Translate

Sunday, April 24, 2016

PLANNED PARENTHOOD PRESIDENT COMPARES ABORTION ADVOCACY TO FIGHT AGAINST RACISM DURING SPEECH AT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY

CECILE RICHARDS, PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD SPEWS HER UNGODLY OPINIONS UNCHALLENGED BY CATHOLIC AUDIENCE
Richard s Credit David Shankbone-compressed
Photo Credit: David Shankbone
PLANNED PARENTHOOD PRESIDENT COMPARES ABORTION ADVOCACY TO FIGHT AGAINST RACISM DURING SPEECH 
AT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 
BY HEATHER CLARK

WASHINGTON — The president of Planned Parenthood compared abortion advocacy to the fight against racism during her speech on Wednesday at the nation’s oldest Catholic university, during which she obtained a standing ovation.
Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, had been invited by the student-run Georgetown Lecture Fund, a move that some sharply criticized.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Donald Wuerl told reporters that it was outside of Catholic tradition to give a platform to an individual who promotes abortion.
“This is the latest in a long history of scandal at Georgetown University,” Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick Reilly also stated. “Disguised as an academic event, this is nothing more than a platform for abortion advocacy at a Catholic university.”
“We’re probably the most liberal Catholic university in the nation,” Michael Khan of Georgetown Right to Life told reporters. “Many of our students and faculty aren’t Catholic and are very hostile to Catholic doctrine and Jesuit and Catholic values. We certainly have an active and strong pro-life group on campus, but there’s an equally, perhaps stronger, pro-choice group on campus.”
Khan’s group was among those who stood outside of the event to protest Richards’ appearance. The group Vita Saxa planted thousands of pink and blue flags on the Georgetown lawn to “represent the 3,562 lives lost in the U.S. to abortion each day.”
“They’ve perpetuated this myth that ‘if we go away, so goes women’s health care,’” said Missy Stone of Students for Life of America. “We’re saying no, there are 13,000 federally qualified health centers nationwide and there’s only 700 Planned Parenthood facilities.”
Richards acknowledged that her appearance came with opposition on Wednesday, but compared abortion advocacy to the nation’s fight against racism.
“Based on my Twitter feed, I know there are a lot of folks who didn’t want me to speak today. So thanks for showing up,” she said, according to audio obtained by the Christian Post. “But it is sort of appropriate, in a way, because I think every bit of progress that we have made in this country and we make as a people in the world is because there are people willing to speak out even when it is unpopular.”
Richards spoke of the opposition John Lewis faced in Selma, Alabama in speaking up for the rights of African Americans, and noted the sit-ins that were held in the South to protest racism.
“Our history with race in America is something that we all have to address, including Planned Parenthood,” she said. “It’s important that we understand our collective history and the legacy that it leaves on those that are still living in an unjust system. Lack of access to healthcare and reproductive rights is a result of many factors—race, gender, sexual orientation, geography and immigration status. In order to build true equity in America we have to address it all.”
Richards also praised founder Margaret Sanger, who was known to be a supporter of eugenics and changed the organization’s name from the Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood after some found it to be offensive.
“It is kind of interesting now to see these sepia-toned photos and from day one, there were women lined up down the block pushing baby strollers with babies on their shoulders,” she recalled of Sanger’s clinic in New York City. “Ten days later, an undercover cop who was posing as a mother busted Margaret and threw her in jail.”
While Richards received a standing ovation in the 400-seat Lohrfink Auditorium where she spoke, others were not so pleased with the presentation, nor the question and answer period that followed.
“I don’t think that today’s event represented a free exchange of ideas or a spirit of dialogue,” student Reed Howard told Religion News. “Instead, Cecile Richards was given a platform to spew her beliefs unchallenged.”
________________________________________________________
THE PROTESTORS
Published on Apr 20, 2016
Video by Ford Fischer, for The College Fix

As Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards spoke at Georgetown University on 4/20/16, many in the pro-life movement organized to protest.

One group called the "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property" chanted anti-abortion slogans and handed out fliers at the entrance to the school. While they invited debate, many were disturbed by their presence. On camera, one student even attempted to burn their flier with her lighter and threw it on the ground when she failed to do so.

Meanwhile, on campus, a Catholic monsignor along with members of Students for Life of America spoke out about abortion outside the building Richards spoke in.

As pro-life students who attended the speech exited, they said Richards did not satisfactorily answer their questions, but rather avoided the issue of abortion as much as possible.

PROFESSOR TEACHES ABORTION AT GEORGETOWN





MIKE PITTS: "SOUTH CAROLINA RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM REGISTRY LAW" IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNIST STYLE INFRINGEMENT ON FREEDOMS OF SPEECH & PRESS

NO, IT'S NOT LIBERAL NEW JERSEY
MIKE PITTS: 
"SOUTH CAROLINA RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM REGISTRY LAW" 
IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, COMMUNIST 
STYLE INFRINGEMENT 
ON FREEDOMS OF SPEECH & PRESS

South Carolina lawmakers consider forcing journalists to register with the state

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/south-carolina-lawmakers-consider-forcing-journalists-to-register-with-the-state/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

http://www.liberty.news/2016-04-22-sc-lawmakers-consider-forcing-journalists-to-register-with-the-state-to-eliminate-freedom-of-the-press.html
South Carolina is considered a “red state” – that is, one whose legislature is dominated, supposedly, by small-government conservatives and whose governor, Nikki Haley, was a darling of the Tea Party when she was running for her first term. In fact, one of the most conservative of all U.S. senators, Tim Scott, was appointed by Haley to replace a retiring Republican in 2013.
So what gives with the South Carolina legislature considering a bill that is pro-big government, anti-free speech and smacks of authoritarianism?
As reported by The State, Rep. Mike Pitts, a Republican from Laurens, filed a bill recently in the South Carolina House that would establish a “responsible journalism registry” that would be managed by the S.C. secretary of state.
A summary of the legislation says the measure would “establish requirements for persons before working as a journalist for a media outlet and for media outlets before hiring a journalist.” The summary also says the bill would establish registration fees, set fines for non-compliance and establish criminal penalties for violations.
That’s about as nanny state as it gets: fees, fines and penalties.
The State reported further:
A person seeking to register with the state as a journalist would have to submit a criminal record background check and “an affidavit from the media outlet attesting to the applicant’s journalistic competence.”
The full paragraph of the bill, H. 4102, says, “A person seeking to register shall provide all information required by the office including, but not limited to, a criminal record background check, an affidavit from the media outlet attesting to the applicant’s journalistic competence, and an application fee in an amount determined by the office.”
Thankfully, not everyone in the state is in agreement that the bill is a good idea. You can include Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association (The State is a member of that organization), who said the registry proposal “is ridiculous and totally unconstitutional.”
Governments – state or federal – cannot require journalists to register, said Rogers. He cited the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press as evidence of that.
Pitts told The Post and Courier that while his bill is not a reaction to any particular news story, it is intended instead to stimulate a discussion over how he believes gun issues are being reported.
“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press has no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”
The measure states that persons are “not competent” to be journalists in the state if, within three years of applying for the registry, they have been convicted of “libel, slander, or invasion of privacy; or… a felony if the underlying offense was committed to collect, write, or distribute news or other current information for a media outlet.”
Also, a candidate for registry would be denied if “the person has demonstrated a reckless disregard of the basic codes and canons of professional journalism associations, including a disregard of truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as applicable to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.”
The assumption is that the secretary of state gets to make the determination, and that such determinations are likely to be arbitrary (“Iwas objective!” “No you weren’t!”).
While there isn’t much chance a law like this passes, even if it does it is highly unlikely it would withstand judicial scrutiny. That said, it’s hard to imagine such a law would even be proposed by a member of a political party that is supposedly opposed, ideologically, to the overarching control of nanny government.
One other point: In this day and age, the Internet has created a massive army of citizen journalists who aren’t necessarily educated as journalists or who don’t practice traditional journalism, but who nevertheless “report” news and events as they happen. A bill like this would kill citizen journalism in South Carolina.
__________________________________________________

Would Require Journalists To Register With Government

MEDIA LICENSE, FEES, PENALTIES?


SEE BILL HERE: 
_______________________________________________________

Representative Michael A. Pitts

Representative Michael A. Pitts
Republican - Laurens
District 14 - Greenwood & Laurens Counties - Map

Columbia Address

327C Blatt Bldg.
Columbia 29201
Business Phone (803) 734-2830

Home Address

372 Bucks Point Rd.
Laurens 29360
Home Phone (864) 923-2925
Send message to Representative Pitts

Personal Information

  • Retired Greenville Police
  • Born in Laurens
  • Son of the late Joseph C., Jr. and the late Lois Lollis Pitts
  • Lander University, B.S., 1985
  • June 28, 1974 married Susan W. Slay, 3 children, Nolan, Clifton, and Della
  • Ex Council of NASC
  • Life member, NRA
  • North American Hunting Club
  • Gun Owners of South Carolina
  • Member, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
  • National Wild Turkey Federation
  • ALEC
  • President, National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses (NASC)
  • Other Funds Oversight
  • Lottery Oversight
  • Agency Heads Salary and Benefits
  • Rabun Creek Baptist Church
  • United States Army Reserve
   

Committee Assignments

Sponsored Bills


  • Primary Sponsor:   
  •  

Voting Record


  •  

Service In Public Office

  • Vice Chairman, Laurens County Council
  • House of Representatives, 2003 - Pres

PRIVY PRIVACY: WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE RESTROOMS?

PRIVY PRIVACY: WHY DO WE 
EVEN HAVE RESTROOMS?
POTTY RE-TRAINING FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN DECENCY & THE CONSTITUTION
NO KIDDING! WHY THIS NEEDS AN EXPLANATION IN 2016
Published on Apr 23, 2016
Why don’t we just do it in the road? Why do some want to remove privacy in the privy? Why are we worried about national borders but opposed to legal boundaries on government intrusion into private property, privacy & community ideas of decency? Can a judge mandate co-ed bathrooms and showers for boys & girls? Can a state legislature dictate urinals (and men) be added to the ladies’ room? You don’t have a country if you don’t have borders and legal boundaries. You won’t have a country worth having if you destroy the borders and boundaries that define privacy, private property, the difference between men & women, and the family.

You won’t have a country worth having if you 

destroy the borders and boundaries 

that define privacy and decency