Americans Support Ban On Late-Term Abortions By A Large Margin

As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on a ban on late-term abortions Wednesday, recent polling shows the American people support such a measure. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36) would ban abortions after 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

A Marist poll conducted in January found that 84 percent of Americans want significant restrictions on abortion. This statistic included 7-in-10 who consider themselves “pro-choice.”

Image Credit: Marist Poll - Knights of Columbus

Image Credit: Marist Poll – Knights of Columbus

A Huffington Post poll taken in 2013 garnered similar results, finding that Americans oppose abortion after 20 weeks, 59 to 30 percent.

Additionally, the Marist poll found that Americans, by a margin of over 20 percent, consider abortion to be “morally wrong” (60 to 38 percent). Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of respondents believe the abortion rate is higher than it should be in the United States.

Image Credit: Marist Poll - Knights of Columbus

Image Credit: Marist Poll – Knights of Columbus

Despite their views about the morality of abortion, respondents to the poll were evenly divided between identifying themselves as “pro-life” (45 percent) or “pro-choice” (47 percent).

The poll also found that most Americans–84 percent–think laws “can exist which protect, both, the health and well-being of a woman and the rights of the unborn.”

The House originally planned to vote on the Pain-Capable Act in January to coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Instead, today’s vote will fall on the second anniversary of the conviction of the infamous Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell is the Philadelphia abortionist who was found guilty on multiple counts of murdering babies who had survived late-term abortions.

House leaders pulled the Pain-Capable Act in January when several members expressed concern that the legislation only permitted a rape exception to the ban on late-term abortions if the victim reported the rape to the police within 48 hours of its occurrence.

House Republican women, led by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., stepped in to craft a compromise that takes into account the emotional toll rape has on women. The Pain-Capable Act now requires physicians to ensure women have access to counseling or medical care 48 hours prior to any decision to undergo an abortion.

“I would have voted for the bill with no exceptions. I’m a no-exceptions person. But there were legitimate concerns,” said Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., who is a registered nurse. With the changed provision, “We recognize that if a woman has a violent act such as rape, we need to be compassionate.”


This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

House Votes To Block DC’s New Anti-Discrimination Abortion Law

The House of Representatives voted Thursday night to block a new law passed by the Washington, D.C., city council which many fear will be used to deny Americans their First Amendment rights.

The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act (RHNDA) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees or their spouses or dependents for obtaining contraception or family planning services, or take action against those who have an abortion.

The House vote against RHNDA, 228-192, fell mostly on party lines, with three Democrats joining Republicans in opposition to the new law, and 13 Republicans joining the Democrats in support of keeping RHNDA in place.

Congresswoman Diane Black, R-Tenn., who introduced the House measure opposing RHNDA, said, “At its core, the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act is perhaps the most discriminatory ‘nondiscrimination’ law we have seen to date. I am proud that the House took a stand for religious freedom and acted to protect the First Amendment rights of pro-life Washingtonians by passing my resolution to overturn RHNDA.”

Those opposed to RHNDA fear it will be used to force religious organizations and other advocacy groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List, to hire employees who do not share their beliefs regarding the sanctity of human life.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has introduced the companion legislation in the Senate opposing RHNDA, said in a release, “Both the House and Senate have a constitutional duty to protect citizens’ religious liberty, as enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Article I of the Constitution provides that Congress has ultimate legislative authority over the District of Columbia “in all cases whatsoever.” The last time Congress exercised its authority to block a measure passed by the D.C. city government was in 1991, when the council sought to amend a law restricting the height of buildings in the district.

The prospects for RHNDA to ultimately be blocked by congressional action do not look promising. Under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Congress has 30 days to weigh in on any laws passed by the D.C. city council, and that deadline is Saturday.

The Senate is notoriously slow to act on new legislation, and the resolution still requires President Obama’s signature to become law. The White House has signaled it supports RHNDA and the president would veto legislation to block it.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Seriously? Here’s The Outrageous Way This Lib Rep Is Trying To Shut Down Conservative Steve King

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa — a conservative champion on Capitol Hill and Tea Party favorite for his unyielding support of the Constitution — has come under fire from a colleague in Congress who is purportedly trying to deny King his constitutionally protected powers as a duly elected lawmaker.

Colorado congressman Jared Polis is the liberal Democrat who has targeted the Iowa Republican with what could be a first-of-its-kind bill, one he calls the “Restrain Steve King From Legislating Act.” Polis, who represents Colorado’s Second District, is a very successful entrepreneur who has launched and sold a number of companies, including the online florist ProFlowers. He’s also the first openly gay parent in Congress. And it’s King’s firm stand in favor of traditional marriage that prompted Polis to introduce legislation to, as Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle puts it, “make it illegal for his colleague Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to be a legislator—a position King, like Polis, is elected to under the terms laid out by the U.S. Constitution.”

On his website, Jared Polis attacks Steve King’s proposed legislation that apparently inspired the Polis bill — the King bill is entitled “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act.” It would, essentially, ensure that the individual states, and not the federal government or the federal courts, determine how to handle the issue of same-sex marriage.

With somewhat contorted wording that many might suggest shows Rep. Polis has a rather distorted view of the Constitution and the legislative process itself, the Democrat congressman writes: “For too long, Steve King has overstepped his constitutionally nonexistent judicial authority. Mr. King has perverted the Constitution to create rights to things such as discrimination, bullying, and disparate treatment.”

The Breitbart report on the Polis bill observes: “Rather than debating King on the merits or what he perceives to be demerits of the legislation, Polis introduced a bill aimed at silencing King and stripping him of his power—something the Constitution wouldn’t allow him to do anyway.”

An article in Huffington Post on the extraordinary action by the far-left Colorado congressman makes a point of calling the stop-Steve-King legislation something Rep. Polis himself never does: “a (satirical) bill.” And to make sure its readers understand that the clever Mr. Polis is only “trolling” his conservative colleague, the HuffPo article adds, “King’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Polis’ joke bill.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch The Shocking Confrontation Where A California Congressman Threatens To Do…What?

Protestors upset with their congressman for what they believed to be his support of President Obama’s executive amnesty were gathered, signs in hand, ready to confront Republican Rep. Stephen Knight of California. The sidewalk encounter almost escalated into more of a confrontation than anyone likely expected.

In a YouTube video posted by a group called We The People Rising, the freshman lawmaker is seen and heard threatening a protestor named Mike who had patted Knight twice on the shoulder after charging that the lawmaker had lied about his votes dealing with complex legislation impacting Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

Knight, an Army veteran and former Los Angeles police officer, was visibly upset when he moved aggressively toward Mike the protestor, put his hand on his chest, and said, “If you touch me again, I’ll drop your a**.”

After the threat, Rep. Knight backed away and took a few minutes to try to explain to the crowd his votes on the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, H.R. 240, that passed back and forth between the House and Senate. By clicking on the video above, you can watch the extraordinary incident on a California sidewalk where a GOP representative is caught on camera threatening a constituent who challenged his integrity.

h/t: The Hill

Do you think the congressman was justified in his actions, or did he go too far? We invite you to weigh in by commenting below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Republican Party Elites Abandon Traditional Marriage

Accuracy in Media

Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”

These developments strongly suggest that while the homosexual movement remains solidly in control of the Democratic Party, the tactics of harassment and intimidation that we saw wielded against the religious freedom bill in Indiana last week are taking their toll on the Republican Party as a whole.

In the Indiana case, a conservative Republican governor, Mike Pence, abandoned the fight for religious freedom in the face of homosexual and corporate pressure.

It appears that more and more elite or establishment Republicans are simply deciding to give up on the fight for traditional values and marriage.

While this may seem politically expedient, this dramatic move to the left by the GOP could result in millions of pro-family conservatives deciding to abandon the Republican Party in 2016, a critical election year.

USA Today also noted that, “while some members of the 2012 Republican National Convention platform committee filed a brief against gay marriage Friday, it notably did not include GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.”

The Republican senators signing the brief included:

  • Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
  • Senator Steve Daines of Montana
  • Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma
  • Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma
  • Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
  • Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina

Fifty-one members of the House of Representatives signed the brief. But House Speaker John Boehner’s, R-Ohio, name was not on it.

Taking the lead for traditional marriage in the House was Representative Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., who not only signed the pro-marriage brief but has also introduced House Joint Resolution 32, the Marriage Protection Amendment, to amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family, and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The resolution has 33 co-sponsors and has been referred for action to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Huelskamp is the only member of Congress who has authored one of the 30 state constitutional amendments that prohibits homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage. In 2005, when he was a state senator, 71 percent of Kansans voted for the state constitutional amendment that he authored.

In reintroducing the federal marriage amendment, Huelskamp said, “In June 2013 the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, but upheld the right and responsibility of states to define marriage. Since then, though, numerous unelected lower court judges have construed the U.S. Constitution as suddenly demanding recognition of same sex ‘marriages,’ and they struck down state Marriage Amendments—including the Kansas Marriage Amendment—approved by tens of millions of voters and their elected representatives.”

However, on April 28 the U.S. Supreme Court will review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds marriage laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. A ruling is expected in June.

USA Today noted that scores of prominent Republicans last month joined a brief on the homosexual side filed by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove who came out of the closet and announced in August of 2010 that he was a homosexual. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage.

Big money Republican donors such as Paul Singer, David Koch, and Peter Thiel have either endorsed homosexual rights and same-sex marriage or funded the homosexual movement. Thiel is an open homosexual.

A libertarian group funded by the Koch brothers, the Cato Institute, has been in the gay rights camp for many years and its chairman, Robert A. Levy, wrote a “moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage.”

Other signatories to the Mehlman brief included Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and former presidential candidates Rudolph Giuliani and Jon Huntsman.

The signers of this brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage were described as “300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants.” Some two dozen or so had worked for Mitt Romney for President.

One of the signatories, Mason Fink, who was the finance director of the Mitt Romney for President campaign, has signed on with a super PAC promoting former Florida Republican governor Jeb Bush for president. In another move signaling his alignment with the homosexual movement, Bush has reportedly picked Tim Miller, “one of the most prominent gay Republicans in Washington politics,” as his communications director.

A far-left media outlet known as Buzzfeed has described Bush as “2016’s Gay-Friendly Republican,” and says he has “stocked his inner circle with advisers who are vocal proponents of gay rights.”

But some conservative Christians are fighting back against the homosexual movement.

A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.

Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”

The Mattachine Society, a gay rights organization started by communist Harry Hay in 1950, cited the flawed Kinsey data in an effort to convince the public that homosexual behavior was widespread in American society.

The book, Take Back! The Gay Person’s Guide to Media Action, said the Kinsey Report on male sexuality “paved the way for the first truly positive discussion of homosexuality in the mainstream media.”

Today, this same Kinsey data is being used to convince the Supreme Court to approve homosexual “marriage” as a constitutional right.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom