5-month fetus, claiming that she had been raped. The woman was first turned down by Magee Woman’s Hospital because it was thought the pregnancy was too far advanced. The staff physician estimated the gestational age to be about 25 weeks. It was later established that she had not been raped. 

The abortion was then performed by Dr. Leonard Laufe of West Penn Hospital in Pittsburgh, PA., who decided to use the prostaglandin needed. Prostaglandin is an abortifacient drug whose primary effect is stimulation of the uterine contractions. Ifs use frequently leads to a live birth. Nurse Monica Bright testified that the child gasped for breath for at least 15 minutes following the abortion and no attempts were made to help the child in any way. Ms. Bright is a circulating nurse in Labor and Delivery. She further testified that she observed a pulse in the upper chest, left neck area. Ms. Shirley Foust, R. N., testified she had seen the baby move and that one of the foreign residents, who was observing, baptized the child. The Head Nurse, Carol Totton, testified that the baby was gasping and a pulse was visible. Both the nurse anaesthetist and Ms. Totton refused to adminsiter a lethal dose of morphine to the baby despite the fact that “someone in the room had ordered it.”  

(Page 304)

The nurse anaesthetist, Nancy Gaskey, testified that the abortion was performed in a room where there were no resuscitative measures available if the child was born alive. 

The entire procedure was filmed for educational purposes and the film showed the baby moving. Dr. Jules Rivkind, Chairman, Department of OB and Gyn, at Mercy Hospital, testified that this was indeed “a live birth.” 

The original birth records  indicate the baby girl weighed 3 lbs. 1 ounce and listed the length as 45 centimeters. Dr. Laufe later changed the hospital records to read as follows: weight 2 lbs, 9 oz, length 29 centimeters. Lois Cleary, a staff nurse, witnessed this change, and testified that in the 3,000 to 4,000 births she had assisted with there had never been such changes made on original records to her knowledge. This change was also verified by an OB technician who was present. Estimated gestational age 29 to 32 weeks. 

John Kenney, a young medical student, testifed that he had been threatened by Dr. Laufe’s attorney if he testified in court against Dr. Laufe. The young man was told that he would be unable to get an internship in any hospital in Pennsylvania if he testified. He was also told he would be unable to get a license to practice medicine. 

Editor’s note: (You be the Judge)–Dr. Laufe was acquitted of the charges because he claimed the baby’s brain was dead due to damage caused when he clamped the unbilical arteries in utero. 

Embryos “created” in the biologists’ laboratories raise special questions because they have the potential for growth and development if planted in the womb. The disposal of these live embryos is a cause for ethical and moral concern. Dr. Leon Kass, a University of Chicago biologist, wonders: 

Who decides what are the grounds for discard? What if there is another recipient available who wishes to have the otherwise unwanted embryo? The geneticist’s? The obstetrician’s? The Ford Foundation’s? Shall we say that discarding laboratory grown embryos is a matter solely between a doctor and his plumber? …We have paid some high prices for the technological conquest of nature, but none so high as the intellectual and spiritual costs of seeing nature as mere material for our manipulation, exploitation and transformation. With the powers for biological engineering now gathering, there will be splendid new opportunities for a similar degradation of our view of man. Indeed, we are already witnessing the erosion of our idea of man as something splendid or divine, as a creature with freedom and dignity. And clearly, if we come to see ourselves as meat, then meat we shall become.

(page 305)

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Speaker of the House John Boehner, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

—

—

ROE V. WADE

“Gritty and Raw”

Quality: Content: -2Discretion advised for adults.

	None	Light	Moderate	Heavy
Language
Violence
Sex
Nudity

What You Need To Know:

ROE V. WADE is a historical drama that follows the events leading up to the groundbreaking 1973 Supreme Court case which would legalize abortion in the United States. Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Dr. Mildred Jefferson square off in a national battle between the pro-life and pro-abortion camps. The movie seeks to uncover the truth about the landmark court ruling and reveal the various motivations, lies and connections surrounding the event.

ROE V. WADE offers an ultimately powerful perspective on the 1973 court case by viewing it from Dr. Nathanson’s viewpoint, including how he went from being pro-abortion to being a pro-life Christian activist. The movie is compelling, but some of the story and timeline becomes muddled in the detailed narrative. ROE V. WADE seeks to present historical facts and ask important questions about morality, the role of racism in the case, and Christian faith. It’s not a faith-based movie, but it stresses themes of protecting the unborn, honesty, redemption, and justice. Due to the realistic depiction of abortion in the 1970s, MOVIEGUIDE® advises extreme caution for ROE V. WADE, especially for younger viewers.

Content:

(BB, C, VV, S, A, M): Dominant Worldview and Other Worldview Content/Elements:Strong moral worldview with strong pro-life message about the horrific reality of abortion, although it relies on objective fact to convey this message, plus there is a conversion scene and a baptism scene in a church, as well as themes of faith, honesty, justice, and redemption Foul Language: No foul language Violence: All abortion related violence, a suction machine is shown sucking out blood from women at an illegal abortion clinic, buckets of what is assumed to be aborted babies is show, a dismembered baby is shown, and there are several other scenes that depict abortions without blood, plus descriptions of abortion and a mention of suicide Sex: No implied or depicted sex, but some discussion regarding sex in the context of the abortion argument and one brief crude joke Nudity: No explicit nudity, but several scenes on a beach include women in bathing suits Alcohol Use: Alcohol is consumed several times Smoking and/or Drug Use and Abuse: No smoking or drugs; Miscellaneous Immorality: Most of the caution comes from both the intentionally unsettling description and depiction of the abortions is intentionally upsetting, but there is also some lying.

More Detail:

ROE V. WADE begins in 1985 as Dr. Bernard Nathanson is getting questioned about his views on abortion. The other man challenges a discrepancy in two of Nathanson’s statements. However, before Nathanson can answer, the movie cuts to Nathanson playing his father in chess years before the interview.

Dr. Nathanson narrates various events of the movie, mirroring the technique used in THE BIG SHORT, to help the audience follow what’s happening. At the height of the Women’s Rights movement, Nathanson explains how he got wrapped up in a plan to get abortion legalized. Nathanson teams with Larry Lader, a prominent supporter of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and with Betty Friedan, the leading feminist activist, a Marxist.

Dr. Nathanson believes he’s saving women. However, through his narration, Dr. Nathanson reveals that his colleagues had different motivations. For Friedan, it was women’s rights, and for Lader, it was strictly about the money.

With Dr. Nathanson, Lader and Friedan leading the way, they successfully get abortion legalized in New York. This decision wakes up the most prominent pro-life opposition in New York, the Catholic Church, and pro-life activists, scholars and physicians.

After New York, Lader looks to build a case against the U.S. government to legalize abortion across the country. They send out two recent grad students in search of a pregnant girl to make their case around. They find a young woman named Norma McCorvey, famously known as “Jane Roe,” and they start to build a case against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County.

With their pawn established, the case appears before both state and federal courts. In opposition, Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first African American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, leads an anti-abortion cause. However, the pro-life activists realize they are fighting one of the most well-funded revolutions in 20th Century America.

ROE V. WADE offers a unique, ultimately powerful perspective on the 1973 Roe V. Wade court case by viewing it from Dr. Nathanson’s viewpoint, including how he went from becoming pro-abortion to being a pro-life, Christian activist. The movie is stylistically compelling, but some of the story, including the timeline, becomes a little muddled. ROE V. WADE seeks to present historical facts and asks important questions about morality, the role of racism in the case, and Christian faith. It’s not a strictly religious, faith-based movie, but it stresses themes of protecting the unborn, honesty, redemption, and justice. Due to the realistic depiction of abortion in the 1970s, MOVIEGUIDE® advises extreme caution for ROE V. WADE, especially for younger viewers.

Mature viewers can look for ROE V. WADE on Apple TV+ and Amazon Prime.

March 30, 2021

Office of Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Hirono,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster. 
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?

Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

—-

I read this about your views on abortion:

Hirono: I Told Eighth Grade Girls ‘We Have to Fight for Abortion Rights’

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) told a crowd of protesters in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that she informed a group of eighth graders at a public school in Hawaii that “we have to fight for abortion rights.”

“I asked the girls in that group of eighth graders, ‘How many of you girls think that government should be telling us women and if we should be having babies?’ Not a single one of them raised their hands,” Hirono said.

Hirono also said she lectured the boys present at the public school gathering.

“To the boys who were there, among the 60, I said, ‘You know, it’s kind of hard for a woman to get pregnant without you guys.’ They got it,” she said. “‘How many of you boys think government should be telling girls and women when if we’re going to be having babies?’ And not a single one of them raised their hands.”

Hirono has been a strident advocate of abortion in the Senate, advocating for religious tests on judiciary appointmentsas well as opposing a bill that would protect survivors of botched abortions from infanticide.

“I hope supporters of the bills that we’re talking about today, both in the states and in Congress, turn their efforts to improving the lives of the children who are very much here already and who are so poorly served by the Trump administration and its policies,” Hirono said in opposition to Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R., Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in February.

Senator I wanted to talk about abortion.

Francis Schaeffer noted:

Abortion is not a “Roman Catholic issue.” This must be emphasized. Those who oppose it by conveying the idea that only the Roman Catholic Church is against abortion. We must indeed be glad for the Roman Catholics who have spoken out, but we must not allow the position to be minimized as though it is a “religious” issue. It is not a religious issue. 

This line of attack has been carried so far that some lawyers want to rule out discussion at all, on the basis that it is only a Roman Catholic issue and therefore a violation of the separation of church and state. The issue, however, is not “divided along religious lines,” and it has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. 

(Under footnote 36)

Harold O.J. Brown has this to say about the separation of church and state: “No American historian would seriously contend that the phrase ‘regarding an establishment of religion’ in the First Amendment means anything other than what it says:it forbids the establishment of state churches, as both Massachusetts and Connecticut had them at the time of the amendment’s adoption and retained them for many years to come. The limitations of federal power contained in the Bill of Rights have subsequently been extended to apply to the individual states as well. Yet even when applied to the states, the First Amendment means only that no state may establish a state church, just as the federal government may not establish a national church. It certainly did not mean, in its conception, that nothing in public law or policy may reflect the convictions or insights of any church or of the Christian religion [see Harold O.J. Brown, “The Passivity of American Christians,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, January 16, 1976].

(End of footnote #36)

The issue of the humanness of the unborn child is one raised by many people across a vast spectrum of religious backgrounds, and, happily, also by thousands who have not religion at all. A picture in the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TIMES of January 25, 1978, showed a Washington protest march on the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that restricted the rights of states to regulate and thereby curtail the spread of abortion. The most outstanding sign being carried read: IF MY MOM DIDN’T CARE–I MIGHT NOT BE HERE–THANKS MOM! The young girl carrying that sign did not have to be religious to paint and carry it; all she needed was to be glad she was not aborted. And the right of that girl to express her views on life and death to those who represent here in the democratic process and to be heard in the courts depends only on her being a citizen of the United States. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is a human issue!

Nor is abortion a feminist issue, any more than slavery was only a slave owner’s issue. Abortion has been tacked onto the feminist issue, with the feminist issue being used to carry abortion. But there is no intrinsic relationship between them. The fate of the unborn is a question of the fate of the human race. We are one human family. If the rights of one part of that family are denied, it is of concern to each of us. What is at stake is no less than the essence of what freedom and rights are all about. 

(Under footnote 37)

More and more feminists are disgusted with the realities of the abortion situation. One such group is known as Women Exploited. Their leader, Sandra Haun, testified before the Pennsylvania legislature as follows: “The members of our organization have all had abortions and have come to realize, too late, that our decision was wrong. We were encouraged and pushed into a hasty decision that now we find impossible to live with. We were lied to and deliberately misinformed.” 

(End of footnote 37)

Francis Schaeffer

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Speaker of the House John Boehner, spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes| Edit | Comments (0)

—