Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Former Chinese Prisoner Explains the Evils of Socialism and Communism

Jennifer Zeng was born in Sichuan province, China in 1966. Growing up in communist China meant she was taught the Chinese Communist Party was the savior of her country, but she soon learned the true nature of the party.

Court Strikes Down Obama Rule Forcing Doctors to Perform Transgender Surgery

On Tuesday, a district court judge struck down the Obama administration's since defunct mandate forcing doctors to perform transgender surgery regardless of their religious convictions or conscientious objections. The mandate, handed down by Obama's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), ironically did not apply to Medicare and Medicaid or to military doctors because the government's own research showed that transgender hormones and surgeries can be harmful.

Under Trump, the HHS finalized rules protecting religious freedom, but the Obama mandate remained on the books.

The ruling in Franciscan Alliance v. Azar struck down that mandate and upheld the religious freedom of doctors who would refuse to administer hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. Some doctors have warned that even the hormones — the less invasive "treatment" — give healthy people a disease. The actual surgery often involves sterilizing a patient for life. Mandating such "treatments" would force doctors to violate the Hippocratic oath.

"It is critically important that doctors are able to continue serving patients in keeping with their consciences and their professional medical judgment, especially when it comes to the personal health choices of families and children," Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, the law firm representing the Franciscan Alliance, said in a statement. "Doctors cannot do their jobs if government bureaucrats are trying to force them to perform potentially harmful procedures that violate their medical and moral judgment."

"Today marks a major victory for compassion, conscience, and sound medical judgment," Goodrich added. "Our clients look forward to joyfully continuing to serve all patients, regardless of their sex or gender identity, and continuing to provide top-notch care to transgender patients for everything from cancer to the common cold."

After the Obama administration handed down the mandate, an association of over 19,000 health care professionals, nine states, and several religious organizations filed two lawsuits against it. In December 2016, two different federal courts issued preliminary decisions ruling the policy an unlawful federal overreach and likely a violation of religious freedom.

District Judge Reed O'Connor agreed, ruling that the mandate violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Research shows that there are significant risks with sex reassignment surgery, including hearth conditions, increased cancer risk, and loss of bone density. Children with gender dysphoria (the condition of persistently identifying with the gender opposite one's biological sex) are extremely unlikely to continue in that condition after puberty. Many realize they are not transgender, but instead gay or lesbian — like detransitioner Charlotte Evans, who launched a network for formerly transgender people.

This transgender mandate, like many other Obama-era policies, aimed to use the strong arm of the state to enforce what amounts to a new belief system. While a few people have disorders of sex development, most human beings are either male or female from the moment of conception. Men and women have key biological differences from the womb, and no amount of transgender "treatments" can alter a person's DNA, which impacts his or her development throughout life.

Erasing biological sex in order to enshrine transgender identity in medical best practices has real consequences for patients. In one particularly tragic case, a pregnant woman who identified as a man went to a hospital with abdominal pain. Because she identified as male and records listed her as male, doctors discounted the idea that she could be in labor. She did not receive the care she needed and her child died. Had the medical establishment rightly categorized her as female, her baby would have survived. Yet doctors took the opposite lesson, chiding themselves for not considering the ludicrous idea that a man could be pregnant.

The Obama administration attempted to redefine the word "sex" in federal civil rights law to include gender identity, a person's internal sense of self. This is not accurate, linguistically or scientifically. Yet the Obama HHS attempted to force doctors to adopt this view, with no protections for conscientious objectors.

Judge O'Connor was right to strike down the Obama mandate, but Democrats are leaping over one another to pledge their loyalty to the transgender movement. Should a Democrat follow President Donald Trump in the White House, he or she would likely issue a new transgender mandate.


Fact-Checking the 2020 Democrats on Abortion

During the fourth Democratic debate last week, every Democrat questioned on the issue said he or she supports abortion as a woman's fundamental right. They also suggested that most Americans support abortion and that restrictions on abortion are an attack on the poor.

Two of the Democrats repeated the claim that at least 75 percent of Americans support Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court decision that codified abortion as a woman's right. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) even claimed that pro-life legislators used restrictions on abortion to "criminalize poverty."

In these and other claims, the candidates misrepresented the views of the American people and the aims of pro-life legislators. Codifying current Supreme Court precedent on abortion is not nearly as popular as they suggested it is.

Many Democrats insisted that Americans support abortion as a woman's right.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said what she would tell President Donald Trump if he was on the stage. "You, Donald Trump, are not on the side of women. You are not on the side of people of this country, when over 75 percent of people want to keep Roe v. Wade on the book," she declared.

When former Vice President Joe Biden called for codifying Roe v. Wade into law, echoing each of the other candidates, he added, "the public is already there."

"We now have support across this country. Three out of four Americans believe in the rule of Roe v. Wade," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) insisted.

These Democrats seem to have been referring to an NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist Poll released in June. In that poll, the vast majority of Americans (77 percent) expressed qualified support for Roe v. Wade. Yet their answers were more complicated than mere support for the decision.

New Poll: 65 Percent of Americans Support Overturning Roe v. Wade
The survey asked, "In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court established the constitutional right for women to legally obtain an abortion. Over time, other laws have expanded or restricted this ruling. Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court today, should decide to: Overturn Roe v. Wade; Keep Roe v. Wade but add more restrictions; Keep Roe v. Wade but reduce some of the restrictions; Expand Roe v. Wade establishing the right to abortion under any circumstance; or Keep Roe v. Wade the way it is.

While only 13 percent of Americans in the poll said Roe should be overturned, 26 percent said they want more restrictions on abortion. About one-fifth (21 percent) said they want to see Roe expanded to make abortion legal in any circumstances, while 14 percent said they would keep Roe and reduce restrictions on abortion. Only 16 percent said they would keep Roe the way it is, while 11 percent said they were unsure.

Yet another Marist poll, this time conducted in junction with the Knights of Columbus (KoC), found that most Americans would effectively support overturning Roe and allowing states to make their own laws on abortion. The poll asked respondents, "Which comes closest to your view of what the Supreme Court should do when it reconsiders Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling making abortion illegal in the United States?"

Most Americans either wanted the Court to make abortion illegal (16 percent) or to "allow states to make certain restrictions" (49 percent). Both of these outcomes would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. Less than a third of Americans (30 percent) said abortion should be "legal without restriction." Another 6 percent admitted they were unsure.

Democrats point to the one poll and say, "77 percent of Americans support Roe!" while conservatives can point to the second poll and say, "65 percent of Americans support overturning Roe so states can make their own laws on abortion."

Although more Americans identify as "pro-choice" than as "pro-life," more than three-quarters (76 percent) say abortion should only be legal within the first three months of pregnancy; or in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother; or only to save the mother's life; or never a all. Even 60 percent of "pro-choice" Americans agree with these restrictions, as do 61 percent of Democrats, according to another Marist poll. Only 12 percent support the idea that abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy.

Supreme Court precedent is far more radical than most Americans' positions on abortion.

Roe v. Wade struck down state laws on abortion, only allowing states to protect the life of an unborn baby after "viability," defined at 28 weeks gestation. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) revised that standard, allowing states to protect life at the point of viability. However, the Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton (1973) seems to have made it legal for a woman to get an abortion after the point of viability, so long as a doctor says the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother's health, broadly defined to include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age."

Poll: 79 Percent of New York Residents Oppose the State's Radical Abortion Bill
For these reasons, when Democrats pass laws to "codify Roe v. Wade," they include provisions similar to this broader view of Doe v. Bolton. For instance, New York's radical abortion bill legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy — even after 24 weeks, so long as "the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

According to a KoC/Marist poll conducted shortly after the bill was signed, New York State residents oppose allowing abortion during all 9 months of pregnancy. Most New York residents (79 percent) support some restrictions on abortion: 13 percent say it should be limited to the first six months of pregnancy; 26 percent say it should only be allowed during the first three months; 22 percent would restrict it to cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother; 9 percent would allow it only to save the life of the mother; and 9 percent would never permit abortion in any circumstances.

If New York's law represents "codifying Roe v. Wade," most Americans disapprove.

Yet the worst part of Democrats' rhetoric on abortion involved the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment prevents taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. Since many Americans think life begins at conception, they consider abortion a fundamental evil, tantamount to murder.

Yet Democrats suggested that restrictions on abortion — and especially the Hyde Amendment — are attacks on the poor.

Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary under Obama, supported striking down the Hyde Amendment "because you shouldn't only be able to have reproductive freedom if you have money."

"I lived in an America where abortion was illegal, and rich women still got abortions," Warren said, suggesting that rich women simply went to counties where abortion was legal. "The people who are denied access to abortion are the poor, are the young, are 14-year-olds who are molested by a family member."

Booker went the furthest on the issue. He opposed the Hyde Amendment and characterized laws to restrict abortion as "another example of people trying to punish, trying to penalize, trying to criminalize poverty ... It is an assault on the most fundamental ideal that human beings should control their own bodies."

Yet neither the Hyde Amendment nor restrictions on abortion are intended to "criminalize poverty." Rather, the Hyde Amendment protects Americans from funding what they consider to be murder. Abortion restrictions protect the lives of unborn babies.

From the moment of conception, an unborn baby has unique human DNA. For this reason, 95 percent of biologists have agreed that human life begins at conception — and most Americans say biologists, not politicians, should determine when life begins.

Abortion is a thorny issue for Americans. Most of them support women's rights and autonomy, but they also want to protect unborn babies. Women should have the ability to decide when to become mothers — and they do have the freedom to refuse sex. This is one of the many reasons rape is considered an extremely heinous crime. Abortion should not be considered a secondary form of birth control.

While Warren may have been incorrect about Americans' support for Roe v. Wade, she did make one positive contribution to the abortion debate as a whole.

"We should not leave this to the Supreme Court, we should do this through democracy," Warren said, referring to passing a law through Congress and having it signed by the president. Abortion is one of the major areas of American law where the Supreme Court has effectively made law, usurping the authority of Congress and the president.

For this reason, Roe v. Wade should be overturned. If the states and the American people want to put a woman's right to an abortion into the Constitution, there is an amendment process for that. If the American people want laws like New York's radical abortion law, codifying Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Congress has the power to do that. The Supreme Court shouldn't have usurped it in the first place.


Justice Party-Endorsed Candidate Thinks it's a Great Idea to Disarm Police

Jamaal Bowman, a candidate for Congress looking to defeat incumbent Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) has some unusual ideas on how to make his New York district safer.

"It’s time to disarm the police.."

Yes, he said that.

It's not really a novel idea, although just because it isn't new doesn't mean it isn't bat guano crazy. But Bowman, who doesn't have a prayer against Engel (first elected in 1988), is only one of three candidates challenging the incumbent.

And one of them agrees with him.

Washington Free Beacon:

A fellow progressive Democrat looking to unseat Engel from the left, educator Andom Ghebreghiorgis, echoed Bowman’s call to disarm police.

"As someone who envisions a society free of guns, I support disarming police," said Ghebreghiorgis, adding that arming police "needlessly escalates what should be non-confrontational interactions between community stakeholders."

But a third challenger with 25 years of police experience, Sammy Ravelo, disagreed, calling Bowman’s support for disarmament "outrageous and irresponsible."

Can you imagine a New York cop wading into the middle of a face off between gangs without a gun trying to be "non-confrontational"? And that's the big problem. Mentioning the London police not being armed is ludicrous. Only 4 out of a hundred British citizens own a firearm. The cops aren't armed because no one else is, either.

Bowman is also likely underestimating the contrast between the United States and the United Kingdom in terms of crime rates. According to data from the Metropolitan Police Service, there were roughly 131 homicides in London in 2018, a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 residents. That figure was actually the highest in a decade, thanks to a spate of stabbings that made international news.

At the same time, London's 2018 homicide rate was less than half New York City's for that year. According to the NYPD, the city experienced 295 homicides, for a rate of 3.5 per 100,000 population. The Bronx, which lies in the 16th district, had it even worse, with a homicide rate of 6.4 per 100,000 population.

London does not even come close to the homicide rate of comparable major U.S. cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, despite a decades-long trend of declining crime in the United States. Even at the lowest rates in 30 years, the United States is simply more violent than other nations.

Mr. Ghebreghiorgis, who wants us all to live in peace and harmony and sing Kumbaya around the campfire, is delusional. Maybe he could try subduing a violent felon hopped up on meth in a "non-confrontational" way. People might pay to see that.

The police take the responsibility of being armed because it is they who must place themselves in harms way when violent sociopaths threaten the innocent. Not all of them measure up to that responsibility. Some officers who are armed have no business carrying a weapon and should find some other way to serve the people.

But the vast majority of police are cautious and responsible in the use of their firearm. That's all we can ask for.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

While I suspect that the 'Justice Party' is a collection of Social Justice nitwits, and their position on disarming the police is so much drivel, something DOESS need to be done about the dynamic of law enforcement in our society.

I have only ever had ONE bad interaction with a genuine Police officer (though I have hd multiple bad encounters with rent-a-cops, none of them were moonlighting cops) and he was genuinely loathed by his own department. Still, every month I read about some cop or cops doing something idiotic with their guns (raiding the wrong house on stupidly bad information, shooting a dog that was behind a fence, etc.) and essentially getting away with it because of 'qualified immunity' or because 'all department guidelines were followed (doesn't that mean that the cops AND the moron who wrote the guidelines need to be fired?)

Disarming the cops isn't insane. It won't work out well, but if I lived in a city (and New York is one) where they routinely exceeded their authority and flouted common sense, I would be strongly tempted to do something along those lines, if only to make them goddamned THINK before throwing their weight around.