July 3, 2013 | Filed Under Abortion, Biology, Britain, Children, Conservatives, Contraception, Democrats/Leftists, Ethics, George W. Bush, Law, Liberals, Pro-Life, Progressives, Science, Stem Cell Research, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
Science is always pushing the envelope to see what it can create, but babies with three parents? That is what a recent report out of Britain claims. Soon babies born of DNA of one man and the donor eggs of two women might be on the horizon.
A report at the Daily Mail says that a baby with three parents could be born as early as 2105 after a “landmark decision” by British authorities to allow a “controversial genetic treatment.”
While the genetic experiments are quite controversial and raises fears of “designer babies,” others feel that many ailments, diseases, and hereditary genetic disorders could be cured and that babies could be born with a level of assurances that they would be healthy.
The techniques, the Daily Mail reports, would take the egg from one mother, inject it with DNA from a second woman and fertilize it with a man’s sperm. “The resulting healthy child,” the Mail reports “would effectively have two mothers and a father.”
The British Government’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, claims that the procedure does not materially alter the genetic traits that would be passed on from the original donor egg and likened the introduction of genetic material from the second female egg to a changing of a “battery pack” in some electronic gadget.
Sandra Fluke: Religious Employers Will Deny Contraception Coverage, Leukemia Treatments, Blood Transfusions
February 4, 2013 | Filed Under Abortion, Anti-Americanism, Children, Contraception, Democrats/Leftists, Ethics, Health, Journalism, Liberals, Media, Media Bias, MSNBC, Obamacare, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Progressives, Sandra Fluke, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
MSNBC is still scheduling Sandra Fluke as a guest and on Friday’s NewsNation with Tamron Hall she essentially claimed that leukemia treatments and contraception coverage is pretty much the same thing in the eyes of those “religious employers” that want to use religious objections to deny “healthcare” coverage to employees.
“I think what it is important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern and they want to be able deny their employees particular types of healthcare.
Now if you take a sep back and think about that, that’s, you know, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to.
So the folks that are still objecting have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee healthcare in this country.
There are many fallacies in this.
-By Warner Todd Huston
The 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, to be held on July 11, is intended to “mobilize global policy” to assure that 120 million women and girls are afforded family planning, contraceptives and other information. Sponsors of the event want more money put to these services for poor women around the world. But it seems likely funding this new program will take money away from actual healthcare services already offered, especially in a day when economies are failing worldwide.
Claiming, “It has been proven that family planning saves lives, improves health, strengthens communities, and stimulates economic growth,” the London Summit intends to get its funding from the international community in any way it can.
One thing seems certain, it is painfully obvious that these people think of pregnancy as an affliction, something that needs to be stamped out. Also interesting is the focus on the poor in a eugenics-like push to eliminate the lower classes of peoples by encouraging fewer pregnancies.
-By Daniel Clark
On February 23rd, the Virginia state legislature put off any action on its proposed “personhood bill” until next year, much to the relief of Republican strategists who want to steer clear of so-called “social issues.” These critics may have a point when they complain that the bill needlessly throws a wild card into an electoral deck that appears to be stacked against the Democrats, but perhaps its proponents aren’t concerned with political expediency. Maybe they simply believe that the law ought to tell the truth.
Supporters of the initiative want the law to recognize that, at the instant of fertilization, a new member of the human species is created, and that this being is, by definition, a person. That might sound like an open-and-shut case as far as the facts are concerned, but when liberals find the facts disagreeable, they assume the ability to just theorize them away.
An article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, cited in a February 29th London Telegraph article, condones infanticide, although authors Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva prefer the darkly comical euphemism “after-birth abortion.” That term reflects their contention that, “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”
-By Frank Salvato
Have you heard this one? What do you call a law school co-ed who needs $1000 worth of birth control…annually? Evidently, in today’s politically correct society – a society devoid of the concept of shame – a women’s health advocate.
Two of the casualties of the Progressive Movement – the movement that gave us the unyielding mandate of “tolerance,” the one-size-fits-all prescription for forced diversity, an American citizenry who, in order to be American must divide itself up based on a multicultural edict, and the shadow set of laws known as political correctness – are truth and the capacity to state truth. The Fluke-Limbaugh faux controversy is a perfect example.
A hypothetical (which really isn’t but I need to use the disclaimer for our purposes here)…
A modern day woman, youthful to middle-aged, frequents a popular local eating and drinking establishment. She is considered a “regular” to many, and is known to the staff and to the other “regulars” who find themselves in that establishment on a more frequent basis. For the purposes of example, let’s call her Candra.
Now, Candra had a good upbringing. Her parents – upper-middle class and considered successful – were able to save enough money to put Candra through college. She graduated and landed a decent job. She works hard, her co-workers like her and her employers are glad to have her as part of the team. Candra’s philosophy about life is “I work hard, so I play hard,” and who can blame her. She’s in the prime of her life. She’s single. She’s free. So, Candra enjoys a hearty social life.
March 7, 2012 | Filed Under 1st Amendment, Abortion, Barack Obama, Conservatives, Contraception, Democrats/Leftists, Ethics, Government, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, Republicans, Saul Alinsky, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
If you want to see how the left skews the narrative using untrue claims and false imagery to sell a message, you don’t need any other example than President Obama’s recent press conference where he continued to perpetrate the myth that Sandra Flake is somehow an innocent coed, a kid barely out of high school, when she is actually a long-time liberal activist in her 30s.
At the press conference the President was asked about Rush Limbaugh and his apology. Not only did Obama drag his own daughters into the debate, but he said he told activist Fluke that “her parents should be proud of her.” This line feeds into the myth that Sandra Fluke is but a young coed. However, Fluke is 30 years old. People stop assuring folks that their parents should be proud of them once they begin approaching middle age, certainly! If Mz. Fluke’s parents still aren’t proud of her as a 30-year-old, I doubt the president can help matters much.
But the thing here is, the left wants to promulgate the false image that Fluke is a young woman, innocent as the driven snow. She just isn’t. She’s a conniving activist, not a wide-eyed coed.
-By Warner Todd Huston
You know the story by now, right? Republicans run the he-man women haters club.
As the media has it the story goes like this: poor, unassuming, innocent Georgetown coed, accidentally ends up in front of Congress pleading for “reproductive rights.” Evil mean conservatives led by scalawag Rush Limbaugh unfairly call her a slut and announce a war on women to end their “access to contraception.”
Of course, that’s the left-wing media’s narrative. The real tale is that this is as manufactured a story as you can find, one created for the purpose of assisting Obama and his Democrat cohorts win the upcoming election. It’s all a scam.
The “coed” in question is one Sandra Fluke, a young woman that has been presented as some sort of expert in “reproductive rights” (another one of those faux rights we that have been foisted onto the public debate of late), but is she? Where did Mz Fluke really come from and what is her background? Why was she presented as some sort of “expert” by a sitting Congresswoman, the former Speaker of the House, no less?
March 5, 2012 | Filed Under 1st Amendment, Abortion, Constitution, Contraception, Democrats/Leftists, Ethics, Liberals, Media, PCism, President, Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Society/Culture, Talk Radio, Warner Todd Huston | 5 Comments
-By Warner Todd Huston
There is accidental “hypocrisy,” where you didn’t actually realize that you have committed the logic/moral sin, and then there is rank hypocrisy, that time when you do two things that are totally opposite each other yet you defend both. The on-line computer backup company, Carbonite, has committed the latter over this business with Slutgate and its ending of advertising with the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
For those unaware, a long-time liberal activist named Sandra Fluke was brought to a faux committee hearing in D.C. by former Speaker of the House Nancy “Sanfran” Pelosi to disgorge the left-wing, big government, liberal ideology about spending federal tax dollars to give free sex supplies to rich Georgetown coeds so that they can sleep around all they want without all those messy consequences.
After her White House planned “testimony” Rush Limbaugh, as is his wont, called this woman a slut. It’s hard to defeat his blustery logic with that. After all, what DO you call a woman that thinks everyone else should pay for both her education and her sex supplies? Anyway, Rush made such a splash with the comment that the inevitable, left-wing faux outrage was ginned up.
As a result, Carbonite announced that it would pull its advertising from the Limbaugh show.
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School