Month: January 2019

(CNSNews.com) — On Tuesday, Jan. 22, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Idaho state lawmakers released the draft of a proposed law that would treat abortion as murder and allow it to be prosecuted as such.

The Idaho Abortion Human Rights Act, drafted by Idaho state representatives John Green (R) and Heather Scott (R), would repeal a section of Idaho law that prohibits the prosecution of abortion.

Currently, section 18-4001 of the Idaho Code defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus.” In addition, under Idaho Code 32-102, “a child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests, in the event of its subsequent birth.”

Under current Idaho law, however, “the killing of an embryo or fetus” through abortion is legal.

Section 18-4016 of the Idaho Code prohibits the prosecution of “any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.”

The Idaho Abortion Human Rights Act would repeal section 18-4016. “Abortion is, without question, the chief means of depriving unborn Idahoans of the most fundamental of all human rights, which is the right to life,” said Reps. Green and Scott.

“To accomplish this historic restoration of human rights for the unborn in Idaho, the act simply repeals the prohibition of prosecution for abortion, found in Idaho Code 18-4016 and puts the matter within existing statute for the prosecution of murder, where it clearly belongs,” said the lawmakers.

Prosecution apparently would apply to the abortionist and persons who assist in abortions, but not to the mother of the child. 

The legal change would protect Idaho’s law enforcement officers and legislators to prosecute abortion regardless of federal law.

“Idaho code defines a fetus as a human and says killing a human is murder, abortion is in contradiction to the inalienable rights recognized in the Idaho Constitution, and the State of Idaho has the authority to nullify federal laws that would allow abortions,” reads part of the draft legislation.

Currently, abortion access is protected under Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States. A recent Marist poll, however, found that 65 percent of Americans think the decision should be revisited or even reversed – and, in an interview published on Wednesday, Jan. 23, Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen admitted that “within the next year we could see Roe v. Wade overturned or further eroded.”

In a press release, Rep. Green and Rep. Scott noted that the potential new Idaho law “is not an attempt to establish a test case for federal judicial review.”

“Rather, it recognizes that the courts render opinions that are sometimes unconstitutional and that the State of Idaho and its officers are bound by oath to original interpretation of the constitutions,” the lawmakers wrote.

Reps. Scott and Green also noted that Idaho, “as a sovereign state within the federal republic, has the fundamental duty to act as a check and a balance to the federal government when it errs on constitutional issues.”

“In fact, courts don’t make laws, legislatures do,” the lawmakers added.

The pro-life group Americans United for Life wrote, in its annual publication on abortion-related legislation in the United States, that Idaho “has made significant strides in protecting women and the unborn from abortion.”

In March 2018, Idaho passed an amendment to SB 1243, a law which aims to ensure that “the consent to an abortion is truly informed consent.”

The amendment required doctors to offer women seeking abortions the option to observe their unborn child’s heartbeat via ultrasound, and tell women seeking chemical abortions about interventions that could potentially reverse the abortion part-way through.

SB 1243 also requires abortion facilities to provide pregnant women with photos and physical descriptions of fetuses throughout pregnancy, as well as descriptions of abortion procedures.

Former police officer and Turning Point USA Director of Urban Engagement Brandon Tatum told Breitbart News on Sunday securing the United States border is crucial, as the nation is also dealing with the severe consequences of illegal drugs pouring into the country.

Tatum spoke to Breitbart News in Los Angeles, California, at Candace Owens’ first Blexit event of 2019. He said that securing the United States border is “absolutely invaluable,” given what he has seen as a police officer in Arizona.

“The six years I was a police officer, I saw such an influx in heroin and Fentanyl, that it was outrageous,” said Tatum, “Just to give you an idea, every police officer in the entire police department had to carry Narcan, which is something that they shoot into your nose to bring you back to life if you overdose on heroin.”

“With the Fentanyl out, it became so bad, that every time we test drugs, we now have to wear a full body suit and a mask — because of the effects of Fentanyl — if it seeps through your skin or if you inhale it, you can die,” continued Tatum.

“It is absolutely invaluable for us to not only build a wall — to help our border patrol, but also — to let everybody in the world know you’re not just going to come in our country uncontested,” said the former police officer.

Tatum added that the black community has been hearing “one side” for a long time, and that it needs to change.

“My premise is for us to expose people to another reality, and give them the opportunity to make decisions on their own,” said Tatum of the Blexit movement, “We want to give them positive information — good sources, and then they can make the conscious decision, as adults, to go and do the things that they think are necessary for their communities.”

Tatum said that he hopes Blexit will result in a big turnout of voters, but that he especially hopes it will expose African Americans to the truth of the negative impact that the Democrat Party has had on their communities.

You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo and on Instagram.

Dartmouth Professor Jeff Sharlet argued in favor of “doxxing” the Covington Catholic High School students in a tweet this week.

In a Tuesday-night tweet, Dartmouth English Professor Jeff Sharlet argued that the personal information of students from Covington Catholic High School should be released online. The students came under fire last week after a storm of misleading news reports led the masses to believe that they had behaved inappropriately at a rally in Washington D.C.

“I’ll have no problem with someone doxxing these boys,” Sharlet wrote, according to a report from The College Fix. Sharlet has since locked down his Twitter account, making it inaccessible to anyone who wasn’t already following him.

“Doxing” refers to the public release of an individual’s private information. Often, the private information is released in the hopes that someone will harm the individual that is being targeted.

Sharlet was immediately criticized by liberal Yale Professor Nicholas Christakis, who famously faced off against a far-left student mob after his wife criticized a Yale policy on offensive Halloween costumes.

“I haven’t followed this case closely. But mob justice is not justice. At least that my opinion,” Christakis wrote.  “Would you say the same thing about the doxxing of (often minority) students on campuses by the right? Plus, the point of justice is that it not be impassioned.

I haven’t followed this case closely. But mob justice is not justice. At least that my opinion.

— Nicholas A. Christakis (@NAChristakis) January 19, 2019

After the criticism started to pile up, Sharlet doubled down, arguing that the Covington students are worse than the “violent anti-semitic bullies” that he knew as a child.

“I grew up a nearly singular Jew amidst some violent anti-Semitic bullies. The Covington creeps are worse. I never saw anything that grotesque in my working class white, fairly racist high school,” Sharlet tweeted.

Stay tuned to Breitbart News for more updates on this story.

 

A California judge sentenced an illegal alien on Tuesday to 401 years to life in prison for his role in carrying out multiple sex crimes.

Macario Cerda, 39, received the sentence after a jury found him guilty in December of several sex crimes— including three counts of forcible rape, seven counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 years old, one count of kidnapping to commit rape, and one count of criminal threats.

Cerda— who had been in a relationship with the victim’s mother— allegedly raped his victim in 2013 after he forced her into his van and drove her to a remote area.

The victim hopped into the driver’s seat of the van and drove the vehicle away when Cerda was not looking. Tulare County Sheriff’s deputies eventually caught up with Cerda and arrested him.

Officials who investigated the 2013 rape found that Cerda had previously raped the victim in 2010, when she was still a minor, authorities said. The rape resulted in a pregnancy, and later the birth of a child.

The victim’s younger sister also told authorities that Cerda raped her and abused her in 2009, adding that she had been a minor at the time of the incident.

When the younger sister gave her impact statement in court, she described the crimes Cerda had committed against her and family and forgave him for his actions.

Cerda had also asked the judge to “never grant him any possibility at being deported because he has crawled his way back into the States illegally way too many times.”

“Behind the closed doors of this family, the women and girls suffered greatly from the ongoing and horrific violence at the hands of Cerda,” the Tulare County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement.

The 39-year-old illegal alien had been deported from the U.S. before, and illegally re-entered the country five months after his deportation shortly before he committed his crimes.

Free speech social network Gab has secured a new payment processor following its blacklisting from major payment services, including PayPal and Stripe, which left accepting mailed payments the site’s only recourse.

Gab announced the new payment processor in a statement on Tuesday.

“Gab.com operates on one rule: if political speech is legal in the United States, that speech is allowed on Gab,” the company declared. “Companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Netflix, Patreon, Square, and Stripe disagree with this proposition, and believe not only that it is morally correct to dictate to Internet users what opinions we are and are not allowed to hold, but that it is morally correct to deplatform any company that disagrees with the California consensus, and actively suppress opinions, as well as the people who express them, where their users’ beliefs don’t accord with corporate interests.”

“The only thing censorship accomplishes is the elimination of reasoned argument and self-sorting into filter bubbles. Accordingly, Gab does not censor controversial opinions that are protected by the First Amendment, and we never will,” Gab continued. “People everywhere are waking up to the significant danger of allowing banks and large technology companies to police their opinions and what they are and are not allowed to see. Companies like our own, like our DNS hosting provider epik.com, and our new payment processor, 2nd Amendment Processing, recognize both the danger of kowtowing to online mobs and the significant upside potential of serving as the backbone of the free and open Internet.”

Gab then concluded, “We are immensely pleased to be working with 2nd Amendment Processing, a company that recognizes that freedom of speech is not a means to an end, but an end unto itself, and we recommend 2nd Amendment Processing to any company with difficulty securing payment processing services for political reasons.”

In his own statement, 2nd Amendment Processing CEO Thomas Troyer declared, “When I heard Gab’s story on Breitbart News Daily of how they were being blocked by many financial services companies and banks, I knew instantly I had to fight for them and their 1st Amendment rights just like we fight for our customers within the firearms industry and the protection of the 2nd Amendment. We, after all, believe the 2nd Amendment protects the all other Amendments, so this just made sense to us.”

Gab CEO Andrew Torba added in a statement to Breitbart News, “To our critics, we say this: the best way to combat hate speech is persuasion, not repression; more and better speech, not censorship. We welcome our critics on the far left to join the site and exercise their First Amendment rights, which we will always protect.”

In October, Gab was blacklisted by its payment processors, web host, and Go Daddy, prompting the social network to temporarily go offline.

Gab has also been blacklisted by Apple and Google, which have repeatedly rejected Gab’s mobile app from their stores.

Gab is not the only alternative social network to have faced blacklisting, with YouTube alternative BitChute being blacklisted from PayPal in November.

Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington, or like his page at Facebook.

(CNSNews.com) — Last Thursday, Jan. 17, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that undercover video footage filmed by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which showed Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of tissue from aborted fetuses, was “authentic” and “not deceptively edited.”

The federal appeals court also vacated an injunction by a district court, which had barred the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) from terminating Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood affiliates throughout Texas. The federal appeals court sent the case back to the district court.

In its opinion, the federal appeals court wrote, “The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited.”

“In fact, the record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” the court added in a footnote. “And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.”

In 2015, the CMP, a pro-life organization, released several hours of undercover video footage that showed employees and doctors from various Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing potential research partnerships with individuals who expressed interest in obtaining body parts of fetuses aborted during the second trimester of pregnancy and paying a handling and shipping fee for those parts.

After the footage was released, the OIG sent Planned Parenthood affiliates a notice of termination of their Medicaid agreements. The OIG argued that the affiliates had violated “accepted medical standards, as reflected in federal and state law,” and were no longer “qualified to provide medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal and ethical manner.”

The violations included altering abortion procedures to obtain “targeted” tissue samples for researchers, “deviating from accepted standards” to procure samples, misrepresenting “activity related to fetal tissue procurements” and “a willingness to charge more than the costs incurred for procuring fetal tissue.”

The Planned Parenthood affiliates then sued, winning a preliminary injunction that stopped the OIG from terminating the Medicaid agreements. The OIG appealed, and, last Thursday, the appeals court vacated the injunction.

In response to the appeals court’s ruling, Planned Parenthood Texas Votes Executive Director Yvonne Gutierrez said the organization was evaluating its options “for seeking further relief” in the district court.

“This is not a loss on the merits, although we are disappointed in the ruling,” Gutierrez said.

Planned Parenthood Texas Votes said, “Blocking access to Planned Parenthood would hurt people in communities who are struggling to get by the most. That’s why Planned Parenthood & its patients will continue to fight for it to stay in the Medicaid program.”

CMP founder David Daleiden wrote that the court’s decision “vindicated” the CMP’s “citizen journalism work” by “debunking Planned Parenthood’s smear that the videos were ‘heavily edited’ or ‘doctored.’”

“Now, it is time for the U.S. Department of Justice to do its job and hold Planned Parenthood accountable to the law,” Daleiden added.

Since the videos were released in 2015, Planned Parenthood has claimed CMP’s footage was heavily and deceptively edited. Many mainstream news outlets have reported that the footage was altered or distorted, using, as the basis for these claims, a Fusion GPS report that was commissioned and funded by Planned Parenthood.

Some Democrats are starting to get tired of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s vendetta against President Donald Trump as the partial government shutdown drags on.

The shutdown hinges on the left’s unwillingness to comply with Trump’s demand for funding for a border wall.

Initially, Democrats were happy to rally behind Pelosi’s stance against Trump, but some of the party’s representatives are now showing signs of fatigue.

Newly-elected Michigan Democrat, Rep. Elissa Slotkin, suggested that Pelosi should come to a deal with Trump, according to MLive.

Slotkin said that party leaders should just “get in the damn room” with Trump to negotiate a compromise.

TRENDING: Judge Scorches Election Officials After Discovering They Illegally Allowed Migrant To Vote

But that’s easier said than done for someone like Pelosi, who seems to have a personal vendetta against Trump.

Last week, Pelosi infamously asked Trump to reschedule or cancel the annual State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 29.

The Democrat leader cited “security” concerns as her reason, but it’s obvious even to liberals that she was just trying to make a jab at Trump.

However, Pelosi received push back from some Democrats for her unnecessary attack.

Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Fox News on Tuesday that he would be open to Trump delivering the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.

Hoyer had also contradicted Pelosi on statements about the border wall last week.

“Look, I don’t think this is an issue of morality, it’s an issue of does it work,” Hoyer told Fox News in contradiction to Pelosi’s claim that the border wall is immoral.

Hoyer also admitted that the border wall works “in some places.”

Another Democrat is even going as far as explicitly calling on fellow lawmakers to build the wall.

RELATED: Don’t Tell Leftists, But Here’s a Massive Border Barrier the EU Spent Millions on

“Give Trump the money,” Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson told KFGO’s “News & Views” on Tuesday.

“I’d give him the whole thing … and put strings on it so you make sure he puts the wall where it needs to be. Why are we fighting over this? We’re going to build that wall anyway, at some time,” Peterson added.

While Peterson is more moderate than some of his Democratic peers, it won’t be long until more Democrats ask Pelosi to give in.

Clearly, Pelosi is being unreasonable — and even Democrats are catching on.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.