Is Roe v. Wade About to be Overturned? And If So, What are the Implications? - The Stream

Is Roe v. Wade About to be Overturned? And If So, What are the Implications? - The Stream: According to an exclusive story on Politico, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade when ruling on the Dobbs v. Jackson in June. An alleged draft of the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito and leaked...

This week on FOT: the SCOTUS SNAFU: how will a leak affect Dobbs?

Chuck Hurley

This week on Faith On Trial we’ll be joined by Chuck Hurley, vice president and general counselfor The Family Leader, to discuss the events and possible ramifications of the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case now pending before the United States Supreme Court that could overturn Roe v. Wade. He was instrumental in the amicus brief that The Family Leader filed in the Dobbs case. He will join Deacon Mike Manno and Julie Nelson, sitting in for the traveling Gina Noll.

Faith On Trial is heard every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.

Statement of Thomas More Society on the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion

“We applaud the legal excellence and persuasive power of the draft opinion, authored by Justice Alito, reversing Roe v. Wade, and returning the issue whether, and to what extent, abortions should be legally permitted to the political sphere to be fought on a state-by-state basis. But we remain deeply concerned. Some thirty years ago, we have been told, another draft opinion, reversing Roe, was circulated among the Justices, although not leaked to the public. We have been told, further, that the sharp reaction to this proposed draft reversal of Roe on the part of pro-abortion Justices persuaded three Justices -- O'Connor, J., Souter, J., and Kennedy, J. -- to change course and join in a concurring opinion that left the so-called "essential holding" of Roe intact, while subject to a new and unduly vague "undue burden" test applicable to state efforts to regulate and restrict abortion.

“We believe the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion to the public -- an egregious breach of confidentiality at the high Court, that ought to be vigorously investigated and prosecuted -- was calculated to provoke a public outcry on the part of abortion providers and supporters, in the hope of intimidating one or more Justices to refrain from supporting Justice Alito's draft opinion. No doubt this blatant tactic was inspired by pro-abortion extremism. Thus Planned Parenthood is already orchestrating mass demonstrations at federal courts, as planned by the leaker or leakers of the draft opinion.

“We hope and pray -- with confidence -- that pro-lifers everywhere will stand firm and counter these efforts to intimidate our Justices, and that the Justices too will be steadfast in adhering to the rule of law. We look forward to the release of the Court's final official ruling, which we now hope and pray will be a true cause for celebration in witness of Roe's demise. And then, we will renew our determination to fight in the legislatures and courts of each of our 50 states to win full and final protection for the sanctity of each and every human being's life, from conception until natural death.”

Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel Thomas More Society

How low can the Dems go?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – I have expressed in this space many times my concern about the extreme direction of the party of my former loyalty. My displeasure originally centered around its increasing support of abortion which is now turning into a full-blown war on babies.

Exhibit 1 is a bill in the California legislature, AB 2223, which recently passed out of the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote. Under the bill, according to pro-life attorneys in California, it may soon be legal to deliberately allow an already born baby to die, and those responsible for the death might be eligible to a cash reward from anyone — state officials included — who attempt to investigate.

Think of it this way: Remember former Virginia Gov. Ralph “Blackface” Northam, who once opined that a baby born after a botched abortion should be made comfortable until its mother and doctor decided what to do? Well, this is much the same with two changes: First this will apply to all such children, and second, it applies not to mothers, but to all “birthing persons.”

What the bill does, in effect, is that it bans investigations into any perinatal death, which under state law could include deaths occurring 60 or 90 days (pick your code section) after birth. According to the proposed bill, which amends the existing state health and safety code:

“Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty…based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.”

Why? Because the state’s Democrat Party has found a new cause célèbre, reproductive justice, which they wrote into the bill’s findings:

“Reproductive justice is the human right to control our bodies, sexuality, gender, work, and reproduction. That right can only be achieved when all people, particularly women and girls, have the complete economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about their bodies, families, and communities in all areas of their lives. At the core of reproductive justice is the belief in the right to bodily autonomy, the right to have children, the right to not have children, and the right to parent the children we have with dignity and respect in safe and sustainable communities…. “A critical part of realizing reproductive justice for people in California is clarifying that there shall be no civil and criminal penalties for people’s action, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes….

“Also across the country, pregnant people are under threat of civil penalties for their actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes and civil penalties have been threatened against people who aid or assist pregnant people in exercising their rights. . . .

“Civil and criminal penalties imposed on pregnant people is a critical issue for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, who experience adverse pregnancy outcomes as a result of systemic racial inequities and are more likely to be under scrutiny of state systems like child welfare or immigration.”

So, there is to be no investigation of fetal or perinatal deaths in the state, and should there be one the target or targets of the investigation have license to sue the investigator, be it a beat cop, social worker, or hospital medic.

Explains Susan S. Arnall of the Right to Life League in a statement appearing on the league’s website:

“Under Section 7 of AB 2223, if a 28-day-old baby dies from abandonment or the mother’s neglect and police investigate and eventually arrest her for the baby’s death, the mother can sue the police for monetary damages plus attorneys’ fees. Nor can the state prosecute other people complicit in committing perinatal deaths.”

She notes that the Democrats in the legislature have proposed more than 12 pro-abortion bills during the current session “to fully fund their atrocious and sweeping attack on the most innocent people among us.” The worst of these bills, she says, is AB 2223 which “actually legalizes infanticide, potentially allowing the killing of a baby up to two months old.”

 This “radical” abortion legislation is being pushed through the legislature at “warp speed” by a coalition of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, she said.

The bill decriminalizes infanticide, she says, and it does it by eliminating any penalty, civil or criminal, for abortions or perinatal deaths, which are defined as a deaths occurring 30 to 60 days after birth, depending on code section consulted. She opines that the legislature can further expand “reproductive justice” by simply redefining the word “perinatal” more expansively.

Additionally, the proposed law also protects those that assist the “birthing person” to do away with a troublesome pregnancy or child.

“In California under AB 2223, former Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who murdered three infants born alive after botched abortions, could not be prosecuted. And incredibly, someone like Gosnell who helped a California mother kill her newborn after birth will actually have a cause of action to sue police for investigating the matter if AB 2223 becomes law,” she said.

LifeSiteNews contributor Ashley Sadler, who recently joined us on the Faith On Trial radio program, reported that noted California attorney Charles LiMandri, a special counsel for the Thomas More Society, as well as a recent guest on the program, has opined that the bill does open the door to infanticide: Including the word “perinatal” in the bill expands its reach beyond abortion.

Of course this is not limited only to California. The Democrats in Maryland have introduced a similar measure in that state, Senate Bill 669, which party leaders claim they have the votes to override an expected veto by GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. Well-known pro-life writer Wesley J. Smith noted that 669 “effectively decriminalizes death by neglect for the first 28 days of life.”

Obviously these, and similar bills like them are being promoted as Dems fear the Supreme Court will strike down Roe v. Wade when it rules on the controversial Dobbs v. Jackson Woman’s Health Clinic later this year. Thus countless number of pro-abortion groups are gathering their political allies as a buffer against any loss of abortion “rights” by a potential court ruling.

Abortion has been seen by many as a personal right that should not be tampered with; concepts of bodily freedom and self-determination have played an important part in shaping the attitudes of countless voters, including Catholics, many of whom see this as just a political issue.

Needless to say, it is not a political issue, nor is it a partisan issue, and those who believe it to be so have a staggering misconception of the faith. Clearly it is a moral issue which requires a high degree of moral certainty to publicly oppose, even, unfortunately, within Catholic circles.

My hope is that the blatant immorality of these bills will finally shock the consciences of even those liberal Catholics who have refused, up to this point, to recognize what this debate is all about, the value of human life, and it is not something that can be traded in the political marketplace for any other secular issue.

Hopefully our Church leaders will wake up as well. For too long they have seemed far too willing to adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward abortion. Now is the time for them to speak out, not only against the moral atrocity this represents, but against those who promote it.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com).

Justices Ask Whether Left's Wokeness Should Be the Only Religion Allowed in Public Schools - The Stream

Justices Ask Whether Left's Wokeness Should Be the Only Religion Allowed in Public Schools - The Stream: Justices of the Supreme Court are considering whether the Left's wokeness should be the only religion allowed in public schools.

Transgenderism for kids

This week’s Faith On Trial with Dr. Jay Richards from the Heritage Foundation on the effects of transgenderism on children … listen here:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/1ba3a6a6/the-effects-of-trans-indoctrination-on-children-42822

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.

Harvard's cheap reparations gambit

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Slavery has existed in every part of the world, and it was rarely considered to be morally wrong until Christianity condemned it. In fact, when the U.S. was founded in the late 18th century, Western Europe was the only place in the world where slavery did not exist. 

It is ironic to note that white people today feel obliged to provide reparations to black people when white people were the first to object to slavery. They sure didn't object in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or Asia—they thought it was normal. 

Harvard University is the latest institution to offer its mea culpa, this time with a pledge to spend $100 million of its $53 billion endowment on an endowed "Legacy of Slavery Fund." No money will go to any individuals. The money will pay for memorials and curricula to honor the past and for exchange programs between Harvard and black colleges, as well as other ventures. 

This is a cheap gambit. What makes it cheap is not that it represents only .188% of its total holdings—what makes it cheap is that it does absolutely nothing to address the status of African Americans in the U.S. today. 

Tomiko Brown-Nagin is the professor who is leading a committee on this project. "The university is committed to deeply meaningful and sustained remedies that will endure in perpetuity," she said. "These remedies are focused on leveraging our expertise in education, which is consistent with our mission." 

If the committee is serious, it should endorse charter schools. Charter schools are public schools that are privately run, and they are a smashing success. Black parents love them, precisely because traditional public schools have failed them for decades. 

If the committee is serious, it should endorse school choice initiatives, programs which black parents also love. School choice would give these parents the right to send their children to a private or parochial school, places that have a proven record of academic excellence. 

If the committee is serious, it should break with the Harvard Graduate Council, which represents 12 Harvard graduate and professional schools. The Council supports Black Lives Matter, a racist and corrupt organization that seeks to punish blacks by destroying the nuclear family. It also wants to defund the police, a policy overwhelmingly rejected by blacks. 

If the committee is serious, it should stop segregating the races by having black graduation ceremonies and the like. 

If the committee is serious, it should start treating people of all races and ethnicities as equal and stop discriminating against Asians in its admissions policy. 

Grandstanding and chest-beating exercises are the cheapest way to address this issue. Why not finally do something that will really provide "meaningful and sustained remedies that will endure in perpetuity"? Why not support education reforms that gives blacks the same opportunities available to affluent whites?

 

What the Left Has Done to Women - The Stream

What the Left Has Done to Women - The Stream: Nothing demonstrates the power of left-wing ideology as much as what this ideology has done to women. The Left ruins everything it touches.

How much does transgenderism hurt your kid?

Jay Richards

This week on Faith On Trial we’ll be asking the question, does transgenderism hurt your child? And how should parents deal with unwanted transgender ideology coming home with your child from school? Deacon Mike and Gina will discuss this with an expert in the field from the Heritage Foundation, Jay Richards, who is director of Heritage’s DeVoss Center for Life, Religion, and Family.  Jay researches, writes, and speaks on policy that protects life, marriage, religious liberty and civil society.  He has authored or edited more than a dozen books and has written extensively for numerous academic publications.

You can listen to our conversation with Jay on Thursday morning, April 28 a 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.

Title IX protects women. Keep it that way

 

Bigot to host White House media dinner

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

On April 30, Comedy Central star Trevor Noah will host the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. It says a lot about those in the White House and the media that they would pick such a bigot.  

On two occasions in the past few years, we contacted his bosses at Viacom (and ViacomCBS), and he initially tapped his brakes, only to start up again with his attacks on Catholics. We all know that if he had said anything like this about any other demographic group, he would not have been invited. In fact, he wouldn't even have a job—he would have been fired long ago. 

The following are quotes from the "Daily Show with Trevor Noah."

• September 28, 2015—While commenting on the pope's visit to America, Noah stated that the pope's car was small and that "somebody's compensating. I'm saying the pope has a huge c**k."

 

• June 27, 2016—After Noah made some humorous and inoffensive jokes about the pope's quips aboard the papal plane, he referred to the pontiff as that "mother******."

 

• January 5, 2017—While commenting on a McDonald's opening near the Vatican, Noah stated that "it makes a lot of sense when you think about it—both the Catholic Church and McDonald’s have served billions, they both make people feel guilty about themselves, and both are historically bad for children, so it makes sense (emphasis added)."

 

• March 23, 2017—While commenting on a three-year-old removing the pope's hat, Noah stated that "I can see why this made the news—a child undressing a priest for a change."

 

• September 5, 2018—While commenting on two Catholic priests performing lewd acts on each other, Noah stated, "that sounds like a good news story to me. Two adults having consensual sex, hallelujah! That's pretty dope." The comic went on to suggest that the pope was "pretty stoked" about the story and introduced a dubbed-over clip of the Holy Father saying, "You want to talk about a miracle? They are both over 18. Two adults, just a midday quickie in a PT cruiser. Thank you, Lord Jesus!"

 

• March 26, 2019—While commenting on the pope not wanting people to kiss his ring, Noah stated that "it's a nice change of pace to see a priest not want to touch people."

 

• May 29, 2019—While discussing an alleged Catholic group selling video games, Noah provided a platform to "Daily Show" correspondent Ronny Chieng to say that "I don't think an institution known for luring children should put out a game to lure more children. Where do you catch the final Pokémon Jesus—Father Garrity's tickle room?"

 

• June 11, 2019—While commenting on the Vatican's teachings on gender ideology, Noah stated that "the Catholic Church thinks that if you're a girl, you're a girl forever, and if you're a boy, they are going to f*** you." He then made several jokes about "pedophile priests."

 

• October 9, 2019—Noah questioned, "Why is the communion wafer so bland? Jesus was from the Middle East. How about a bowl of hummus to go with it? Body of Christ, tasty."

 

• January 16, 2020—While commenting on the pope's remarks on the issue of celibacy for priests, Noah mocked Pope Emeritus Benedict for publishing a book on celibacy stating that "the old pope wants the rules to stay the same. And I get that. I mean if I had been forced to be a virgin for 92 years, I would also be out there like, 'guys come on! Those are the rules! We agreed!'"

 

• March 9, 2020—While commenting on Covid-19 restrictions, Noah stated that "it's going to be hard to take Communion seriously when the priest has to throw wafers into people's open mouths from across the room, the Body of Christ—from downtown!"

 

• April 13, 2020—While commenting on Covid-19 restrictions, Noah stated that Easter Sunday would be hard for many church-goers, "but for the Catholic Church, this is a good thing—keeping priests separate from the congregation might not be the worst idea."

 

• May 18, 2020—While commenting on Covid-19 restrictions, Noah stated that a Detroit priest using a water gun to bless parishioners with holy water from a distance was "a great way for other Catholic priests to explain why they have a bunch of kid's toys in their basements."

 

• March 16, 2021—While commenting on the Jesuits providing reparations to African-Americans, Noah mocked the Sacrament of Baptism by calling it "waterboarding babies." The comic went on to do a skit where he impersonates a priest offering money to a black man "for owning [his] great-grandfather." Noah then takes on the role of the black man and replies that "I thought this was for you guys touching us when we were kids."

When Obama was president, they never would have allowed a white racist to host this event. 

Asians and academics

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – About a year ago this column reported on the growing suspicion that academia was biased against students of Asian descent. The issue had been percolating within scholastic circles, but finally was brought to the forefront by several lawsuits filed against several notable institutions of higher learning: Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Texas.

The suit against Harvard is now pending before the Supreme Court and a decision should be announced before the end of the court’s term. At the heart of the suit, for many, is the role affirmative action and Critical Race Theory have played in producing college admissions requirements that lean — ever so slightly sometimes — on the racial identity of the applicant.

In presenting its case, the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., claimed that Harvard’s own admission data “revealed astonishing racial disparities in admissions rates among similarly qualified applicants.” Nevertheless, the district court found in Harvard’s favor and the student group began its appeal which is now ready for a decision by the Supreme Court.

Much of the claim made by the student group was that affirmative action was being used to decrease the number of Asian students accepted in favor of black and Hispanic applicants. In its petition to the top court the student group is asking that the court overturn its prior precedents which held that racial preferences can be used in the admission process.

While this case was pending, the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia was getting embroiled in an Asian controversy of its own. It has what was considered one of the academically elite schools in the nation, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. The school had an admissions policy that focused on academic excellence and proven scholastic performance.

The high achievement standards for admission resulted in a racial mix of one percent black, three percent Hispanic, and 73 percent Asian. Now the guiding lights of the school board, in an era of Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter, were not satisfied with the mix. For years, minority groups had claimed there was a lack of diversity in the student body due to the underrepresentation of minority students.

According to the Asian students’ group, Coalition for TJ, shortly after the death of George Floyd there was a new diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting requirement mandated for schools. The board, now concerned about the low black enrollment, started the overhaul of the admission process at Thomas Jefferson.

Some of the changes included: eliminating the standard admission test followed by a set-aside of seats for 1.5 percent of the middle school graduates from each public school in the area. The new policy left only 100 seats available for all others including private and home-school students.

According to their court filing, the group opined, “Because a disproportionate number of Asian American applicants and accepted students at TJ come from a handful of Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) middle schools, each of which often sent far more than 1.5 percent of their eighth graders to TJ, the guarantee effectively limited Asian-American enrollment.”

Additionally the policy awarded bonus points for certain “experience factors” including an applicant’s attendance at historically underrepresented middle schools. The result was the distribution of non-academic bonus points went overwhelming to non-Asian students.

The result was a new mix that saw black applicants rise from one to seven percent, Hispanics from three to 11 percent, and Asian drop from 73 to 54 percent. Asians, who had been suspicious of the situation for some time, and seeing a drop in Asian admissions by 19 percent, filed suit.

However, unlike the Harvard group which lost its first round in court in Massachusetts, with the court finding that all applicable court rulings had been followed by Harvard, the Asian group in Virginia won. There the judge ruled that since “racial balancing” was the controlling factor in the new admissions policy it was unconstitutional and enjoined the district from using it.

The court found that the new criteria had a substantial adverse impact on Asian-American students, and that the board had actually intended to make it more difficult for these students to gain admission to the prestigious high school. The matter never went to trial, as the parties stipulated to all the pertinent facts, and the court ruled in the Coalition’s favor on a motion for summary judgment.

The school district, however, appealed the matter to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The board, citing “administrative inconvenience,” by having to revise its admission policies on a short time table, sought and received an emergency stay of the district court’s injunction until the matter could be heard by the appeals court.

The Coalition responded by filing a motion with the Supreme Court to vacate the stay and allow the district court injunction to remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal. That is where we end today. The matter of the vacating of the stay is to have been decided as this is written. In either event, the case will ultimately be heard by the appeals court, either with or without the stay being vacated.

Interestingly, the result of the Harvard case might play a role in how this case ends. If the Supreme Court overrules the Harvard decision, it could do so with a new set of legal guidelines for those wishing to use race in affirmative action admission criteria.

For the Asian community, this has been a long time coming. Parent Asra Q. Nomani, who is part of the coalition, said last year:

“To understand what’s behind this conflict, look no further than the controversial ideology of critical race theory, which praises or blames members of a particular race solely because they happen to be that race and seeks to interpret all forms of perceived injustice through a racial lens. This ideology has swept through America’s educational system at every level and is erasing our different narratives as Asian-Americans from different backgrounds and — to our shock — marginalizing our children and us.

“The ugly truth about critical race theory is that it inevitably seeks to fight racial hierarchies by instituting new forms of racial hierarchies. And Asian-American parents are increasingly taking notice. . . . County school officials set out to correct the supposedly problematic over-representation of Asian American students at TJ by watering down the strict admission standards.”

As of this writing (April 20) the school board has through today to reply to the Coalition’s motion to vacate the stay. Chief Justice John Roberts is expected to rule on that issue shortly after he receives the board’s reply. No matter what happens, the High Court will probably see this case again.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

California advances abortion bill that attorneys say could legalize killing babies after birth

California’s Assembly Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to approve AB 2223, which was authored by Democrat assemblywoman Buffy Wicks of Oakland. ​​

By Ashley Sadler, LifeSiteNews who discussed this article on our radio program

SACRAMENTO, California (LifeSiteNews) — Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled California advanced a controversial piece of legislation that pro-life groups and attorneys warned could legalize infanticide for weeks or even years after a baby is born.

California’s Assembly Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to approve AB 2223, which was authored by Democrat assemblywoman Buffy Wicks of Oakland. ​​

Wicks wrote in the bill analysis that “AB 2223 protects reproductive freedom by clarifying that the Reproductive Privacy Act prohibits pregnancy criminalization and creates a private right of action for people whose rights have been violated to seek accountability using civil courts.”

“It would also remove outdated provisions requiring coroners to investigate certain pregnancy losses and ensure that information collected about pregnancy loss is not used to target people through criminal or civil legal systems,” Wicks wrote.

The updated language of the law states that a “person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.”

Wicks has argued that the legislation would apply to pregnant women who she says would “not be prosecuted for losing or miscarrying a baby” or for a “tragic situation during pregnancy.”

“Parents should not be be criminalized for a tragic loss,” the assemblywoman argued.

While Wicks and other proponents of the bill have argued that the provision barring the investigation of perinatal death is intended to prevent the criminalization of mothers whose babies died naturally, the language has raised alarm bells among attorneys and pro-life advocates.

Thomas More Society special counsel Charles LiMandri, a partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP who earned his law degree at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., told LifeSiteNews in an email late last month that the altered language would allow for “the brutal murder” of babies weeks, months, or even years “after they are born.”

Bottom of Form

According to LiMandri, the proposal “exposes the false narrative that the abortion lobby has been peddling for over half a century: that no one knows when life begins, and babies in their mothers’ wombs feel no pain. No sane person can deny that a newborn infant is a fully developed human being, one that is capable of feeling intense pain. Yet, by including ‘perinatal’ in its provisions, [the bill] would authorize the brutal murder of these infants even after they are born.”

LiMandri noted that the definition of the term “perinatal” varies, spanning weeks or even years after an infant is born.

He cited MedicineNet, which puts the definition of “perinatal” at ending “one to four weeks after birth,” as well as the government definition of the phrase via PubMed.gov, which states, “The perinatal period, broadly defined, encompasses the time frame from … 18 to 24 months after the birth of the child.”

“Hence, [AB 2223] leaves one to ask: ‘What kind of depraved monsters would justify the killing of innocent and helpless children between one week and two years after their birth?’” LiMandri said.

According to LiMandri, the radical legislative proposal “is beyond the pale for any civilized society to even consider, and must be aggressively opposed by all people of conscience who value human life.”

Similarly, Attorney Susan S. Arnall of the Right to Life League explained that “AB 2223 literally decriminalizes infanticide — the killing of babies up to a month old and maybe older. It does this by eliminating civil and criminal penalties for abortions, including ‘perinatal death.’ The bill doesn’t define the term ‘perinatal’ – but it doesn’t have to.”

Meanwhile, California Globe pointed out that AB 2223 is co-sponsored by the pro-abortion organizations ACLU California Action, Black Women for Wellness, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice California, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Battles over pro-life and abortion legislation have ramped up in recent months in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

The crucial case currently on the Supreme Court docket concerns Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and could see the federal “right to abortion” overhauled or overturned this summer, permitting pro-life states to severely restrict or even ban abortion outright.

Pro-life lawmakers in Republican-led states, including Texas , Idaho, Florida, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, have proposed or enacted measures to restrict or ban most abortions in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling.

Meanwhile, Democrat-led states have moved to broaden abortion access and invite women in pro-life states to travel to their states to obtain abortions.

Libs of TikTok - The Stream

Libs of TikTok - The Stream: A cancel culture leftist at The Washington Post set out to silence the Libs of TikTok for exposing the truth about the left.

Religion Clause: Company Is Not "State Actor" When It Complies With...

Religion Clause: Company Is Not "State Actor" When It Complies With...: In  Ciraci v. J. M. Smucker Co. , (ND OH, April 20, 2022), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a suit by employees of a food manufactur...