A Sad and Evil Day’: New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby’s Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Editor comment: This bill illustrates the increasing moral depravity of our country. We have so many euphemisms to hide the reality of what is happening. This is not “pro-choice” “reproductive rights” “empowerment of women” but this is murder of innocent babies. This is a brutal taking of a baby’s right to live for what reason? Sexual freedom? Inconvenience of having a child? Indifference to human life? There is no justification for a bill like this and may God have mercy on America as it continues to sink in the muck of evil.

New York legislators cheered and applauded Tuesday night after the state Senate removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing unborn babies to be aborted up until the day of birth.

The Reproductive Health Act passed with a 38-28 vote and was signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).

The law erases New York’s previous limitations on abortion which restricted the fatal procedure past 24 weeks. Supporters say those late-term abortions are being allowed in order to protect the lives of women, but pro-life advocates say that’s just a ruse, pointing out that those late-term babies are clearly viable human lives who could otherwise survive outside the womb.

“RHA is an extreme bill sold to the public saying it merely ‘updates’ New York’s law, which is far from true.  RHA will expand abortion past 24 weeks through birth, make abortion a ‘fundamental right,’ and prohibit all limits, which Roe vs. Wade did *not* do,” New York State Right to Life said in a Facebook post.

Christina Fadden, chair of New York State Right to Life explained further, “RHA has expanded abortion-on-demand in New York past 24 weeks – well past when unborn children feel pain, are viable, and suffer during the course of an abortion – and up to birth. This is inhumane.”

The act states, “every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”

The law also removes abortion from the definition of homicide and New York’s criminal code altogether. Previously, New York law treated the murder of an unborn child in its the third trimester as a felony offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The shocked response has been rolling in across the nation after Democrat lawmakers in the state of New York did the unthinkable Tuesday, legalizing the abortion of unborn babies all the way up until the point of birth.  The response on CBNNews.com has been stunning as more than a million readers simply can’t fathom why any state would allow viable babies to be killed.

Pro-life advocates point out the law is presented under the guise of protecting women’s health, but it permits late-term abortions of unborn babies who could otherwise survive outside the womb.

News of the new law sent shockwaves through the pro-life community. Many are grieving about what it will mean for lost human lives and pointing out the sheer hypocrisies behind what the Left has just done, especially as they try to claim the moral high ground on so many other cultural issues. The stunning developments out of New York appear to be galvanizing the pro-life movement to fight abortion with renewed fervor.

Dr. James Dobson is condemning the NY legislation as barbaric.

“It is not overstating the matter to say I am horrified by the New York State Senate’s vote to pass the euphemistic Reproductive Health Act (RHA). This bill is not about reproductive health at all. It is pure barbarism on a scale rarely seen since the Middle Ages,” Dobson says. “There is a battle raging for millions of lives preordained by God himself, and it is we who must stand for them so that they might have a chance at life.”

MORE: Stunned by NY’s Late-Term Abortion Law? Well, Prepare to Be Stunned Again

Dr. Jack Graham, the pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church, says, “Those who are applauding the passage of New York’s so-dubbed Reproductive Health Act are not celebrating and promoting a step forward in women’s health rights. They are celebrating cold-blooded murder. This act is nothing short of a license to kill unborn babies, even when they could survive outside the womb.”

“That this law was received with such exuberance by so many people should spur us to action, realizing that it has never been more important to defend the sanctity of human life and to fight for those who cannot defend themselves,” he continued.

Former Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) laughed hysterically as they pushed to expand abortion rights in the New York state legislature in early January of 2019.

Janet Morana, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and executive director of @PriestsforLife tweeted:

“As a native New Yorker my heart is broken knowing precious babies can now be killed until birth for any reason. #abortion is nothing less than homicide and to expand its bloody reach on the anniversary of #RoeVWade is a disgrace. #prolife #WakeUpAmerica”

Janet Morana@JanetMorana

“NY Gov. Cuomo wants to regulate potentially poisonous chemicals in cleaning products… But champions the poisoning, dismemberment, and fatality of children in the womb during abortion.”

Alison H.Centofante@AlisonHowardC

But champions the poisoning, dismemberment, and fatality of children in the womb during abortion.

Andrew Cuomo

@NYGovCuomo

I am proposing mandatory labeling on products containing potentially hazardous chemicals.

The more we know about our exposure to chemicals, the more frightening the situation is. Consumers have the right to know what’s inside the products they use.https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-proposal-executive-budget-protect-new-yorkers-unknown-exposure-toxic 

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh blasted the Left for its hypocrisy on the life issue saying: “Trump is literally Hitler,” they said as they celebrated the mass murder of infants.

Matt Walsh

@MattWalshBlog

“Trump is literally Hitler,” they said as they celebrated the mass murder of infants

“How tragic: @NYGovCuomo orders World Trade Center to be lit pink to celebrate new law in New York permitting unborn babies to be killed by abortion up until birth… …while the WTC memorial below bears the names of 11 unborn children who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Susan B. Anthony List

@SBAList

How tragic: @NYGovCuomo orders World Trade Center to be lit pink to celebrate new law in New York permitting unborn babies to be killed by abortion up until birth…

…while the WTC memorial below bears the names of 11 unborn children who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks

And author and pro-life activist Bryan Kemper pointed out another shocking irony on Twitter:

“The Horrors of Auschwitz exhibit is coming to New York to make sure people don’t forget the destruction of life, yet New York just legalized the #Abortion holocaust up to birth. Blood is flowing in our streets as we continue to snuff out life in the womb. #reverseroe #prolife”

Bryan Kemper 🇺🇸@BryanKemper

The Horrors of Auschwitz exhibit is coming to New York to make sure people don’t forget the destruction of life, yet New York just legalized the holocaust up to birth. Blood is flowing in our streets as we continue to snuff out life in the womb.

and http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/hypocrisy-homicide-and-horrors-new-yorks-brand-new-license-to-kill-viable-babies-sparks-intense-outrage
See also: https://beautybeyondbones.com/2019/01/28/andrew-cuomo-nightmare-in-new-york/

Democrats Pass First Bill After Taking Over House: Forcing Americans to Fund Planned Parenthood

In a vote late tonight, House Democrats passed a bill attempting to end the partial government shutdown that also funds the Planned Parenthood abortion giant. The vote on the bill came just hours after Democrats took over the House and installed abortion activist Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

Democrats want to restore the $100 million President Donald Trump took away from Planned Parenthood when he defunded its International arm during his first week in office. The Trump policy prohibits taxpayer funding to international groups that promote and/or provide abortions overseas.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 repeals President Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which stops U.S. taxpayer funding of the abortion industry overseas.

The House voted 241 to 190 for the bill with all Democrats voting for it and all but 7 Republicans voting against it.

Despite passing the pro-abortion measure, in a Statement of Administrative Position for President Trump, the White House said the president will veto the bill.

“If either H.R. 21 or H.J. Res. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” it said.

The statement mentioned the pro-life concerns about the bill:

The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 21, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, providing appropriations for the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2019, for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury, and for other purposes. The Administration also opposes passage of H.J. Res. 1, providing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through February 8, 2019, and for other purposes.

It includes $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restoring funding for the United Nations Population Fund. The bill would also undermine the President’s Mexico City Policy (Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2017), which prohibits the funding of foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote or perform abortions.

The Democrats’ bill doesn’t just force Americans to fund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood:

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

The bill also would increase funding by $5 million for the United Nations Population Fund, to $37.5 million. Anti-abortion organizations oppose the program because they say it participates in coercive abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

Democrats plan to vote on two separate bills Thursday to fund the federal government, one of which will focus on homeland security as they refuse to meet Trump’s demands for $5 billion to fund a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The bills face dim prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate. The federal government has faced a partial government shutdown for 12 days and Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they still had not been able to reach an agreement with Trump.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation performed more than 1 million abortions in 2016, an increase of 13.5 percent over 2015, and received more than $27 million in U.S. government grants in 2015-2016 under pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

The new Trump administration policy did not cut any international funding either, meaning more funds are available to groups that provide true medical care to struggling communities across the globe.

The policy only hurt the abortion industry. It has affected just four groups out of more than 700 that receive international aid, according to a report by the U.S. Department of State. IPPF and Marie Stopes International, a British-based abortion chain, are two of the four that refused to comply.

In May, Reuters reported IPPF shut down 22 programs in sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the policy. Marie Stopes International also shut down several of its programs in Africa.

The two pro-abortion groups received millions of American tax dollars under Obama to push abortions in Africa. Most African countries prohibit the killing of unborn babies in abortions.

Marie Stopes has been accused of doing hundreds of illegal, unsafe abortions in Africa. And late last year, parents and community leaders in Kitui, Kenya were outraged after learning that Marie Stopes workers allegedly came into their children’s school and implanted long-lasting contraceptive devices into girls as young as 14 without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

The Mexico City Policy was in place during the entirety of the Bush administration, but President Barack Obama rescinded it during his first week in office. Named for a 1984 population conference where President Ronald Reagan initially announced it, the policy made it so family planning funds could only go to groups that would agree to not do abortions or lobby foreign nations to overturn their pro-life laws.

Courtesy of https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/03/democrats-pass-first-bill-after-taking-over-congress-forcing-americans-to-fund-planned-parenthood/

How Do Pastors Pick Their Fights?

We need men who know how to disagree without creating division. We need pastors and elders who have enough self-control to avoid needless controversy, and enough courage to move gently and steadily toward conflict.

Not a brawler. The 400-year-old King James Version (KJV) translates 1 Timothy 3:2–3 with surprising timelessness. Of the full list of fifteen, this qualification for pastor-elder in the church is one of just five negative traits. Modern translations say “not quarrelsome” (ESV and NIV) or “not . . . pugnacious” (NASB), but here the language of the KJV has endured. Indeed, we know who the brawlers are today, and it doesn’t take much foresight to recognize what a problem it could be to have one as a pastor.

However, a nuance that “not a brawler” may lack is distinguishing between the physical or verbal nature of combat. This is the upside of “not quarrelsome.” In 1 Timothy 3, the physical already has been covered: “not violent but gentle.” What’s left is the temperamental, and especially verbal.

We all know too well, by the war within us, how the flesh of man finds itself relentlessly at odds with the Spirit of God. We want to quarrel when we should make peace, and not ruffle feathers when we should speak up. And in a day in which so many are prone to sharpness online, and niceness face to face, we need leaders who are “not quarrelsome,” and also not afraid to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2). We need men who “contend for the faith” (Jude 3) without being contentious. We need pastors who are not brawlers — and yet know when (and how) to say the needful hard word.

Men Who Make Peace

The flip side of the negative “not quarrelsome” is the positive “peaceable.” Titus 3:2 is the only other New Testament use of the word we translate “not quarrelsome”: “Remind [the church] . . . to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people” (Titus 3:1–2). James 3, which warns leaders, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1), also directs us to “the wisdom from above”:

The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3:17–18)

Healthy pastors are peacemakers at heart, not pugilists. They don’t fight for sport; they fight to protect and promote peace. They know first and foremost — as a divine representative to their people — that our God is “the God of peace” (Romans 15:33); our message, “the gospel of peace” (Ephesians 6:15); our Lord Jesus himself made peace (Ephesians 2:15Colossians 1:20) and “is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14), preaching “peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near” (Ephesians 2:17).

And making peace is not unique to Christian leaders. Rather, we insist on it in our leaders so that they model and encourage peacemaking for the whole church. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” said our Lord, “for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). “Let us pursue what makes for peace” (Romans 14:19). “Strive for peace with everyone” (Hebrews 12:14). “If possible, so far as it depends on you” — all of you who are members of the body of Christ — “live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18).

This kind of peacemaking not only means leading our flocks in preserving and enjoying peace, but also in making peace that requires confrontation. Some controversies cannot be avoided — and we engage not because we simply want to fight (or win), but because we want to win those being deceived. God means for leaders in his church to have the kind of spiritual magnanimity to rise above the allure of petty disputes, and to press valiantly for peace and Christ-exalting harmony in the places angels might fear to tread.

What Brawlers Fail to Do

Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are particularly helpful, as the veteran apostle gives his counsel to younger leaders in the thick of church conflict. Perhaps no single passage is more perceptive for leaders in times of conflict than 2 Timothy 2:24–26. More than any others, these verses expand what it means for pastors to be “not quarrelsome.” It may be one of the most important words in all the Bible for church leaders:

The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Here Paul fleshes out the negative “not quarrelsome” with four great, positive charges (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 535). First is “kind to everyone.” The presence of conflict doesn’t excuse a lack of kindness. How pastors carry themselves in conflict is as important as picking the right battles. And the Lord calls his servants not just to be kind to the sheep, while treating the wolves like trash, but to be “kind to everyone” — to the faithful and to our opponents.

Then comes “able to teach” (or better, “skillful in teaching”), which appears earlier in the elder qualifications (1 Timothy 3:2) and is the main trait that distinguishes pastor-elders (1 Timothy 3:1–7) from deacons (1 Timothy 3:8–13). In the previous verse (2 Timothy 2:23), Paul refers to “foolish, ignorant controversies” — literally, “untaught” or “uneducated.” How many conflicts in the church begin in honest ignorance, and need pastors to come in, with kindness (not with guns blazing), to provide sober-minded clarity from God’s word? In the New Testament, pastors are fundamentally teachers, and Christ, the great Teacher, doesn’t mean for his undershepherds to put aside their primary calling when conflict arises.

Next is “patiently enduring evil.” Rarely do serious conflicts resolve as quickly as we would like. And whether evil is afoot, or it’s just an honest difference of opinions, pastors should lead the way in patience. That doesn’t mean resigning ourselves to inaction, or letting conflict carry on needlessly without attention and next steps, but patiently walking the path of a process — not standing still and not bull-rushing every issue at once, but faithfully and patiently approaching the conflict one step at a time.

Our Great Hope in Conflict

The fourth and final charge from 2 Timothy 2 is “correcting his opponents with gentleness.” In commending kindness, teaching, and patience, Paul doesn’t leave aside correction. God calls pastors, at heart, to rightly handle his word (2 Timothy 2:15), which is profitable not only for teaching, but for correction (2 Timothy 3:16). The goal is restoration “in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1).

The pastor’s heart for peace, not mere polemics, comes out in the kind of heart that endures in needful conflict: we pray that “God may perhaps grant them repentance.” We long for restoration, not revenge (Romans 12:19). We pray first for repentance, not retribution.

And we remember that the real war is not against flesh and blood — especially within the household of faith. Our true enemy is Satan, not our human “opponents.” We long for them to come to repentance — to “come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil” — through kindness, humble teaching, patience, and gentle correction — remembering that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). We do not want to be rid of our opponents; we want to win them back from Satan’s sway.

Hardest on Ourselves

How, then, do pastors pick their battles? What foolish controversies do we wisely avoid, and what conflicts require our courage to address kindly, patiently, and gently with humble teaching?

First of all, note that pastors never work solo in the New Testament. Christ not only put teachers in charge of his churches, but a plurality of teachers. And he intends for countless wisdom issues in pastoral work to be worked out in the context of a team of sober-minded, self-controlled, self-sacrificial leaders, who see one another’s blind spots and shore up one another’s weaknesses. Together, such men learn over time to be hardest on themselves, not their flock.

The heart of Christian leadership is not taking up privileges, but laying down our lives; not gravitating toward the easy work, but gladly crucifying personal comfort and ease to do the hard work to serve others; not domineering over those in our charge, but being examples of Christlike self-sacrifice for them (1 Peter 5:3). A pastor learns to contend well, without being contentious, writes Tom Ascol, “by seriously applying the word of God to himself before he applies it to others.” When trying to discern between controversies to avoid and conflicts to engage with courage, we ask,

  • Is this about me — my ego, my preference, my threatened illusion of control — or about my Lord, his gospel, and his church? Am I remembering that my greatest enemy is not others, or even Satan, but my own indwelling sin?
  • What is the tenor of my ministry? Is it one fight after another? Are there seasons of peace? Am I engaging conflict as an end in itself, or is preserving and securing Christian peace clearly the goal?
  • Am I going with or against my flesh, which inclines me to fight when I shouldn’t, and back down when I should kindly, patiently, gently fight? As the “servant” of the Lord, not self, am I avoiding petty causes that an unholy part of me wants to pursue, while taking on the difficult, painful, and righteous causes that an unholy part of me wants to flee?
  • Am I simply angry at my opponents, desiring to show them up or expose them, or am I sad for them — better, compassionate for them — genuinely praying that God would free them from deception and grant them repentance? Am I more inclined to anger against them or tears for them?

God means for his ministers to strike the balance, together, by his Spirit. We can learn to avoid foolish controversies and move wisely toward genuine conflicts. We can be unafraid of disagreements, while not creating divisions. In a world of haters, trolls, and brawlers, we can be men, set apart by Christ to lead his church, who fight well, in love, for peace.

Courtesy of https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-do-pastors-pick-their-fights

 

“Gosnell” Movie Profiling Serial-Killer Abortionist Breaks Top 10 Nationally Despite Media Blackout

Despite a media blackout and virtually no coverage outside conservative media circles, the new movie “Gosnell” made the list of top 10 movies across the United States over the weekend. Coming in at the #10 spot, Gosnell came in ahead of other movies with much wider releases — as the film is appearing in just 673 theaters nationwide.

CDespite the more limited release, Gosnell outperformed A Simple Favor, The Nun,  and the blockbuster film Crazy Rich Asians. Every other movie except for one that appeared higher in the weekend top 10 list was shown to Americans in thousands of theaters. It was also the only movie to gain in audience on Sunday, with over $1.23 million in ticket sales though the weekend. Every other movie saw a Sunday dropoff.

Had Gosnell opened in 2,800 theaters like other movies in the top 10 list it would have finished in 7th place for the weekend — making it more popular per theater than The House With a Clock in Its Walls and Bad Times at the El Royale.

But those who are watching the movie are giving in tremendously high ratings. It has a 67% rating at Rotten Tomatoes and 99% of those viewing it said they liked it. Here are some of the reviews:

“Well-acted and compelling. Even without going full-on graphic, the film achieves real power,” says Mike McGranaghan.

“Perhaps we should be glad that mainstream Hollywood, just like the mainstream media, had no interest in this story. It’s almost impossible to believe they would have told it so well,” adds Megan Basham.

And Christian Toto adds: “Gosnell delivers one of the most chilling portraits of evil we’ve seen in ages.”

Gosnell unmasks the shocking true story of the investigation and trial of Kermit Gosnell, a man who performed countless illegal, late-term abortions and murdered several born children as well.

He is the abortion practitioner who killed babies in live-birth abortions that were more akin to infanticide than abortion. The media virtually ignored Kermit Gosnell until the pro-life movement launched a concerned effort to call them out on their bias during the early stages of his trial for murder.

Now, Gosnell is prison, having been convicted of murder in the deaths of multiple babies,though he was accused of killing thousands of viable babies. Still, one report from Gallup showed a large percentage of Americans still have no idea who Gosnell is and what he did.

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer opened nationwide on October 12 and stars Dean Cain as the detective who put Gosnell behind bars.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

https://players.brightcove.net/769341148/rJWoNu3gLM_default/index.html?videoId=5822575796001

Movie executive director Phelim McAleer previously told LifeNews that, despite the grisly, horrific nature of the case, what astounded him the most was the lack of a media presence covering Gosnell’s trial. “This is one of the biggest stories I’ve ever seen, I’ve ever heard about, and there was no coverage at all,” he said.

After the events of Gosnell’s case concluded, McAleer and his wife, fellow journalist and documentarian Ann McElhinney, decided to take matters into their own hands.

“I just assumed then once he [Gosnell] was convicted, that there was going to be a mega movie, because why wouldn’t you make a movie out of this?” McAleer said. “So I waited and waited and I realized, wow, no one’s making a movie out of this? That’s because they don’t want—Hollywood doesn’t want to touch this story or cover this story. So, if they’re not going to do it, then I should do it. We’ve done this before; we’ve been telling stories all of our lives. We’ll just make a movie, and we did.”

Once the idea was set, the next major task was to allocate money to make the film. McAleer decided to crowdfund, a strategy he has used for previous films. He and his wife initially went to Kickstarter to fundraise, but they faced censorship on that site.

“Kickstarter said ‘yeah, you can [fundraise] here, but you have to change the description of your project,” McAleer said.

McAleer was asked to remove terms like “murder,” “murdering babies,” and “stabbing babies” from the description of their project, because the words were deemed offensive to Kickstarter’s community values. Gosnell was, in fact, convicted of murdering three newborn babies, and witnesses who testified at the trial said he killed them by stabbing the backs of the babies’ necks with scissors.

“I don’t want to be part of a community that has standards that force you to lie,” McAleer said.

McAleer and McElhinney then pulled out of Kickstarter and proceeded to fundraise via Indiegogo, a similar fundraising website. Their campaign went well, to say the least. Nearly 30,000 people raised $2.3 million in 45 days for “Gosnell,” which broke the website’s fundraising record. Even though McAleer and his wife made Indiegogo history, there was little fanfare.

“No mainstream media has ever written a story on us. When they write nice puffy stories about crowdfunding, they seem to forget to include us. And you know, it’s a movie that exposes them, shows them off for the agenda-driven PACs that they are. Our movie is saying the things that they don’t want to talk about—the negative side of abortion and how the media covers things up,” he said.

“Gosnell” features some A-list names, including director Nick Searcy (“The Shape of Water”) and Dean Cain (“Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman”). However, some actors were reluctant to accept roles, and after being cast, some stepped down.

“So Hollywood didn’t want to touch this film…You know Hollywood, they give themselves awards for bravery, but they’re not that brave,” McAleer said.

For more details, visit gosnellmovie.com.

Courtesy of lifenews.com

Colorado Civil Rights Commission: The True Hate Group

Imagine for a moment that you are a public servant who has taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Now imagine that the Supreme Court of the United States admonished you and your colleagues for actions they deemed unconstitutional in a 7-2 landmark decision.

Would you be humbled? Would you make a good-faith effort to change the policies and behavior that put you at the mercy of the nation’s highest court? Most of us would. But this does not seem to be the case for some acting on behalf of the state of Colorado.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court called out state officials for acting with hostility towards Jack Phillips, a cake artist in the Denver area who declined to design a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding.

The Court found that the state of Colorado violated Jack’s free exercise of religion. In fact, the majority found the government’s actions so hostile and so biased that it did not need to consider any of Jack’s free-speech claims.

So what has Colorado done to remedy what the Court called its “impermissible religious hostility”? Absolutely nothing. In fact, less than one month after the Masterpiece decision, state officials targeted the very same individual who beat them before the Supreme Court.

It is beyond belief.

Jack has spent six years battling the state for simply declining to express a message that conflicts with his religious beliefs. Now, right after the Supreme Court has given him the justice he deserves, the state of Colorado has decided to pursue a second claim against Jack. This one is even more baseless than the first.

In June of 2017, the very day that the Supreme Court decided to hear Masterpiece, a local attorney asked Jack to design a custom pink-and-blue cake to celebrate his gender transition, a request that Jack politely declined. Of course, Jack serves everyone. He just cannot express all messages, especially those that conflict with his Christian beliefs. Jack has never created a cake expressing this message for anyone.

Still, Colorado has decided to use this case to target Jack a second time.

This comes even after the state was reprimanded by the Supreme Court in Masterpiece. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized that Colorado unequally applied its laws against Jack. The state decided in other cases that cake artists are free to decline requests for cakes criticizing same-sex marriage. Yet the state came down against Jack when he declined to design a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage.

The first time around, it looked like Colorado was biased against people of faith. Now, it just looks like the state is biased against people named “Jack Phillips.” In moving ahead on this new case, the government is yet again confirming that it applies its law in an arbitrary and unequal way, which the Supreme Court has already said it cannot do.

On top of that, the state is contradicting the arguments it made the first time around. A brief Colorado sent to the Supreme Court argued that Jack is “free to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs.” But what is this recently requested cake but a custom cake with a “pro-transgender” design? If Colorado were following what it told the Supreme Court, it would have dismissed this case against Jack.

But Colorado shows that it is waging a crusade against Jack in harassing him again. Enough is enough. Alliance Defending Freedom is “going on offense” and suing the state of Colorado on Jack’s behalf for its blatant targeting of him.

You would think that a clear Supreme Court decision against their first effort would give them pause. But it seems like some in the state government are hell-bent on punishing Jack for living according to his faith.

If that isn’t hostility, what is?

The government is harassing people of faith again

Jack Phillips, cake artist and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is once again being harassed by the government for his religious beliefs. Despite winning his Supreme Court case, the State of Colorado is going after Jack again for simply living his life according to his faith.

We must stand together against the government’s attempts to reduce our religious freedom. Sign the statement below declaring your desire to stand with Jack in defense of religious freedom.

“I believe that the First Amendment is intended to protect the religious freedom of all citizens. This means that the government cannot compel citizens to violate their deeply held beliefs.

I believe that religious freedom is critical to maintaining a free society and that it must be defended.”

Add your signature below.

https://go.pardot.com/l/414972/2018-08-10/bd51l

Alliance Defending Freedom

Non-profit organization

Alliance Defending Freedom advocates for your right to freely live out your faith

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2018/08/15/colorado-is-ignoring-the-supreme-court-and-targeting-jack-phillips-again

Twitter Restricts Pro-life Advertisements Again, Backtracks Amid Media Scrutiny

Twitter has again suspended a pro-life organization from running ads on its site only to then backpedal upon receiving questions from conservative media about their actions.

The Daily Caller reported Wednesday that they contacted Twitter after it became known that the social media giant had removed three ads from the pro-life group Human Coalition. Twitter placed the nonprofit organization’s advertising privileges “under review” because they had supposedly violated the company’s policy forbidding “inappropriate” content.

Twitter reportedly told Human Coalition that they would be notified by email upon completion of the review. Last Thursday Human Coalition received that email informing them they were suspended from running any advertisements on Twitter.

One of three ads that were moved contained messages explaining that abortion is not healthcare and intentionally killing another human being contradicts the Hippocratic oath. Another mentioned how abortion is the leading cause of death in the African-American community but almost never comes up in the national discourse about racism, and that 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics operate in racial minority neighborhoods.

The third removed ad mentioned that Planned Parenthood aborts more than 900 babies daily and argued that there is “no moral, social, cultural, or health reason” for the abortion giant to exist.

Earlier this week the Daily Caller contacted Twitter to inquire about the suspension and asked why Planned Parenthood was not banned from running ads while the Human Coalition was restricted.

Only two hours after the conservative news outlet made the request, Twitter contacted Human Coalition to tell them they had lifted the suspension and that their tweets were approved.

“Twitter claims to believe in ‘free expression’ and to think that ‘every voice has the power to impact the world.’ I believe Twitter does think that every voice has the power to change the world — and I believe that is exactly why they suppressed Human Coalition and others who proclaim the pro-life worldview,” Human Coalition spokesperson Lauren Enriquez said in a statement.

“The fact that Twitter ideologues actively suppress Human Coalition’s pro-life expressions betrays their fear of how we are changing the world. And we don’t plan to stop changing the world any time soon.”

Human Coalition is not the first pro-life group to have its content regarded as offensive and censored.

Pro-life investigative group Live Action and the pro-life political action committee the Susan B. Anthony List have both tangled with Twitter for the ability to run ads containing messages opposed to abortion and Planned Parenthood.

Likewise, as The Christian Post previously reported, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee currently vying to replace retiring Bob Corker in the U.S. Senate, faced similar issues in October. In her introductory campaign ad she highlighted her role in leading the Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood, speaking specifically how they “stopped the sale of baby body parts—thank God.”

When Twitter pulled the ad they insisted she remove the Planned Parenthood reference because it was “inflammatory,” but Blackburn refused and demanded an apology. Twitter ultimately relented and allowed the ad amid outcry.

Follow Brandon Showalter on Facebook: BrandonMarkShowalter

Follow Brandon Showalter on Twitter: @BrandonMShow

Courtesy of https://www.christianpost.com/news/twitter-restricts-pro-life-advertisements-again-backtracks-amid-media-scrutiny-222260/

College Student Banned From Religious Studies Class After Saying There Are Only 2 Genders

A student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania claims that he has been barred from a religious studies class he needs to graduate this May and asked to apologize after voicing his belief that there are only two biological genders.

Last week, IUP student Lake Ingle took to his Facebook page to let his disbelief be known. He is being punished, he wrote, by the university for his response after the professor of his class on “self, sin and salvation” showed a TED Talks video featuring transgender woman Paula Stone Williams.

Ingle detailed his “best and fairest” account of the incident that transpired after Dr. Alison Downie showed the video to the class on Feb. 28, in a now-deleted Facebook post.

“On Wednesday, February 28th, in one of my major-required courses, the instructor played a ‘Ted-Talk’ during which a transgender woman discussed her previous experiences of manhood as well as her current experiences of womanhood,” Ingle wrote. “During her speech, she gave accounts of things such as ‘mansplaining’, ‘male-privilege’, and ‘sexism’ and deemed them systemic. She also alluded to the REALITY of the gender wage gap, stating women ‘…work twice as hard for half as much.'”

After the video ended, Downie opened the floor for a discussion on “mansplaining,” male privilege, sexism and the gender wage gap and allowed only women to voice their thoughts first.

Ingle stated that after about 30 seconds of silence, he voiced his objection to the “use of one person’s anecdotal accounts of the previously mentioned experiences as fact.”

“I also took this opportunity to point out the official view of biologists who claim there are only two biological genders, as well as data from entities such as The Economist on the gender wage gap and how the claims made in the video were far from the empirically supported evidence,” Ingle wrote. “I then objected to the instructor’s, as well as the Religious Studies Dept.’s misuse of intellectual power, of which I have become familiar over the past few semesters.”

“It was at this point others in the class entered the discussion,” he added. “Class proceeded normally, thereon.”

Expand | Collapse
(PHOTO: LAKE INGLE)Indiana University of Pennsylvania Academic Integrity Referral Form and Documented Agreement

According to Ingle, he met with the instructor the next morning to discuss class project he is working on. During that meeting, Ingle wrote that he was presented with an “Academic Integrity Referral Form and Documented Agreement.”

The form alleges that Ingle had a “disrespectful objection to the professor’s class discussion structure.” It also accused the student of talking out of turn and of having “angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism.”

Additionally, Ingle was accused of making “disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience.”

The form also called for him to issue an apology in front of the class on March 8 for each of the “disrespectful behaviors” described by the professor. The form states that after giving his apology, Ingle would have had to “listen in silence” as students in the class share how they felt during Lake’s “disruptive outbursts.”

Ingle denied the professor’s claims in his Facebook post.

“Though the documents attached present a narrative of disrespect, disruption, anger, and intolerance — I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth,” Ingle said.

The Christian Post reached out to IUP for clarification about Ingle’s alleged “angry outbursts.” However, a university spokesperson told CP that no comment could be provided because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act as it pertains to student education records.

Ingle wrote in his post that he received a second document that lists further details of the violation.

“After these documents were handed to me, I read them carefully several times. I asked for one line to be revised and was answered with ‘no’ and was told it was the instructor’s job to recount what took place, not mine,” he wrote. “I then commented on the total misuse of intellectual power in a university setting, at which point I was asked to leave.”

The next morning on March 2, Ingle received a letter from Provost Timothy Moreland telling him that he is barred from attending the class and barred from speaking with Downie until the charges against him have been adjudicated.

“[T]he wording in the documents below is not only exaggerated, but more than one line is entirely untruthful and is done so purposefully to discredit my views and paint me as intolerant and ignorant,” Ingle said. “THE FACTS ARE: I did not object to the views of the speaker (Paula Stone). Rather, I objected to its misuse as hard evidence to support the ‘reality’ of phenomena that are not only a matter of opinion, but also empirically unsupported (wage gap statistics).”

“It is my belief that the instructor’s decision to file these sanctions is an attempt to bully me into redacting my views, making it a matter of free speech,” he continued. “I will be battling the university, as well as my instructor, to ensure I am not permanently removed from the class, which would mean my inability to graduate as scheduled this May.”

Ingle is subject to a hearing before the school’s Academic Integrity Board. The ruling from the hearing will be announced on March 19.

In another Facebook post, Ingle explained that he was advised to remove the initial Facebook post detailing the situation with the school after he received legal counsel.

Courtesy of https://www.christianpost.com/news/college-student-banned-religious-studies-class-only-2-genders-221135/