Connect with us

Published

on

A Vermont bill supporting abortion is being attacked as “the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world.”

A bill introduced with the support of 90 out of Vermont’s 150 House lawmakers asserts that “every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” US News reported.

As noted by the Catholic News Agency, the bill says that “a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.”

“It’s important to codify what is currently allowed in Vermont,” said Democratic Rep. Ann Pugh, one of the bill’s sponsors.

“My understanding is that the majority of Vermonters support what is current practice in Vermont. And what this law does is to codify, or put in statute, what is current practice,” she said, according to Vermont Digger. “If we need to make changes, that is what the legislative process is about.”

Gov. Phil Scott, who supports abortion, said that the bill might not be in its final form.

The legislation has “a long way to go to get through the Legislature, so we’ll see where it all comes out,” he said.

On Wednesday, critics attacked the law during a hearing.

“This bill isn’t protecting all women’s rights,” said Patricia Blair of Bennington, who lost twins after a car accident in 2010. “It’s only protecting the rights of women who choose death for their children.”

Sharon Toborg of the Vermont Right to Life Committee was concerned about the bill’s apparent embrace of late-term abortions.

“While most Vermonters do consider themselves pro-choice, that does not mean that they support unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for individuals of any age as H.57 proposes,” Toborg said.

She also raised concern about the bill’s prohibition against any public entity interfering with a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

“Such terms as ‘interfere with’ or ‘deprive’ or ‘restrict’ are undefined in the bill, so it is unclear what the true impact of this legislation might be,” Toborg added.

The bill has already lost one supporter.

Rep. Patrick Seymour, a Republican, said he would prefer the bill have limits on late-term abortions, and said he did not think the law was even necessary.

Although some people have criticized him for changing his position, he said, “I’ve gotten significantly more people congratulating (me) for my switch.”

In an Op-Ed in National Review, Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism said the Vermont bill is even more concerning than similar bills in Virginia and New York that have received more media attention. He labeled it “the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world.”

“Vermont’s goes all the way to creating an absolute right to an abortion, at any time in the pregnancy and for any reason, with no limitations as to method,” he said, noting there is no language “about distinguishing non-viability of the fetus from viability.”

“There is nothing mentioned about what to do with a born baby that survives abortion,” he wrote.

Advertisement
14 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Cindy

    February 4, 2019 at 5:42 pm

    I agree with all of the previous comments.

    I was told 23 years ago that I would have to terminate a pregnancy because it was stuck in the Fallopian tube and not viable. I was reassured that this termination process was not abortion, but in MY mind, it was. I agonized and prayed for three weeks that God would make the pregnancy viable or cause a miscarriage. In the midst of all this, I was having internal ultrasounds a couple of times per week. On what was to be the last ultrasound, the technician found the baby implanted in the uterus where it was supposed to be. It was just a tiny heart mass beating, but it was there and alive and viable at 6 weeks! I found out the heart is the first to be developed in a baby, and if I remember correctly, it is beating at like 3 weeks even before it is fully developed, My reoccurring pain and high hormone count was coming from the fact that there were two babies trying to make their way to the uterus. Unfortunately, the other one never developed and was reabsorbed by my body. However, if I had listened to my doctors, I would have terminated that pregnancy and would not have my beautiful 22 year old daughter today, who is inspiring her students teaching high school English this year as a new teacher at a time when we have a tremendous teacher shortage.

    Personally, I’m totally prolife. However, I do understand the need for termination if a mother’s life is biologically in danger, not her mental state,, and in the case of rape. I’ve never been raped, and will never assume how that affects victims. Even though I’m totally prolife, I don’t think a rape victim should be required by law to carry the child of her attacker if she cannot mentally go through it. I’ve heard of women that carry the child of their attacker full term, and I applaud them, but I think we have to give victims of sexual assault the option. Imagine actually being raped, then carrying the rapist’s child in your body for 9 months. Then going through labor and delivery for your attacker’s child. I can see how this would be like being victimized all over again. And if you deliver that child, then you experience the guilt of placing your child up for adoption or trying to raise it while trying to cover up the truth of its father. I would like to say that I would not terminate the baby of a rapist, but I’ve never had to face that issue myself, so I truly can’t say I wouldn’t abort. I hope that neither I nor my daughters are ever faced with that horror, but I cannot judge anyone who make the difficult decision to abort the child of their assailant.

  2. Dorothy Paul

    February 4, 2019 at 8:36 pm

    I don’t care what they care it … in or out of the womb … IT IS STILL INFANTICIDE and nothing the lawmakers say can change that barbarism.

  3. Dorothy Paul

    February 4, 2019 at 8:37 pm

    I meant to say call it … not care it.

  4. Al

    February 4, 2019 at 10:24 pm

    The NE states are as crazy as Chicago, CO, WA, CA, and OR. Those states tend to breed crazy kooks. Drugs, hate, illegal aliens, and murdering babies are their motto.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CF

News

Nikki Haley Breaks with Trump: ‘We Shouldn’t Have Followed Him, and We Shouldn’t Have Listened to Him’

Published

on

Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, believes that former President Donald Trump “let us down.”

Haley’s remarks come as the former president’s legal team prepares to present its defense of Trump during his second impeachment trial in the Senate.

In a Politico interview published Friday, Haley, former South Carolina governor, said that “we shouldn’t have followed” Trump.

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she said in an extensive profile. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

She also told the outlet that she has not spoken to Trump since the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, and takes issue with his remarks condemning former Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to reject the Electoral College vote.

“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” she expressed. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”

The former ambassador, who many people are speculating may run for the White House in 2024, also added that Trump will never accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“There’s nothing that you’re ever going to do that’s going to make him feel like he legitimately lost the election,” she explained. “He’s got a big bully pulpit. He should be responsible with it.”

Haley also warned that many people still love the former president and will not stop supporting him just because he is out of office.

“I know how much people love Donald Trump,” she admitted. “I know it. I feel it. Whether it’s an RNC room or social media or talking to donors, I can tell you that the love they have for him is still very strong. That’s not going to just fall to the wayside. Nor do I think the Republican Party is going to go back to the way it was before Donald Trump. I don’t think it should.”

Haley added that people, instead, should “take the good that he built, leave the bad that he did, and get back to a place where we can be a good, valuable, effective party.”

“[I]t’s bigger than the party,” she insisted. “I hope our country can come together and figure out how we pull this back.”

Referring to Haley’s possible 2024 ambitions, Politico’s Tim Alberta wrote, “Since last fall, I’ve spent nearly six hours talking with Haley on-the-record. I’ve also spoken with nearly 70 people who know her: friends, associates, donors, staffers, former colleagues. From those conversations, two things are clear. First, Nikki Haley is going to run for president in 2024. Second, she doesn’t know which Nikki Haley will be on the ballot.”

Haley also said that she didn’t believe Trump had a chance of winning in a 2024 election scenario.

“I don’t think he can,” she admitted. “He’s fallen so far.”

“I think his business is suffering at this point,” she added. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have. I think he’s lost his social media, which meant the world to him. I mean, I think he’s lost the things that really could have kept him moving.”

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump’s Defense Team Absolutely Ruins Democrats With 13 Minute Montage of “Fight” Word Like Trump Did

Published

on

The Democrats demonized President Trump for using the word ‘fight’. Trump’s attorneys responded today with a collage of clips from each of the Democrats in the room using the word ‘fight’.

This portion of today’s events on Capitol Hill was excellent. The Democrats claim that because President Trump used the word ‘fight’ in his speech on January 6th in Washington D.C. However, what every Democrat in that room forgot was that they too had used the word previously in political speech.

The montage went on for 13 minutes. (The video montage starts at 7:10 timeframe.)

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump Attorneys Destroy House Managers on Lying to American Public and Using Manipulated Tweet as Evidence

Published

on

President Trump’s defense team took the floor of the US Senate on Friday in defense of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump Attorney David Schoen absolutely destroyed the House Managers when he took to the floor of the US Senate.

At one point Schoen played video of the Democrat lawmakers lying about a Trump tweet.

House Impeachment Manager Eric Swalwell gave a riveting performance on Wednesday reading off Trump’s tweets with emotional appeal.

During this theatrical performance, Swalwell read off a Trump retweet by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.

But there was one problem with the tweet. It was photoshopped.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence has never been verified by Twitter. Democrats faked that to make it look more important.

On Friday Trump Attorney David Schoen destroyed Democrats for lying about this to the American public.

WATCH:

Continue Reading

News

White House Suspends Deputy Press Secretary For Allegedly Sexually Harassing, Threatening Reporter

Published

on

The White House announced on Friday that it was suspending Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo after a report surfaced alleging that he sexually harassed and threatened a female reporter who was getting ready to publish a report revealing that he was dating a reporter who had previously been tasked with covering Democrat Joe Biden.

“The confrontation began on Inauguration Day, January 20, after [Politico reporter Tara] Palmeri, a coauthor of Politico’s Playbook, contacted [Axios political reporter Alexi] McCammond for comment while one of her male colleagues left a message for Ducklo,” Vanity Fair reported. “Ducklo subsequently called a Playbook editor to object to the story, but was told to call the Playbook reporters with his concerns. But instead of calling the male reporter who initially contacted him, Ducklo tried to intimidate Palmeri by phone in an effort to kill the story. ‘I will destroy you,’ Ducklo told her, according to the sources, adding that he would ruin her reputation if she published it.”

“During the off-the-record call, Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments, accusing Palmeri of only reporting on his relationship—which, due to the ethics questions that factor into the relationship between a journalist and White House official, falls under the purview of her reporting beat—because she was ‘jealous’ that an unidentified man in the past had ‘wanted to f***’ McCammond ‘and not you,’” the report added. “Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being ‘jealous’ of his relationship with McCammond.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said following the report that Ducklo has been suspended for a week over the incident.

“TJ Ducklo has apologized to the reporter, with whom he had a heated conversation about his personal life,” Psaki wrote on Twitter. “He is the first to acknowledge this is not the standard of behavior set out by the President.”

“In addition to his initial apology, he has sent the reporter a personal note expressing his profound regret,” she continued. “With the approval of the White House Chief of Staff, he has been placed on a one-week suspension without pay. In addition, when he returns, he will no longer be assigned to work with any reporters at Politico.”

Reporters called out the administration over the incident, highlighting how the Trump administration did not treat reporters that way as well as issues with the timeline of events with regard to the White House taking action to address the incident.

“The Vanity Fair piece indicates that Politico editors reached to the WH after the incident first occurred and the WH acknowledged it was inappropriate,” Spectator editor Amber Athey wrote on Twitter. “But they clearly didn’t have any interest in disciplining Ducklo until his behavior was made public.”

New York Magazine reporter Olivia Nuzzi wrote on Twitter: “I covered Donald Trump for 6 years. It is saying something that this behavior — from a Biden official — shocks me.”

Grabien founder Tom Elliott highlighted the following remarks that Biden made a few weeks ago: “If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot, on the spot. No if, ands, or buts. Everybody — everybody is entitled to be treated with decency & dignity.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper responded to the quote, writing: “Standards that are not upheld are not standards. They’re lies.”

Continue Reading

Trending Today