Wednesday, June 15, 2022



The antiabortion movement fuels a growth industry: Pregnancy centers

Rayenieshia Cole did not want another child. She couldn’t afford it. A single mother who made her living dancing at a strip club, she had few relatives in Texas to help raise her three boys.

When Cole learned she was pregnant last fall, she visited an abortion clinic, where she passed an ultrasound screening — Texas had just enacted a law prohibiting abortion after about six weeks — and made an appointment to return the next day to end her pregnancy.

As Cole was leaving the clinic, several antiabortion activists approached. They directed her to a nonprofit a couple of hundred yards away called Birth Choice, which they said could help her financially — if she chose to keep the baby.

Cole had never heard of a pregnancy center. Curious, she walked over and was struck by how the staff did not judge her.

“They were really willing to help. They had a lot of resources,” said Cole, 27. “Housing resources, helping you get a job resources.”

In March, she gave birth to a son, Kanye, three months premature. Birth Choice provided a car seat, stroller and other items and promised continuing support for three years.

Pregnancy centers vary in what they offer and their religious affiliations, but they have the same goal: persuading “abortion-minded” women to reconsider and supporting those who continue their pregnancies.

Even with Roe vs. Wade in place, low-income women struggle to get abortions in Texas
May 8, 2022

Abortion rights advocates accuse the facilities — which they often refer to as crisis pregnancy centers — of deceiving women by setting up shop next to abortion clinics and dressing staff in doctors’ coats and surgical scrubs despite being exempt from medical standards of care and monitoring.

“The state calls them pregnancy resource centers,” said Dr. Bhavik Kumar, staff physician at the Planned Parenthood Center for Choice in Houston. “I call them state-funded fake clinics.”

He said the centers don’t provide enough financial support or address the many other reasons that women seek abortions.

“Simply providing diapers and baby clothes is not going to make this go away,” Kumar said. “This is years of caring for people and probably the children they have at home.”

The first center opened in 1967 in a home in Hawaii as the movement to legalize abortion was gaining momentum. Today they operate as nonprofits in every state, with more than 2,500 centers nationwide — about triple the number of abortion clinics. Most belong to one of four Christian antiabortion networks.

The Associated Press recently found that 13 states have spent $495 million since 2010 to help fund the centers — including at least $89 million this fiscal year.

That is expected to grow if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, a ruling expected this month that could lead to abortion in effect being banned in 26 states.

“We pray for an end to abortion. We hope that day will come,” said Ronda Kay Moreland, chair of Birth Choice’s board. “But that won’t put an end to the need for what we do. We’re going to be inundated, and if anything, we’ll need to grow our services.”

As tensions build over the looming court decision, pregnancy centers are finding themselves facing backlash.

Since a draft opinion overturning Roe was leaked last month, centers in New York, Maryland, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia and a Dallas suburb have had windows smashed and been set on fire and splashed with red paint.

They were also tagged with messages that included “Forced birth is murder” and “If abortion isn’t safe, you aren’t either” — a signature slogan of an abortion rights group called Jane’s Revenge.

Moreland said Birth Choice has consulted with local police and increased security ahead of the Roe ruling. “Anyone associated with the pro-life movement needs to practice good safety measures now more than ever,” she said.

Texas has about 200 pregnancy centers — more than any other state — and over this year and the next will spend $100 million on them, a total that includes some federal welfare dollars.

Birth Choice received $116,000 in state funding this year.

“We’re blessed to live in a state that does have an active approach,” Moreland said. “I mean, the state of Texas is giving, providing financial support and resources.”

The rest of the center’s budget — roughly $500,000 — comes from private donations and grants.

Moreland, executive producer of a local conservative talk radio show, said she supports Birth Choice because she was adopted in the fall of 1974, less than a year after Roe.

“My birth mother could have chosen to have me aborted,” she said. “I had a really good life, so I do this to give back.”

Started by a local Catholic activist, Birth Choice opened in 2009 in the same office complex as a new abortion clinic, the Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center. Moreland said the goal was “to have a last line of support next door.”

Some of the regular protesters in the parking lot handing out antiabortion pamphlets and rosaries belong to the Catholic Diocese of Dallas. While they don’t have a formal affiliation with Birth Choice, staffers call them “sidewalk counselors.”

Located in a second-floor office near an accountant and a spa in a sprawling middle-class neighborhood, the center has nine employees, including two nurses. It offers counseling, pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and other services aimed at helping women through pregnancy and early motherhood.

Some assistance comes without strings, but the women they help can get more by using “baby bucks” they earn by attending classes.

Moreland said the center sees about 1,000 women a year and over the last dozen years has prevented at least 2,000 abortions.

The center belongs to Heartbeat International, a nonprofit founded in 1971 that describes itself as an “interdenominational Christian association” that aims “to reach and rescue as many lives as possible, around the world, through an effective network of life-affirming pregnancy help.” It claims more than 3,100 affiliated centers in 80 countries.

In a recent speech at the group’s annual conference this spring, the group’s general counsel, Danielle White, spoke proudly of a brief she filed in the abortion case now before the Supreme Court.

“I had the distinct honor and opportunity to tell the court women don’t need abortion,” she said. “Because I know what we know here in the pregnancy help movement: That we are here for them.”

It’s unclear how many women have been denied access to abortion because of the new Texas law banning the procedure after detection of fetal cardiac activity — usually at about six weeks of pregnancy. But some have ended up at Birth Choice.

***********************************************

Sorry, Democrats: Other Opinions Exist

This week, my company, The Daily Wire, premiered a blockbuster new documentary starring Matt Walsh. Titled “What Is A Woman?”, the documentary investigates radical gender theory and its peculiar hold on the elites in our society—and how the insane proposition that men can become women and vice versa has become so well-accepted that even normal Americans now live in fear of questioning it.

The film has been the single largest success in the history of The Daily Wire; hundreds of thousands of Americans have subscribed to view it. Yet Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregator for film and television, has not a single traditional review of the film.

That’s because, according to the legacy and entertainment media, the film doesn’t exist. When the Daily Wire press team sent out invitations to reviewers to watch the film—knowing, of course, that the vast majority of reviewers are left-leaning and would undoubtedly pan the film—reviewers began responding with insults and declarations of preemptive hatred.

“Hard pass,” wrote one. “Unsubscribe,” wrote another. “Lose my email. Forget my name.” A third reviewer, this one a member of GALECA: The Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, wrote, “Hard f—-ing pass. I won’t give that transphobic bigot a platform on my site. Never email me again!” Thus, the current Rotten Tomatoes audience score for the film is 96%; the reviewer score remains empty.

Reviewers’ willingness to pretend that there is no controversy with regard to gender and sex perfectly reflects the left’s beliefs about transgender ideology more broadly. One gender reassignment surgeon—a medical doctor who performs body-mutilating surgeries—told Walsh that nobody believed in traditional ideas about biological sex anymore; only “dinosaurs” would believe such antiquated notions.

Such denial of the mere existence of a countervailing argument is a common feature of the left these days. The idea is that by pretending opposition to bizarre ideas doesn’t exist, you can mainstream those bizarre ideas.

Thus, “everyone believes” that climate change is not merely a byproduct of human activity, but that it threatens life on earth; to deny the latter proposition is tantamount to Holocaust denial. “Everyone believes” that America is systemically racist; to do otherwise is to mark yourself as a bigot.

But what if everybody doesn’t believe such propositions? What if there are millions of Americans—the majority of Americans, in fact—who believe precisely the opposite? Then the only option is to reinforce denial with censorship. Which is why former Barack Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer went on the air at MSNBC to declare the very popularity of conservative viewpoints a threat to democracy.

“Right-wing content,” Pfeiffer observed, “dwarfs progressive content [on Facebook]. It dwarfs mainstream media content, which actually should be the part that scares us the most, that Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire has more followers and engagement, many times more than The New York Times or CNN … That is a problem for democracy.”

Democracy, you see, simply means the Approved View. If the Approved View is somehow unpopular, that must be a problem of propaganda, which is in turn a problem for democracy. The only solution is to ban such propaganda, thus leaving a monopoly on behalf of the Approved View. If the echo chamber isn’t strong enough to drown out the outsiders, simply silence those outside the chamber, then declare democracy safe.

There’s only one problem: It won’t work. Democrats have siloed themselves into an increasingly progressive universe, one in which the most controversial imaginable propositions are utterly uncontroversial. In this universe, the other side doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately for the left, the other side does exist. And they vote. And come November 2022, the ostrich strategy of the Democratic Party and its media apparatchiks is likely to bear devastating electoral fruit.

**************************************************

Graphic Designer Asks Supreme Court to Allow Her to Say No to Same-Sex Weddings

“All of us should be free to say what we believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs,” Colorado graphic designer Lorie Smith says Thursday outside the U.S. Capitol, flanked by, from left, Rep. Doug Lamborn, Rep. Vicky Hartzler, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. James Lankford, and Alliance Defending Freedom's general counsel, Kristen Waggoner. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)

The Supreme Court next fall will hear arguments in the case of a Colorado graphic designer who says a state law forces her to supply services for same-sex weddings, a violation of her religious beliefs and right to free speech.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit legal organization focused on protecting religious freedom and free speech, held a press conference Wednesday outside the U.S. Capitol to highlight Lorie Smith’s lawsuit against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

“All of us should be free to say what we believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs,” Smith said at the event.

Lawmakers in attendance included Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; James Lankford, R-Okla.; and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; as well as Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo.; Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz.; and Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.

A total of 18 senators and 38 House Republicans filed an amicus brief June 2 in support of Smith.

“Free speech is an inalienable human right, and it is the foundation for self-government,” Kristen Waggoner, ADF general counsel, said at the press conference. “The government doesn’t grant us this right, but fortunately, our Constitution protects it and we are stewards of that freedom.”

Smith went to court in 2020 over the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which the graphic designer argues would force her and her company, 303 Creative, to create projects that violate her personal religious beliefs about marriage.

Smith refuses to create custom wedding websites for same-sex couples, saying the creation of such work would require her to condone the content. “Lorie enjoys working with people from all walks of life, but, like most artists, can’t promote every message,” an ADF press release says.

Smith’s case is similar to the long-running legal fight of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, a Christian who the Human Rights Commission determined had discriminated against homosexuals because he declined to create a custom cake to celebrate the wedding of two men.

ADF argues that like Phillips, also its client; Smith; and others should be allowed to “create freely.”

The graphic designer is appealing a July 2021 decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Colorado could force Smith to design projects that blatantly violate her beliefs, because of the state’s so-called duty to ensure equal access to her “custom expression.”

The 10th Circuit ruled against Smith while acknowledging that her refusal to create projects for same-sex couples was based solely on her objection to the content, not the customers, and affirming that creating a website is a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

At the press conference, Cruz said Smith’s Supreme Court case has universal importance and would set an important precedent for free speech:

Colorado wants to compel the speech of Christian artists and business owners who decline to use their God-given talents to celebrate events that run contrary to what their faith teaches. Colorado law restricts the fundamental First Amendment rights of Lorie and other business owners like her. And it doesn’t just target Christians only.

Consider it this way: Should a Muslim artist be compelled by the government to draw the image of Muhammad? Should Jewish artists be forced to create art that they consider to be antisemitic? Should a Democrat political firm be forced to take on Republican clients?

Smith appealed to the Supreme Court last September and the high court accepted her case in February. The high court will hear oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis in the fall.

According to a court brief, Smith seeks permission to “design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage” and to “post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.”

In effect, she seeks the high court’s protection from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which “requires her to create custom websites celebrating same-sex marriage and prohibits her statement—even though Colorado stipulates that she ‘work[s] with all people regardless of … sexual orientation.’”

****************************************************

Australia: Culture of violence in remote communities drives attacks on Aboriginal women

The article below is very instructive. It shows how gross the problem with Aborigines is and how insoluble it is. Governments have tried all sort of approaches to improve the Aborigine lifestyle but nothing works. The article below shows why. You would have to transform an entire culture. And how do you do that?

And I haven't even mentioned the different range of cognitive skills among Aborigines


A high-profile crown prosecutor says a major factor in the domestic violence epidemic afflicting Northern Territory Indigenous women is an “enculturation of violence” on remote communities.

In a rare and candid interview, Victorian Senior Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, one of the nation’s most experienced criminal barristers, said resolving the Territory’s family violence crisis required “profound change’’ to address such violence, which was “predominantly male-on-female”.

“It’s really trying to change that enculturation of violence; that culture of entitlement to assault or using violence on any person.’’

Ms Rogers also said some “remote communities tend to be very punitive towards a victim or someone who has helped a victim or sought help from the police’’.

On such communities, victims of domestic abuse had sometimes “been punished by their family members as well as the perpetrator’s family members” for reporting such crimes.

Ms Rogers is the former Central Australian prosecutor who stunned the nation in 2006 when she spoke out about horrific cases of physical and sexual abuse of Aboriginal children and women. She also spoke about how a male-dominated Indigenous culture and kinship connections had helped to create a conspiracy of silence.

READ MORE:‘Epidemic of violence’ plagues women: judge
Her revelations led to the 2007 report Little Children Are Sacred, which was followed by the Howard government’s contentious NT Intervention.

Ms Rogers, who left the NT almost nine years ago, said she was shocked by how little things had changed for Indigenous women from remote Territory communities in recent decades.

“What is disappointing for me is that nothing’s changed,’’ she said. “That is the takeaway point for me. I find it shocking that nothing has changed.

“… My understanding is that the violence towards Aboriginal women and children by Aboriginal men continues unabated.’’

Remote communities, Ms Rogers said, could be “extremely unsafe” for Indigenous women.

She was responding to comments by NT Supreme Court judge Judith Kelly, who said last week that Aboriginal women in remote communities remain trapped in an epidemic of violence caused by disadvantage and intergenerational abuse, and a culture that privileges the rights of perpetrators over those of victims.

Justice Kelly wept as she described cases in which women who had tried to flee violence were effectively kidnapped and endured beatings and rape on outstations.

“I just want people to know what’s happening to Aboriginal women,’’ she said, as she argued they were bearing the “absolutely dreadful” brunt of society’s failure to address high levels of welfare dependency, substance abuse and other problems on far-flung Indigenous communities.

Ms Rogers agreed that better education and more jobs for men and women on remote communities were needed to help build individuals’ self-esteem. She added: “On top of that you’ve got this enculturation of violence that is predominantly male-on-female.’’

Ms Rogers has conducted successful prosecutions against Victorian murderer Adrian Basham, who killed his estranged wife in 2018, and sexual sadist Jaymes Todd, who raped and murdered aspiring comedian Eurydice Dix-on in Melbourne in the same year.

Ms Rogers said that since she left the Territory, she had noticed a change in “the judicial language” used there, with some judges and magistrates more likely to call out “toxic” relationships between perpetrators and victims, especially if a perpetrator had abused his partner for years before severely injuring her. “Judicial officers are much more prepared to say it doesn’t matter whether you are an Aboriginal person or not; this is unacceptable,’’ she said.

“It must be really soul-destroying as a judge from the bench to see time and time again these horrific acts of violence that never stop.’’ She said that for such judicial officers “there must be a point at which you go ‘This is outrageous, no matter how liberal my attitude is towards Indigenous people and the Indigenous cause’.’’

According to a 2017 NT government report, Indigenous women in the Territory are 40 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be hospitalised following family violence assaults. The same report quotes an NPY Women’s Council estimate that Aboriginal women from the NT, South Australia and Western Australia border region are about 60 times more likely to be murdered than non-Aboriginal women.

In a three-part series, The Australian recently revealed how a young Aboriginal woman, Ruby, was raped and bashed by her father in Yuendumu in Central Australia, and then forced to leave the desert town after he was jailed.

Last year, another NT Supreme Court judge, Justice Jenny Blokland, called on the NT government to address a potential, emerging pattern of sexual assault victims “being incidentally punished in their home communities through a form of banishment’’.

She made this remark while sentencing 32-year-old Simeon Riley, who pleaded guilty to raping an adolescent girl he had kidnapped and kept as a sex slave for several weeks in 2005. During that time, the girl, then aged 13 or 14, was kept in one room, sexually assaulted and forced to urinate and defecate through a hole in the floorboards.

The judge added that the victim of this “chilling” crime, who came forward to police in 2018, had been further punished as she felt she could not return home. The judge urged leaders from the girl’s otherwise “well-functioning” community to “seriously” reflect on that.

Justice Kelly also described a culture within some remote Indigenous communities that protected perpetrators of violence rather than their victims, and Ms Rogers said this was a longstanding problem. She said courts had traditionally assumed that when a victim of violence left the NT “that it’s a choice’’. But she said often, “their lives have been made so unlivable’’ and so “horrible and difficult” they have no choice “but to leave”.

In the wake of Justice Kelly’s remarks, Indigenous academic Marcia Langton called for a permanent group of experts to advise the federal government on how to improve safety for Indigenous women and children. Professor Langton argued that “lives are being lost while people in the women’s safety sector dither about irrelevant issues’’.

Ms Rogers said that like abuse victims in the wider community, some Indigenous women were torn between love and hate for an abuser. They could also have mixed feelings about their own relatives, whom they loved but who might have banished them for reporting abuse.

“It’s a double burden for those who have to leave,’’ she said, as they dealt with their violence-related trauma and being exiled from close relatives – sometimes including a mother or grandmother. “It’s an enduring situation – the woman has to leave, never the man … in that way, it’s not unlike any other culture.’’

Ms Rogers said domestic violence on remote NT communities was often intergenerational, with a father being sentenced for acts of violence and his son coming before the same judge for similar crimes 15 years later.

She said the unacceptably high levels of abuse endured by Indigenous women on such communities was not adequately acknowledged by the wider community.

Most people who live in Sydney or Melbourne “have never been to the Northern Territory. Most people have never been to a remote community. Most people have never met an Aboriginal person.’’

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: