From the article -- In June, Heartbeat International published an open letter signed by more than 200 women celebrating their successful decision to reverse the abortion pill and carry their children to term. The language used at Open Arms Real Choices for APR is similarly positive, saying, “The abortion pill is a common abortion method, and some women begin the process while feeling scared, rushed, or unsure. If you’ve taken the first pill and regret your decision, you may still have options. Abortion Pill Reversal may offer a second chance.” Studies showing women’s ambivalence about abortion are incontestably common.
The absurdity of the California and New York action against APR — i.e., its rank persecution of the women affected — should not be lost on anyone. Mifepristone is a non-naturally occurring drug promoted and distributed by companies that do nothing else for pharmaceutical therapy or the cause of medicine. They exist solely to speed and profit from the destruction of unexpected pregnancies. The drug displaces progesterone, the naturally occurring hormone that supports pregnancy and is routinely used to help women with a history of miscarriage, from the developing child’s bonding site in the womb. The result is fetal demise. APR involves the administration of the natural hormone progesterone to displace mifepristone, reestablish the nourishing role of progesterone, and give the child a chance to live.
2) “From Common Ground to Battle Grounds: The DSA is merely stating the end to which the Democrat party has been moving for the last hundred years.” (Richard C. Lyons, American Greatness)
From the article -- Many Americans are rightfully alarmed by the stated positions of the “Democratic” Socialists, as they seem to be outside of the common ground of most Americans’ beliefs regarding our government. But we should not be surprised… the DSA is merely stating the end to which the Democrat Party has been moving for the last hundred years: creating our everyday battlegrounds today. The Democrat Party, since Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, has fostered the growth of socialism in our government, turning it into a hybrid today between America’s founding and socialism’s tyranny.
Our founding Constitution is a social compact and document of law dedicated to limiting the federal government and separating its powers equally between legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Woodrow Wilson himself created the unenumerated power of the Administrative State, whose present-day 435 agencies combine those three powers within every one of those agencies through the making of rules with the effect of laws, by adjudicating cases within agencies and executing punishments, making the Administrative State’s power unilateral, unlimited, and the devoted creature of a Democrat Party dedicated to the unlimited growth of a centralized government.
A large portion of the Constitution deals with the process of voting the representatives of the people into congressional office and the limitations of those offices and the length of their tenures between elections so that those elected are always representative of the people. The unenumerated Administrative State’s bureaucratic offices are filled by appointment and effectively have lifetime tenure. In which body of our hybrid government do you think there is more power? In 2023, Congress passed 27 laws on a constitutional basis by elected representatives. In the same year, the federal registry amassed 90,402 pages of rules that have the effect of laws—rules written by persons that no one ever elected…
3) “IVF And The Commodification Of Children: Adult Desires Should Not Trump The Right To Life” (Ken Ham, Harbinger’s Daily)
From the article -- This is what happens when adult desires are placed ahead of the rights and well-being of children. Consider a recent news story out of the UK. The BBC headline reads, “We spent £23,000 on fertility treatment – now our embryos will be destroyed.”
The article tells the story of a lesbian couple who, obviously unable to have children on their own, turned to fertility treatments and a sperm donor. After some difficulty, they created six embryos, one of whom was implanted in one of the women’s wombs and was born last year. The other five embryos were frozen until “the couple were ready to grow their family.”
But those babies will not get an opportunity for life on earth because all five embryos will soon be destroyed. That means five human beings will be deliberately killed. The article says that the father, the sperm donor, “has withdrawn his consent for further use.” Apparently, “In the UK, a sperm or egg donor can withdraw consent up until the embryo is transferred into the womb.”
The article then shares the story of another lesbian couple that experienced the same thing: “[They] were told last month that their sperm donor had withdrawn consent and their 10 remaining embryos will be destroyed next year.” Ten more human beings sentenced to death.
It’s a very chilling article—15 unborn lives, made in the image of God, will be lost if these embryos are discarded. Now, before we go on, it’s worth noting that the men who changed their minds are the ones who have decided all of the embryos will die next year. But it’s very unlikely that either lesbian couple planned on implanting all of those embryos; in all likelihood, one or two more might have been implanted, the others would have remained frozen indefinitely or been discarded eventually.
Related article: “Is In Vitro Fertilization Ever Justified For Christians, Even With Careful ‘Safeguards?’ -- Are humans meant to be begotten, not made?” (Chaney Gooley, Federalist)
4) “The UN’s Never-Ending Power Grab: António Guterres dresses an old argument for centralized power in the fashionable language of climate, AI, and global justice.” (Itxu Díaz, American Spectator)
From the article -- Yet, beyond the childish rhetoric lies an extremely dangerous underlying idea: the struggle “for power.” Guterres denounces something Marx himself might have decried: “we are witnessing an extraordinary transfer of power away from governments to a handful of private corporations and individuals.” Upon hearing this, my immediate thought was: “If only!” But no, Guterres. The reality is that we are being invaded and crushed by the massive backside of the State, the massive backside of international institutions, and the massive backside of globalist bureaucracy.
Guterres, a socialist morphing into a communist through the corruption of the U.N. and a passion for globalism, is essentially rewriting a centuries-old class-struggle speech. He adapts it to current issues that, while filling the pages of left-wing newspapers, are not what matter most to ordinary people. Even war itself does not necessarily trouble families and workers; rather, it is the economic (and, if you will, moral) consequences that might cause the vast majority some concern. I am not saying ordinary people in the West do not care about war. They care about world hunger, too. But it is not something happening directly over their heads, nor does it appear in their bedrooms at night, the way the IRS does.
Ordinary people continue to suffer most from the economy, the loss of national sovereignty (hijacked by UN globalists), the bloated size of the State and its bureaucracy, the erosion of cultural identity and values, and the dire security consequences brought about by globalism.
5) “Does the British foreign secretary know British history?: Borders cannot resolve a conflict when one party refuses to accept the other’s national legitimacy.” (Mitchell Bard, Jewish News Service)
From the article -- British Foreign Secretary Edward Miliband threw a tantrum in parliament, railing against “settler terrorism” as well as peaceful communities of Jews living in parts of their homeland because of their alleged threat to a two-state solution. The economic effects of the sanctions he announced will inevitably extend beyond the settlements, and harm Israelis and Palestinians alike.
His performance raised several questions. Why is a British Jew adopting the language and policy prescriptions of antisemites? Why does Miliband believe that Britain still has the standing to dictate outcomes in a region where its policies produced a record of broken promises and disastrous miscalculations? What two-state solution does he imagine sanctions will preserve?
And why is he punishing Israel while imposing no comparable consequences on the Palestinian Authority for rejecting negotiations, glorifying terrorists and indoctrinating generations of Palestinians against peace?
Other Important Articles:
* “Strong and Invincible? Not Quite: The Clancy Trial Setback for Women” (Marianne M. Jennings, Jewish World Review)
* “A Bankrupt America Can’t Defend the World: As interest costs consume an ever-larger share of the federal budget, maintaining an informal global empire becomes fiscally and strategically indefensible.” (Doug Bandow, Daily Economy)
* “‘They’re Going to Kill Me?’ Canadian Family Demands Answers after Grandmother’s Disputed ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ Act Death” (Joshua Arnold, Washington Stand)
* “Giorgia Meloni is right -- migrants must integrate.: It is not enough simply to ‘stop the boats’ or to limit newcomers when so many existing migrants live parallel lives.” (Joanna Williams, spiked!)
* “Top 25 Trump Accomplishments” (Donald Trump, Truth)
* “Twice As Many Men Are Single Than Married Today. Are Women To Blame?” (Bethany Miller, Federalist)
