News

SenatorSilk2 800

Abortion would be treated as homicide under legislation being pushed in the US state of Oklahoma.

Senator Joseph Silk, author of Senate Bill 13, told news station Coco 5 that his Senate Bill 13 is an equal protection bill.

“[It] finds life as being at the moment of conception and offers life equal protection under the law and therefore classifies any intentional killing of unborn children as homicide,” said Republican Senator Silk.

“A couple of deals, I mean, people ask for the rape and incest exception.  There is not that because we wanted it to be an equal bill. 

“Rape and incest are horrible things but you don’t murder a child because of the crimes of the father and mother. The medical exception there, it’s not specifically outlined, but in the bill, the language of the bill it does not prevent a doctor from performing basic medical triage.  It just says a physician needs to exhaust all his resources to treat both lives equally. If he is not able to save both mom and mother [sic] obviously he will not be charged with murder whatsoever.”

A fellow Oklahoma Senate Republican, Greg Treat said he did not support the legislation:

“I agree with abolishing abortion.  If I thought that Senate Bill 13 would save a single human life, I would be on board fully.  I am still of the mind that it is fatally flawed,” said Senator Treat.

But Senator Silk said that he did not agree with Senator Treat’s position.

“We’ve had discussions, where he thinks it’s fatally flawed is, Senator Treat does not believe the state of Oklahoma has the authority to essentially enact this legislation because of the Roe v Wade opinion, which we just disagree on that,” said Senator Silk.

“And I have my basing off of slavery.  At one point the Supreme Court said salves were private property and had no rights and we have rectified that.

“…so the federal government is limited and the Supreme Court offers opinions and they are not all powerful.  And the state of Oklahoma does have the right to do it and we just have different opinions on that,” he added.

Asked if the idea is to get the matter before the Supreme Court [to overturn Roe v Wade], Silk responded:

“You know, that’s one idea. And so there’s some language in the bill.  I’m of the opinion that the state needs to just enact the legislation and the government needs to uphold the constitution and basically stop killing unborn children.  However, there is a thought that if you were to take this legislation and send it all the way up to the Supreme Court, it would overturn Roe v Wade. So there’s two different ways of thinking.  But that is, a lot of supporters actually want to see Senate Bill 13 be the bill that overturns Roe v Wade.”

Senator Silk said that he is not a fan of an alternative legislative proposal, House Bill 1182.

“I view unborn children as humans just like you and I are.  House Bill 1182, you know, at the most it takes doctor’s licenses away for a year and there’s a $500 fine for murdering a human child.” 

Senator Silk was asked about a viewer’s question which read:

Do you identify as a female? Are you able to carry a nine-month pregnancy? No. Ok.  Then how about you go author a bill that can pertain to you and stop playing God.

But Senator Silk shut down the logical fallacy of the argument:

 “I’m a legislator, I’m not a child.  But we write laws and pass laws and vote on laws pertaining to children.  And that’s exactly what this bill is.  We’re talking about a living human being and wanting to protect it from murder, and so whether you’re a male or female it does not matter whatsoever.  You are trying to protect innocent children.

Senator Sillk was also asked about the issue and rape, how it was traumatic, and had it put to him that he was mixing the issue of church and state.

But Senator Silk calmly responded that it comes down to people having to decide whether an unborn child is a living human being that deserves protection or is it not.

“If you believe a child needs to be murdered when it is conceived in rape, you will have to adjust your standards a lot on who deserves protection and what innocent children are allowed to be murdered and which ones aren’t.  I am of the opinion, again those are horrible atrocities when they happen, however it is still a human life and it still deserves protection,” he said.

putin 889784 960 720

In a remarkably pro-family announcement, Russian President Putin has expressed support for male-female marriage and the role of mother and father to raise the next generation.

According to a recent Reuters report, President Vladimir Putin supports a proposed reform of the Russian constitution that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Putin also said he will not allow the traditional role of mother and father to be subverted by the registration of ‘parent number 1’ and ‘parent number 2’ as occurs in some nations that have legalised same-sex weddings.

“As far as ‘parent number 1’ and ‘parent number 2’ goes, I’ve already spoken publicly about this and I’ll repeat it again: as long as I’m president this will not happen. There will be dad and mum,” said Mr Putin.

The Russian President’s position was welcomed by FamilyVoice Australia spokesman David d’Lima.

“Putin correctly respects the fact that children need to be raised by their biological parents, who ideally are married,” said David d’Lima.

“He is also right to heed the teaching given by the Russian Orthodox Church as a positive influence on the nation, despite the foolish endorsement of same-sex relationships by many Western countries.

“Despite 70 years of anti-faith and anti-family brutality under hard-line communism, the Russian Orthodox Church has persevered and influenced the nation, to the point that the church may rejoice to see marriage and family defended.”

David d’Lima said the Russian president is right to recognise the paramount role of married mother and father to nurture the next generation.

 “The role of the historic faith to shape nations and protect the natural family cannot be over-emphasised,” David d’Lima said.

“But the churches in Western nations must recognise that the legalisation of same-sex weddings has occurred under our watch - to our great shame.

“We have much work to rebuild the influence of the Word of God as a central pillar and the Christian church as a reforming agency within Western civilisation.”

Marriage has been redefined in 28 nations, most of which are Western countries who were founded on Christian assumptions about law and society. They include Australia, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, France and the Scandinavian nations.

shutterstock 591808448 800

The Australian Associated Press reported yesterday that Western Australia’s Labor government is proposing no-go, exclusion zones, around abortion “clinics.” This would be on top of existing conditions and limitations which require public gatherings of groups to acquire a physical permit from Police, who vet the application and approve it under the ‘Public Order in Streets Act 1984.’

Permits and protections under this act include up to $2000 fines for any deliberate breach of conditions which apply to the permit. Such as: ‘a) serious public disorder, or damage to public or private property; b) creating  a public nuisance c) obstructing traffic or streets d) placing the safety of any person in jeopardy.’ [i]

According to Western Australian Police, existing conditions and limitations apply to ‘individuals, community groups, religious groups, trade unions, RSL sub-branches ect for the purpose of public meetings where three or more persons communicate, express or procure a view where members of the public have [sic.] access or are invited.’

Labor’s proposed legislation will place further limits on law-abiding pro-life organizations. This would be a further erosion of civil liberties, punishing those who already strictly adhere to current parameters of the law; and negatively impacting the care for unborn children, and their pregnant mothers these ministries serve.

With this adherence to the current conditions and limitations under the 1984 act, the proposal makes no sense. In a leaflet produced by FamilyVoice Australia, Steve Klomp, President of Right to Life Association of W.A. stated that ‘since the pro-life vigil came to W.A. fifteen years ago there have been no arrests, let alone convictions of wrongdoing, of any attendee.’

As reported by the AAP and carried, verbatim, by most of mainstream Australian media, Labor’s Western Australian Health Minister, Roger Cook stated:

We will be moving as steadily as possible to legislate this important law, to make sure we protect the privacy and the dignity of people who are coming to abortion clinics and the staff.

I imagine German villagers upon seeing furnace chimney’s, with black smoke drifting up into the sky, used a similar dismissal in defence of their own willful ignorance and allegiance to the prevailing ideology of the day.

In defending the alleged need for, what amounts to more government oversight, Cook argued that “Abortion is a legal process, it’s a very private process and it’s one that people should be able to undertake without the fear of being harassed.”

However, according to FamilyVoice, the health minister, and the W.A Labor government ‘never provided verifiable examples’ of where harassment has occurred, or where “protesters have been hurling around abuse” near abortion clinics.

This all appears to be a straw man argument concocted by the Labor government, in order to manipulate an outcome in their favour. To put it bluntly: it looks a whole lot like more of the same-old leftist, Trojan horse, packed with its reactionary, witches brew legislation and its usual ignorant anti-Christian virtue signalling veneer.

For example, FamilyVoice noted that the ‘discussion paper only cites two abortion clinic directors, who allege “anxiety” and “distress” and it proposes extending exclusion zones to hospitals.’ In addition, FamilyVoice’s W.A State Director, Daryl Budge, pointed out that the government has declined to release any of the submissions to the public inquiry, stating “the government wants to deliberately silence the arguments against this censorship zone.”

He rightly called the bill a ‘proposal to restrict free speech’; and was correct in arguing that the proposed legislation was ‘unnecessary because police already have the power to regulate public gatherings in the public interest and they can intervene if unlawful harassment occurs.’

The proposed legislation is government overreach. Designed to protect an ideology and the feelings of the servants it has enslaved, which means that they’ll steamroll anyone who opposes them and do so with the full force of government, against whomever, wherever and whenever they can.

Protecting women under the guise of “abortion is healthcare” hides the bloody slaughter of its victims. All of whom are silenced by legislation like this. If the average Australian thinks that these creeping, blood-lust, laws which empower the state to justify killing, will not, one day, affect them, then there has never been a more urgent need to revisit the history of mid-20th Century Germany, and Russia, from 1917 up until the Gorbachev reforms, and the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989.

Believing that the violent disruption of a woman’s pregnancy and the brutal end to a child’s life inside the womb is a “medical procedure” or “healthcare” is entertaining the abuse of language. By doing so participants are borrowing from the same playbook as Nazi propagandists, who called the group in charge of the actual killing in the gas chambers: the General Welfare Foundation for Institutional Care.

As Right to Life’s Klomp said via FamilyVoice: “You are free [from] such legislation if you pray to end farming, or if you protect trees or puppies, sharks or chickens, but not if you want to defend a child.”

The proposed exclusion zone bill is a farce. It should be rejected.

(For more information contact FamilyVoice Australia or Right to Life WA).

References:
[i] Public order in Streets Act 1984, W.A.

Written by Rod Lampard for Caldron Pool. Republished with permission.

Rainbow Waratah 2

Mark Latham has condemned the NSW Government’s move to change the State’s emblem to a rainbow Waratah flower for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

“There is no such thing as a rainbow Waratah flower, yet at a time of urgent bushfire and storm recovery, the priority of the NSW Government is to spend your money on changing the NSW emblem to placate the LGBTIQ lobby”, said the NSW upper house MP.

NSW Government agencies will begin changing much of their logo branding for the Sydney Mardi Gras period from Friday.

“What a slap in the face for our farmers trying to recover from drought, ” said Latham.

“And people who have lost loved ones and their homes to bushfires.

“And the many thousands of homes in the Sydney region still without power after the weekend's storms.”

Latham added that every spare cent of government money should be going to bigger priorities, not “rainbow logo nonsense”.

“I call on the Premier to end this fiasco now and return the administration of the State to the priorities that matter,” he said.

FamilyVoice Australia spokesman Greg Bondar has applauded Mark Latham's strident position.

“Mr Latham is absolutely right to criticise governments that forget their role is to govern for everyone,” Greg Bondar said.​

“The floral emblem belongs to every person in NSW and should not be hijacked for the sake of pandering to a tiny minority.​

“Civic emblems must unify not divide.”

pregnant

There are renewed efforts for the US Congress to pass legislation to protect babies who survive abortion attempts on their lives.

U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, advocating for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, said that every baby deserves dignity and a fighting chance.

“But current federal law doesn’t guarantee that.

“Last year, a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, but we couldn’t break the abortion industry’s filibuster,” said Senator Sasse.

The legislation was defeated by a filibuster despite a bipartisan majority of 53-44. 

“This bill isn’t about Republican or Democratic politics, it’s about making sure the law protects newborn babies,” he added.

“I hope that my colleagues who didn’t vote for the bill will come to this hearing to hear from the medical and legal community.

“All of us love babies, and we should all agree to protect them,” said Senator Sasse.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently undertaking a hearing into “The Infant Patient: Ensuring Appropriate Medical Care for Children Born Alive”.

According to Alexandra Desanctis, a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the legislation:

  • creates criminal penalties for doctors who allow a newborn to die because they failed to provide medical care after the infant survived an attempted abortion procedure
  • mandates that a child born alive in an abortion clinic be transported to a hospital for further care
  • requires health-care practitioners to report any violations of the law
  • institutes penalties for intentionally killing a newborn, including fines and up to five years’ imprisonment
  • grants the woman on whom the abortion is performed civil cause of action against the abortionist and protection from prosecution if her child is not cared for after birth

Desanctis says that there is no existing federal law that requires doctors to provide medical care for infants who survive an abortion procedure:

“The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) of 2002 established that the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in federal law include every infant born alive, even after an abortion; it instituted no penalties for physicians who neglect to care for such infants.”