Translate

Sunday, March 22, 2020

MASSACHUSETTS SAYS ABORTION ISN'T "NON-ESSENTIAL"; ALLOWS KILLING TO CONTINUE WHILE STATE SEEKS TO SAVE LIVES FROM CORONAVIRUS

MASSACHUSETTS SAYS ABORTION 
ISN'T "NON-ESSENTIAL"; ALLOWS KILLING 
TO CONTINUE WHILE STATE SEEKS TO 
SAVE LIVES FROM CORONAVIRUS 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
BOSTON — The Massachusetts Department of Health has specifically exempted abortion from its order to postpone or cancel elective surgery in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak, claiming that “terminating a pregnancy is not considered a nonessential, elective invasive procedure.”
The department issued a memorandum on March 15 to hospitals and surgical centers in the state to advise that Commissioner Monica Bharel had ordered a halt on elective, nonessential surgery so that medical personnel can focus on addressing COVID-19 and conserve protective equipment.
“Pursuant to an order issued by the commissioner of Public Health, and to focus health care personnel resources on responding to this outbreak and conserve the critical shortage of personal protective equipment, all hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers are directed to postpone or cancel any nonessential, elective invasive procedures until the state of emergency is terminated by the governor or until rescinded by the commissioner of Public Health,” the memo reads.
It names various procedures that would be considered nonessential, such as knee and hip replacements, tooth extractions, colonoscopies, cryotherapy for benign lesions, and kidney stone lithotripsy.
However, the memo specifically notes that abortion is not included in this category.
“DPH defines nonessential, elective invasive procedures as procedures that are scheduled in advance because the procedure does not involve a medical emergency,” it states. “[H]owever, terminating a pregnancy is not considered a nonessential, elective invasive procedure for the purpose of this guidance.”
The Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts dug in its heels over the announcement, tweeting on Wednesday, “@MassGovernor rightly made clear that a temporary ban on elective medical procedures DOES NOT apply to abortion. As we fight #COVID19, we must ensure continued access to reproductive health care, including abortion.”
Last Sunday, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who identifies as a “moderate Republican,” ordered all K-12 schools closed for the next three weeks to protect the health of children. He similarly announced on Wednesday that all daycare facilities must cease operation effective March 23.
Baker ordered all restaurants to discontinue the dining-in option and only offer takeout and delivery, and noted on Friday that the state is “very much in social distancing and shutdown mode” and has “shut down enormous parts of our economy and our communities across the commonwealth.”
However, while seeking to save the lives of born children and shuttering businesses in order to preserve the vulnerable in society, those still located in their mother’s womb may continue to be murdered as abortion facilities were given the green light to continue to operate.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) issued a statement on Tuesday in which it urged government leaders nationwide to ensure that abortion facilities are not included in the shutdown of non-essential businesses.
“Abortion care is a time-sensitive service that cannot be significantly deferred without profound consequences for women and their families. … It is an essential health service,” it wrote, arguing that the with the pandemic, mothers will even more so seek abortion as their finances will be strained.
“An individual and family decide to end a pregnancy for a complex constellation of reasons that include the impact of pregnancy and birth on their health, ability to work, and strained economic circumstances. These are conditions that do not go away — and are likely heightened — in pandemic conditions,” the NAF said.
“Patients presenting for time-sensitive care, including abortion care, need timely access to treatment, even during this pandemic,” it asserted. “As we navigate COVID-19, it is critical that leaders treat outpatient abortion providers as essential businesses, and that hospital systems ensure the continuation of abortion care as an essential service.”
Most abortion facilities in the nation continue to operate amid the COVID-19 outbreak, except for in Ohio, where Attorney General Dave Yost specifically ordered them to shut down.
Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis noted on Saturday that while states such as New York and California are working hard to preserve life during the coronavirus crisis, they are hypocritically defensive of the “right” to kill children in the womb. Nearly a million unborn babies lose their lives to abortion every year in the United States alone.
“God have mercy. May He help us stop this virus and save lives. But America needs to stop willingly killing its babies, and it needs repentance and spiritual awakening,” he wrote.

CHLOROQUINE: A POTENTIAL CURE FOR NOVEL CORONAVIRUS?~GERMAN PHARMACEUTICAL BAYER WILL SEND U.S. A LARGE SUPPLY

CHLOROQUINE: A POTENTIAL CURE FOR NOVEL CORONAVIRUS?~GERMAN PHARMACEUTICAL BAYER WILL SEND U.S. A LARGE SUPPLY
President Trump is looking at an old German medicine as a possible cure for novel coronavirus. This came after a group of scientists confirmed the drug inhibits the virus in most cases, making a proper vaccine unnecessary. One America's Kristian Rouz looks into the matter.


PA BILL WOULD BAN INTERNET AMMO SALES, REQUIRE $50/4 YEAR PERMIT TO BUY CARTRIDGES

Pennsylvania State Rep. Thomas Murt (R) is pushing a permit requirement for ammunition purchases throughout the state.
His legislation — HB 2344 — has been referred to the PA’s House Judiciary Committee and is filed with the memo, “Addressing Gun Violence and Enhancing Public Health and Safety.”
FILE - PA Tom Murt 2-4-2020
PA BILL WOULD BAN INTERNET AMMO SALES, REQUIRE $50/4 YEAR PERMIT 
TO BUY CARTRIDGES
BY CHRIS EGER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
New legislation introduced this month in the Pennsylvania House aims to add fees and limits to how Keystone Staters buy their ammunition.
Pennsylvania House Bill 2344 was referred to the chamber’s Judiciary Committee last week with a dozen sponsors. Filed by state Rep. Tom Murt, R-Montgomery,  it would wrap the ammo buying process in layers of Harrisburg red tape.
In its current format, the 25-page bill would mandate those who want to pick up some bullets first obtain a proposed Ammunition Purchase Authorization Permit, a four-year $50 ammo permission slip controlled by state police. Permits, which could take 30 days to process, would be tracked, their information retained in a central database, and subject to revocation.
When it comes to the act of buying ammunition, with a $3 surcharge payable to the state, ammo could only be purchased online if it is delivered to a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to process a subsequent face-to-face transfer. This would end the common practice among Pennsylvanians of ordering from e-commerce ammo retailers such as Guns.com and having it conveniently delivered to their home.
Further, Commonwealth residents under the proposal would be barred from legally transporting ammunition into the state that was acquired outside of its borders unless they have a licensed dealer coordinate the transfer.
While the bill exempts police and law enforcement from its requirements, those who violate the provisions of the ammo control mandate could face up to a second-degree felony, a punishment that is on par with involuntary manslaughter and provides from 5 to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000.
Murt is a suburban Philly Republican who took office in 2007 and announced earlier this year that he is not seeking reelection. All of HB 2344’s co-sponsors are currently Democrats.