- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
Donald Trump es elegido como el Presidente número 45 de los Estados Unidos.
- Autorlisset
- Fecha de inicio
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
OPINION
Nancy Pelosi didn’t do herself any favors when she insisted on debating border security behind closed doors
by Becket Adams
| December 11, 2018 03:47 PM
VÍDEO: Nancy Pelosi didn’t do herself any favors when she insisted on debating border security behind closed doors https://washex.am/2GbYfxY
President Trump, presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sparred Tuesday over the White House’s threat to force a government shutdown over border security funding.
The debate, which was messy and pointed, was done publicly, despite Pelosi’s repeated attempts to take the discussion behind closed doors.
“I don't think we should have a debate in front of the press on this,”
she interjected at one point.
Pelosi added later during the same discussion, “Well, again, let us have our conversation then we can meet with the press again.”
Later, toward the end of the debate, she suggested a third time that they go private, saying, “Let's call a halt to this. We have come in here … in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open."
The going narrative in the press now is that Trump greatly hurt himself and the Republican Party by claiming he’d take full responsibility for a government shutdown (should it come to that).
“If we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government, absolutely,” the president said. “And I'll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems, and drugs pouring into our country.”
He added, “So I will take the mantle. I will be the [one] to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down, and I'm going to shut it down for border security.”
Whether this hurts Trump remains to be seen. His hope is that, unlike Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or federal budget squabbles, “border security” may be a broad enough issue for voters to support a government shutdown.
What seems more certain than the narrative alleging Trump hurt himself by taking the “mantle of shutting down” is that Pelosi will come away from Tuesday’s meeting looking not great.
I’m having a difficult time finding the downside to leaders from opposing parties publicly debating policy in a spirited but civil fashion. You want a good example of democracy in action, how about the image of party leaders publicly and freely disagreeing, without fear of death, bodily harm, or imprisonment? We should have more public discussions like the one held in the White House on Tuesday, not fewer. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that.
Pelosi's repeated insistence on going behind closed doors to discuss an issue as big as border security only invites the question: Will there be cigar smoke? Trump may have hurt himself by pre-emptively claiming responsibility for a government shutdown, but Pelosi also doesn’t do herself or anyone else favors by trying to hide the debate in darkness.
https://washex.am/2GbYfxY
Nancy Pelosi didn’t do herself any favors when she insisted on debating border security behind closed doors
by Becket Adams
| December 11, 2018 03:47 PM
VÍDEO: Nancy Pelosi didn’t do herself any favors when she insisted on debating border security behind closed doors https://washex.am/2GbYfxY
President Trump, presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sparred Tuesday over the White House’s threat to force a government shutdown over border security funding.
The debate, which was messy and pointed, was done publicly, despite Pelosi’s repeated attempts to take the discussion behind closed doors.
“I don't think we should have a debate in front of the press on this,”
she interjected at one point.
Pelosi added later during the same discussion, “Well, again, let us have our conversation then we can meet with the press again.”
Later, toward the end of the debate, she suggested a third time that they go private, saying, “Let's call a halt to this. We have come in here … in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open."
The going narrative in the press now is that Trump greatly hurt himself and the Republican Party by claiming he’d take full responsibility for a government shutdown (should it come to that).
“If we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government, absolutely,” the president said. “And I'll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems, and drugs pouring into our country.”
He added, “So I will take the mantle. I will be the [one] to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down, and I'm going to shut it down for border security.”
Whether this hurts Trump remains to be seen. His hope is that, unlike Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or federal budget squabbles, “border security” may be a broad enough issue for voters to support a government shutdown.
What seems more certain than the narrative alleging Trump hurt himself by taking the “mantle of shutting down” is that Pelosi will come away from Tuesday’s meeting looking not great.
I’m having a difficult time finding the downside to leaders from opposing parties publicly debating policy in a spirited but civil fashion. You want a good example of democracy in action, how about the image of party leaders publicly and freely disagreeing, without fear of death, bodily harm, or imprisonment? We should have more public discussions like the one held in the White House on Tuesday, not fewer. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that.
Pelosi's repeated insistence on going behind closed doors to discuss an issue as big as border security only invites the question: Will there be cigar smoke? Trump may have hurt himself by pre-emptively claiming responsibility for a government shutdown, but Pelosi also doesn’t do herself or anyone else favors by trying to hide the debate in darkness.
https://washex.am/2GbYfxY
Última edición:
https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/12/14/actualidad/1544753792_031078.html
Esto me produce asco.Asco de este Presidente.
Una familia de migrantes en Texas. AP
Muere deshidratada una niña migrante de siete años tras ser detenida en la frontera de Estados Unidos
Esto me produce asco.Asco de este Presidente.
Una familia de migrantes en Texas. AP
Muere deshidratada una niña migrante de siete años tras ser detenida en la frontera de Estados Unidos
https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/12/14/actualidad/1544753792_031078.html
Esto me produce asco.Asco de este Presidente.
Una familia de migrantes en Texas. AP
Muere deshidratada una niña migrante de siete años tras ser detenida en la frontera de Estados Unidos
Trump es muchas cosas a la vez: fascista, racista, xenófobo, ignorante, profundamente inculto, payaso... un tipo realmente abominable. Es la personificación misma del fracaso como ser humano. ¡Ascazo profundo!
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
STATE DEPARTMENT
Published February 8, 2018
Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn, | Fox News
What is the Russia-Clinton uranium deal?
What’s the latest on a controversial uranium deal with Russia that was brokered during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State?
As federal investigators continue to look into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors are also probing an Obama-era sale of a uranium mining company.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year directed federal prosecutors to look into the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company – a transaction that President Trump has called the “real Russia story.”
The Hill reported that Russian officials engaged in a “racketeering scheme” to further its energy goals in the U.S. And an FBI informant recently told congressional committees that Russia paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in an effort to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make sure the deal was successful.
What was the Uranium One deal?
In 2013, Rosatom, backed by the Russian state, acquired a Canadian uranium mining company, now called Uranium One, which has assets in the U.S. Uranium is a key material for making nuclear weapons.
Through the deal, Russia is able to own about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, Colin Chilcoat, an energy affairs specialist who has written extensively about Russia's energy deals, said that the company only extracts about 11 percent of uranium in the U.S.
The deal also “doesn’t allow for that uranium to be exported at all,” Chilcoat told Fox News. “It’s not like it’s leaving the U.S. or somehow finding its way to more insidious players.”
The agreement was approved by nine government agencies with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency group that reviews how certain foreign investments can impact national security. The State Department under Clinton was one of those agencies, though Clinton told WMUR-TV in 2015 that she was not “personally involved” in the agreement.
Why is it controversial?
Some investors reportedly donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia and reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal, Republicans, who are largely critical of the deal, have said.
'Clinton Cash' author talks Russian uranium deal controversy
Peter Schweizer shares his take on 'Fox & Friends.'
The FBI had looked into the agreement and uncovered that some Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in nefarious dealings, which included extortion, bribery and kickbacks, The Hill reported. Evidence of wrongdoing by Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. who was eventually sentenced to prison, was discovered by the FBI before the deal was approved, according to The Hill.
Author Peter Schweizer – who wrote about the deal in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash” – told Fox News that there is no evidence that the people involved with approving the agreement knew that the FBI had an ongoing investigation into it.
But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News “if anyone colluded for a foreign government in [the 2016] election, it was the Clinton campaign [and] the Democrats.”
What did the informant reveal?
Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant, alleged that Moscow paid millions of dollars to a lobbying firm to help Bill Clinton’s charities in order to influence Hillary Clinton, who was then former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state.
Campbell made the claims in a 10-page statement given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.”
"Your real Russia story is uranium."
— President Donald Trump
“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”
APCO Worldwide is a global public affairs consulting agency. In a statement to Fox News, APCO said Campbell’s allegations are “false and unfounded.”
“The key issues at stake in this investigation are all about intent and knowledge: was there an intent to influence official business, and, if so, did the recipient take the money in exchange for taking official action,” Jamil Jaffer, a former counsel in the Justice Department and the director of the National Security Law and Policy Program at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told Fox News.
But Jaffer said the credibility of the so-called informant will also come into play.
“Was this a foreign agent or criminal who turned? Was this a private individual the FBI placed inside [the deal]? Was this a government employee? All these factors, plus the level of the informant’s access to relevant information, will make a big difference here,” Jaffer said.
But what does this deal have to do with the Russia investigation?
Multiple congressional committees, as well as the Justice Department, are looking into possible Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election – and ties between Russians and Trump’s campaign.
"That's your real Russia story. Not a story where they talk about collusion and there was none. It was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium," Trump has said.
Uranium One informant says Russia sent money to sway Clinton
Victoria Toensing speaks out on what her client Douglas Campbell told Congress.
Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the probe into alleged Russian interference in the election, was the head of the FBI when it investigated Rosatom officials’ extortion and corruption.
What new documents reveal about the Uranium One deal
Unveiled memos conflict with the Justice Department's statement.
And the investigation was led by then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, The Hill reported. Rosenstein is now the deputy attorney general; McCabe, until last month, was the deputy director of the FBI.
Mueller's investigators in the Russia probe report to Rosenstein.
The special prosecutors instructed by the Justice Department to investigate “certain issues” pertaining to the Uranium One deal will also report to Rosenstein and Sessions, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
Congressional committees are looking into whether Mueller informed the Obama administration, particularly those tasked with approving the Uranium One deal, prior to CFIUS approval.
In her attempt to discredit reports of the controversy surrounding the Uranium One deal, Clinton said Trump and “his allies,” are diverting from the investigation.
“The closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians … the more they want to just throw mud on the wall,” she said. “I’m their favorite target, me and President Obama.”
Fox News' Brooke Singman, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter: @K_Schallhorn.
Published February 8, 2018
Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn, | Fox News
What is the Russia-Clinton uranium deal?
What’s the latest on a controversial uranium deal with Russia that was brokered during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State?
As federal investigators continue to look into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors are also probing an Obama-era sale of a uranium mining company.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year directed federal prosecutors to look into the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company – a transaction that President Trump has called the “real Russia story.”
The Hill reported that Russian officials engaged in a “racketeering scheme” to further its energy goals in the U.S. And an FBI informant recently told congressional committees that Russia paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in an effort to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make sure the deal was successful.
What was the Uranium One deal?
In 2013, Rosatom, backed by the Russian state, acquired a Canadian uranium mining company, now called Uranium One, which has assets in the U.S. Uranium is a key material for making nuclear weapons.
Through the deal, Russia is able to own about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, Colin Chilcoat, an energy affairs specialist who has written extensively about Russia's energy deals, said that the company only extracts about 11 percent of uranium in the U.S.
The deal also “doesn’t allow for that uranium to be exported at all,” Chilcoat told Fox News. “It’s not like it’s leaving the U.S. or somehow finding its way to more insidious players.”
The agreement was approved by nine government agencies with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency group that reviews how certain foreign investments can impact national security. The State Department under Clinton was one of those agencies, though Clinton told WMUR-TV in 2015 that she was not “personally involved” in the agreement.
Why is it controversial?
Some investors reportedly donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia and reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal, Republicans, who are largely critical of the deal, have said.
'Clinton Cash' author talks Russian uranium deal controversy
Peter Schweizer shares his take on 'Fox & Friends.'
The FBI had looked into the agreement and uncovered that some Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in nefarious dealings, which included extortion, bribery and kickbacks, The Hill reported. Evidence of wrongdoing by Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. who was eventually sentenced to prison, was discovered by the FBI before the deal was approved, according to The Hill.
Author Peter Schweizer – who wrote about the deal in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash” – told Fox News that there is no evidence that the people involved with approving the agreement knew that the FBI had an ongoing investigation into it.
But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News “if anyone colluded for a foreign government in [the 2016] election, it was the Clinton campaign [and] the Democrats.”
What did the informant reveal?
Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant, alleged that Moscow paid millions of dollars to a lobbying firm to help Bill Clinton’s charities in order to influence Hillary Clinton, who was then former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state.
Campbell made the claims in a 10-page statement given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.”
"Your real Russia story is uranium."
— President Donald Trump
“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”
APCO Worldwide is a global public affairs consulting agency. In a statement to Fox News, APCO said Campbell’s allegations are “false and unfounded.”
“The key issues at stake in this investigation are all about intent and knowledge: was there an intent to influence official business, and, if so, did the recipient take the money in exchange for taking official action,” Jamil Jaffer, a former counsel in the Justice Department and the director of the National Security Law and Policy Program at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told Fox News.
But Jaffer said the credibility of the so-called informant will also come into play.
“Was this a foreign agent or criminal who turned? Was this a private individual the FBI placed inside [the deal]? Was this a government employee? All these factors, plus the level of the informant’s access to relevant information, will make a big difference here,” Jaffer said.
But what does this deal have to do with the Russia investigation?
Multiple congressional committees, as well as the Justice Department, are looking into possible Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election – and ties between Russians and Trump’s campaign.
"That's your real Russia story. Not a story where they talk about collusion and there was none. It was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium," Trump has said.
Uranium One informant says Russia sent money to sway Clinton
Victoria Toensing speaks out on what her client Douglas Campbell told Congress.
Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the probe into alleged Russian interference in the election, was the head of the FBI when it investigated Rosatom officials’ extortion and corruption.
What new documents reveal about the Uranium One deal
Unveiled memos conflict with the Justice Department's statement.
And the investigation was led by then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, The Hill reported. Rosenstein is now the deputy attorney general; McCabe, until last month, was the deputy director of the FBI.
Mueller's investigators in the Russia probe report to Rosenstein.
The special prosecutors instructed by the Justice Department to investigate “certain issues” pertaining to the Uranium One deal will also report to Rosenstein and Sessions, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
Congressional committees are looking into whether Mueller informed the Obama administration, particularly those tasked with approving the Uranium One deal, prior to CFIUS approval.
In her attempt to discredit reports of the controversy surrounding the Uranium One deal, Clinton said Trump and “his allies,” are diverting from the investigation.
“The closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians … the more they want to just throw mud on the wall,” she said. “I’m their favorite target, me and President Obama.”
Fox News' Brooke Singman, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter: @K_Schallhorn.
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
- Registrado
- 21 May 2013
- Mensajes
- 3.542
- Calificaciones
- 14.869
Halaaaaaaaaaaaa! Vaya mentira más gorda! Menuda jeta!
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
US
CBNNEWS.COM
Displaying 30+ Stories
'A Sad and Evil Day': New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby's Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
01-23-2019
Emily Jones
New York legislators cheered and applauded Tuesday night after the state Senate removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing unborn babies to be aborted up until the day of birth.
The Reproductive Health Act passed with a 38-28 vote and was signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). "Today we are taking a giant step forward in the hard-fought battle to ensure a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own personal health, including the ability to access an abortion," Gov. Cuomo said.
The law erases New York's previous limitations on abortion which restricted the fatal procedure past 24 weeks. Supporters say those late-term abortions are being allowed in order to protect the lives of women, but pro-life advocates say that's just a ruse, pointing out that those late-term babies are clearly viable human lives who could otherwise survive outside the womb.
"RHA is an extreme bill sold to the public saying it merely 'updates' New York's law, which is far from true. RHA will expand abortion past 24 weeks through birth, make abortion a 'fundamental right,' and prohibit all limits, which Roe vs. Wade did *not* do," New York State Right to Life said in a Facebook post.
Christina Fadden, chair of New York State Right to Life explained further, "RHA has expanded abortion-on-demand in New York past 24 weeks – well past when unborn children feel pain, are viable, and suffer during the course of an abortion – and up to birth. This is inhumane."
LATEST: Hypocrisy, 'Homicide', and 'Horrors': New York's Brand New 'License to Kill' Viable Babies Sparks Intense Outrage
The act states, "every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion."
The law also removes abortion from the definition of homicide and New York's criminal code altogether. Previously, New York law treated the murder of an unborn child in its the third trimester as a felony offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.
The RHA changes that. Instead, abortion will be regulated under public health law and a variety of medical professionals, not just licensed physicians, will be allowed to perform abortions without penalty.
"Opponents say this limits prosecutors when they look to charge individuals who harm a woman's unborn child in a domestic violence case or otherwise. Supporters say, in such cases, there remain plenty of other, much harsher criminal charges at prosecutors' disposal," reports the Times Union.
New York Republicans and conservatives fought against the law but the measure sailed through the state Senate after Democrats won a majority in the Senate last November.
Advocates say the new law will protect abortion even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. "With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body," Cuomo said.
BELOW: Planned Parenthood NYC tweeted a video of the cheering and celebration of the sweeping expansion of abortion:
Pro-life activists are horrified by the New York abortion legislation.
"New York Senate cheers today for legalization of killing a baby old enough to born - poisoning a 6 month old to death in the womb & delivering her in pieces. This is the legacy of #Roe. It's time to end this barbarism," said Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action.
Outspoken Christian and New Orleans Saints tight end Ben Watson also strongly condemned the law.
"It is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance. We SHOULD be supporting and encouraging the building of families which are fundamental to any society. By not doing so, we invite consequences untold," he tweeted shortly after the law was passed.
MORE: Hypocrisy, 'Homicide', and 'Horrors': New York's Brand New 'License to Kill' Viable Babies Sparks Intense Outrage
'A Sad and Evil Day': New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby's Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade http://fw.to/kATqMnZ
CBNNEWS.COM
Displaying 30+ Stories
'A Sad and Evil Day': New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby's Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
01-23-2019
Emily Jones
New York legislators cheered and applauded Tuesday night after the state Senate removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing unborn babies to be aborted up until the day of birth.
The Reproductive Health Act passed with a 38-28 vote and was signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). "Today we are taking a giant step forward in the hard-fought battle to ensure a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own personal health, including the ability to access an abortion," Gov. Cuomo said.
The law erases New York's previous limitations on abortion which restricted the fatal procedure past 24 weeks. Supporters say those late-term abortions are being allowed in order to protect the lives of women, but pro-life advocates say that's just a ruse, pointing out that those late-term babies are clearly viable human lives who could otherwise survive outside the womb.
"RHA is an extreme bill sold to the public saying it merely 'updates' New York's law, which is far from true. RHA will expand abortion past 24 weeks through birth, make abortion a 'fundamental right,' and prohibit all limits, which Roe vs. Wade did *not* do," New York State Right to Life said in a Facebook post.
Christina Fadden, chair of New York State Right to Life explained further, "RHA has expanded abortion-on-demand in New York past 24 weeks – well past when unborn children feel pain, are viable, and suffer during the course of an abortion – and up to birth. This is inhumane."
LATEST: Hypocrisy, 'Homicide', and 'Horrors': New York's Brand New 'License to Kill' Viable Babies Sparks Intense Outrage
The act states, "every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion."
The law also removes abortion from the definition of homicide and New York's criminal code altogether. Previously, New York law treated the murder of an unborn child in its the third trimester as a felony offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.
The RHA changes that. Instead, abortion will be regulated under public health law and a variety of medical professionals, not just licensed physicians, will be allowed to perform abortions without penalty.
"Opponents say this limits prosecutors when they look to charge individuals who harm a woman's unborn child in a domestic violence case or otherwise. Supporters say, in such cases, there remain plenty of other, much harsher criminal charges at prosecutors' disposal," reports the Times Union.
New York Republicans and conservatives fought against the law but the measure sailed through the state Senate after Democrats won a majority in the Senate last November.
Advocates say the new law will protect abortion even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. "With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body," Cuomo said.
BELOW: Planned Parenthood NYC tweeted a video of the cheering and celebration of the sweeping expansion of abortion:
Pro-life activists are horrified by the New York abortion legislation.
"New York Senate cheers today for legalization of killing a baby old enough to born - poisoning a 6 month old to death in the womb & delivering her in pieces. This is the legacy of #Roe. It's time to end this barbarism," said Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action.
Outspoken Christian and New Orleans Saints tight end Ben Watson also strongly condemned the law.
"It is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance. We SHOULD be supporting and encouraging the building of families which are fundamental to any society. By not doing so, we invite consequences untold," he tweeted shortly after the law was passed.
MORE: Hypocrisy, 'Homicide', and 'Horrors': New York's Brand New 'License to Kill' Viable Babies Sparks Intense Outrage
'A Sad and Evil Day': New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby's Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade http://fw.to/kATqMnZ
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
Cassy Fiano-Chesser
THE PULSE
Mon Feb 11, 2019 - 9:21 pm EST
Infant who survived abortion screamed for an hour while left alone to die
Feb. 11, 2019 (LiveActionNews) - The abortion industry doesn’t want to admit that babies can survive abortion. They call it a myth and pretend it doesn’t happen — but it does. And what happens when babies do survive abortions is chilling. Too often, the babies are left to die, with no comfort or compassion, but alone and cold and in pain. This is exactly what just happened in Poland, where a baby with Down syndrome was the victim of a botched abortion, and was then left to die, crying for nearly an hour while doctors did nothing.
Doctors and medical staff at Holy Family Hospital in Warsaw, Poland, left a child to die after a botched abortion, according to local media reports detailing the horrific scene.
The baby was born on March 7, 2016 at 24 weeks, after an abortion failed. The child cried and screaming for an hour before dying, according to witnesses, as reported on Republika Television.
Medical personnel did not try to help the child in any way.
Hospital spokesperson Dorota Jasłowska-Niemyska explained that a patient at the end of the 23rd week of pregnancy came to the hospital, and her medical tests suggested that the baby had Down syndrome. The hospital claims that everything that happened thereafter was according to the law and medical procedures. The dignity of the patient and the dignity of the fetus were respected, she continued.
In Poland, abortion is illegal — except to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape in the first trimester, or if the baby has a “severe and irreversible handicap or an incurable and life-threatening disease.” In the third option, the baby can be aborted until the point of viability. But viability is not explicitly defined, so late-term abortions can happen, as long as the baby is considered to be disabled. It’s a despicable law that discriminates against people for the “crime” of having a disability.
A baby at 24 weeks gestation is also indisputably at the point of viability. It is at 24 weeks that a baby reaches the 50% mark of surviving, but babies younger than 24 weeks have survived. A recent study found that more and more babies were surviving at 23 weeks, and a study before that found that babies as young as 22 weeks could survive with proper treatment. And at least two babies have survived at 21 weeks. Amilia Taylor and James Elgin Gill were both born at 21 weeks and survived, and are both now healthy and thriving.
Sadly, the abortion industry doesn’t care much about science and viability. They also don’t care about their legal requirement to offer medical care to babies who survive abortion, even here in the United States. Live Action’s Inhumaninvestigation uncovered the truth: that late-term abortionists across the country would leave babies to die if they survived the abortion, without offering any medical care whatsoever.
What happens when a baby survives an abortion? Live Action’s undercover cameras reveal what late-term abortionists would do with a baby struggling for life. Watch their shocking admissions from our “Inhuman” investigation.
Posted by Live Action on Saturday, June 20, 2015
As for Poland, a Catholic priest, Ryszard Halwa, is calling for the hospital to be charged with a crime. If a baby survives an abortion and is born, then he is legally considered a child and should have been given the life-saving medical care that was needed.
Hospital staff failed to do so, and should be held accountable.
Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.
THE PULSE
Mon Feb 11, 2019 - 9:21 pm EST
Infant who survived abortion screamed for an hour while left alone to die
Feb. 11, 2019 (LiveActionNews) - The abortion industry doesn’t want to admit that babies can survive abortion. They call it a myth and pretend it doesn’t happen — but it does. And what happens when babies do survive abortions is chilling. Too often, the babies are left to die, with no comfort or compassion, but alone and cold and in pain. This is exactly what just happened in Poland, where a baby with Down syndrome was the victim of a botched abortion, and was then left to die, crying for nearly an hour while doctors did nothing.
Doctors and medical staff at Holy Family Hospital in Warsaw, Poland, left a child to die after a botched abortion, according to local media reports detailing the horrific scene.
The baby was born on March 7, 2016 at 24 weeks, after an abortion failed. The child cried and screaming for an hour before dying, according to witnesses, as reported on Republika Television.
Medical personnel did not try to help the child in any way.
Hospital spokesperson Dorota Jasłowska-Niemyska explained that a patient at the end of the 23rd week of pregnancy came to the hospital, and her medical tests suggested that the baby had Down syndrome. The hospital claims that everything that happened thereafter was according to the law and medical procedures. The dignity of the patient and the dignity of the fetus were respected, she continued.
In Poland, abortion is illegal — except to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape in the first trimester, or if the baby has a “severe and irreversible handicap or an incurable and life-threatening disease.” In the third option, the baby can be aborted until the point of viability. But viability is not explicitly defined, so late-term abortions can happen, as long as the baby is considered to be disabled. It’s a despicable law that discriminates against people for the “crime” of having a disability.
A baby at 24 weeks gestation is also indisputably at the point of viability. It is at 24 weeks that a baby reaches the 50% mark of surviving, but babies younger than 24 weeks have survived. A recent study found that more and more babies were surviving at 23 weeks, and a study before that found that babies as young as 22 weeks could survive with proper treatment. And at least two babies have survived at 21 weeks. Amilia Taylor and James Elgin Gill were both born at 21 weeks and survived, and are both now healthy and thriving.
Sadly, the abortion industry doesn’t care much about science and viability. They also don’t care about their legal requirement to offer medical care to babies who survive abortion, even here in the United States. Live Action’s Inhumaninvestigation uncovered the truth: that late-term abortionists across the country would leave babies to die if they survived the abortion, without offering any medical care whatsoever.
What happens when a baby survives an abortion? Live Action’s undercover cameras reveal what late-term abortionists would do with a baby struggling for life. Watch their shocking admissions from our “Inhuman” investigation.
Posted by Live Action on Saturday, June 20, 2015
As for Poland, a Catholic priest, Ryszard Halwa, is calling for the hospital to be charged with a crime. If a baby survives an abortion and is born, then he is legally considered a child and should have been given the life-saving medical care that was needed.
Hospital staff failed to do so, and should be held accountable.
Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.
- Registrado
- 21 May 2013
- Mensajes
- 3.542
- Calificaciones
- 14.869
US
CBNNEWS.COM
Displaying 30+ Stories
'A Sad and Evil Day': New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby's Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
01-23-2019
Emily Jones
New York legislators cheered and applauded Tuesday night after the state Senate removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing unborn babies to be aborted up until the day of birth.
The Reproductive Health Act passed with a 38-28 vote and was signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). "Today we are taking a giant step forward in the hard-fought battle to ensure a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own personal health, including the ability to access an abortion," Gov. Cuomo said.
The law erases New York's previous limitations on abortion which restricted the fatal procedure past 24 weeks. Supporters say those late-term abortions are being allowed in order to protect the lives of women, but pro-life advocates say that's just a ruse, pointing out that those late-term babies are clearly viable human lives who could otherwise survive outside the womb.
"RHA is an extreme bill sold to the public saying it merely 'updates' New York's law, which is far from true. RHA will expand abortion past 24 weeks through birth, make abortion a 'fundamental right,' and prohibit all limits, which Roe vs. Wade did *not* do," New York State Right to Life said in a Facebook post.
Christina Fadden, chair of New York State Right to Life explained further, "RHA has expanded abortion-on-demand in New York past 24 weeks – well past when unborn children feel pain, are viable, and suffer during the course of an abortion – and up to birth. This is inhumane."
LATEST: Hypocrisy, 'Homicide', and 'Horrors': New York's Brand New 'License to Kill' Viable Babies Sparks Intense Outrage
The act states, "every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion."
The law also removes abortion from the definition of homicide and New York's criminal code altogether. Previously, New York law treated the murder of an unborn child in its the third trimester as a felony offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.
The RHA changes that. Instead, abortion will be regulated under public health law and a variety of medical professionals, not just licensed physicians, will be allowed to perform abortions without penalty.
"Opponents say this limits prosecutors when they look to charge individuals who harm a woman's unborn child in a domestic violence case or otherwise. Supporters say, in such cases, there remain plenty of other, much harsher criminal charges at prosecutors' disposal," reports the Times Union.
New York Republicans and conservatives fought against the law but the measure sailed through the state Senate after Democrats won a majority in the Senate last November.
Advocates say the new law will protect abortion even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. "With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body," Cuomo said.
BELOW: Planned Parenthood NYC tweeted a video of the cheering and celebration of the sweeping expansion of abortion:
Pro-life activists are horrified by the New York abortion legislation.
"New York Senate cheers today for legalization of killing a baby old enough to born - poisoning a 6 month old to death in the womb & delivering her in pieces. This is the legacy of #Roe. It's time to end this barbarism," said Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action.
Outspoken Christian and New Orleans Saints tight end Ben Watson also strongly condemned the law.
"It is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance. We SHOULD be supporting and encouraging the building of families which are fundamental to any society. By not doing so, we invite consequences untold," he tweeted shortly after the law was passed.
MORE: Hypocrisy, 'Homicide', and 'Horrors': New York's Brand New 'License to Kill' Viable Babies Sparks Intense Outrage
'A Sad and Evil Day': New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby's Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade http://fw.to/kATqMnZ
@Eleonora de Toledo, el tuit de Trump que has puesto no tiene absolutamente nada que ver con esta noticia.
- Registrado
- 26 Ago 2013
- Mensajes
- 22.639
- Calificaciones
- 137.621
Por supuesto que sí. Estamo hablando de una ley que permite abortar en cualquier tiempo de egestación. Se trata del lucrativo negocio del aborto - como es el caso de esta criminal organización Planned Parenthood, mediante el asesinato de bebés, a lo que Trump se opne, y en el caso de la noticia que he incluído, dejándolos incluso morir de forma cruel e inhumana.
Lee este artículo, quizá te haga relfexionar.
Planned Parenthood Scandals: From Margaret to Cecile
By Brittany Raymer
Life Issues
Over the 100 years that Planned Parenthood has been in business, the organization has been mired in repeated scandals. From founder Margaret Sanger’s support of eugenics policies to the alleged selling of aborted preborn baby tissue for medical research under Cecile Richards, the company has a long history of questionable positions and activities. Planned Parenthood has long operated as a business that by many accounts appears to prey on women in the most vulnerable of circumstances, and ignore the most basic of medical ethics.
Margaret’s Legacy
Legal Troubles: The law was always a challenge for Margaret Sanger. Throughout her early years of activism, Margaret was arrested multiple times for various offenses. The first time she was arrested was in 1914 for circulating issues of The Woman Rebel, which was considered by the authorities to contain obscene material. Facing a probable long prison sentence for violating federal law, Margaret jumped bail and fled the country for England.
She eventually returned to the U.S. for trial in October 1915, but the charges were dropped by a sympathetic court after the death of her only daughter that November. Margaret would be arrested many more times and have various clinics raided, but public sympathy and a higher profile helped her avoid a longer prison sentence than the short stints she served.
Eugenics: One of the most horrifying legacies of Margaret for Planned Parenthood is her support of the eugenics movement. A popular theory in the early 20th century, eugenics led to large scale abuses against those considered undesirable, like individuals with special needs and certain races, and eventually culminated in the racial and genocidal policies of Nazi Germany. Margaret did not agree with all aspects of the eugenics movement, but supported the idea that the birth of “diseased or defective children” should be avoided at all costs.
Here are some of her quotes on the subject:
- “Bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, (and) that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they are born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can commit.” Mike Wallace Interview, 1957.
- “Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly…Many of the children thus begotten are sub-normal or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these undesirables has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation…To create a race of well-born children it is essential that the function of motherhood should be elevated to a position of dignity, and this is impossible as long as conception remains a matter of chance.” What We Stand For: Principles and Aims of the American Birth Control League, Harvard Library, 192-.
There is little doubt— based on her writings and activities—that Margaret harbored some racist ideas and feelings, though the extent is unknown. However, there is strong evidence that she was classist. As a child, she envied the factory executives who lived on the hills and despised the workers that lived on the flatlands. She equated class with the number of children in a family and concluded that large families were more likely to have delinquents.
In her autobiography, she wrote, “Large families were associated with poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness cruelty, fighting, jails, the small ones with cleanliness, leisure, freedom, light, space and sunshine.” She also stated that she had concerns that the “[lower] birth rate among the upper and educated classes and the increase among the unfit, the consequences of which were sure to be race suicide.”
The foundations of Planned Parenthood reside in some of the most radical and dangerous thinking of the early 20thcentury. As Cecile Richards took the reins as president in the early 21st century, the organization had changed and yet remained the same. The goal, it seems, has been to consistently target the most vulnerable.
Cecile’s Scandals
Undercover videos: In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress released the first of many undercover videos. Those videos show Planned Parenthood executives and clinic administrators haggling over the price of aborted preborn baby body parts and discussing how they could manipulate the abortion procedure to get the best specimens. (Donating aborted preborn baby tissue for medical research is legal, but selling tissue or changing the procedure to get a better specimen is illegal.) The media firestorm that erupted put Planned Parenthood on the defensive, and Cecile was the face of the organization’s calculated response that consisted of repeatedly saying that the videos were altered.
In response, members of Congress attempted to defund Planned Parenthood. Though it wasn’t successful, the organization came under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as state law enforcement agencies.
The Mammogram Question: After the release of the Center for Medical Progress videos, Cecile Richards appeared on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos in July 2015 defending Planned Parenthood. In the interview, Cecile stated that Planned Parenthood clients accessed other services at their clinics besides abortion. She said this includes “breast screenings,” which is defined by the Center’s for Disease Control (CDC) as a mammogram. However, Planned Parenthood’s own website explains that they only do “breast exams,” a physician conducted procedure similar to self-exams that women can do at home. It is not a mammogram.
While Cecile didn’t use the word, “mammogram,” other high-profile defenders of Planned Parenthood did. The defense of continued public funding for Planned Parenthood because of its role as a community provider of mammograms was frequently used by advocates to demonstrate the organization’s crucial role in cancer screening and prevention for women. The Washington Post Fact Checker determined that any statement about Planned Parenthood giving “mammograms” is considered to have “significant factual errors.” The fact that some Planned Parenthood advocates claimed that women receive mammograms at the organization’s centers appeared to perpetuate a culture of deceit and misrepresentation that seems to surround the nation’s largest abortion seller.
Rapes/Underage Patients: One of the most disturbing trends under Cecile is the pervasive underreporting by Planned Parenthood clinicians of possible cases of statutory rape. Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit Christian law firm, gathered information about a variety of cases where Planned Parenthood employees failed to report sexual abuse and helped conceal the crime by selling an abortion and/or providing contraception to the minor girl. Some of the girls also reported abuse directly to Planned Parenthood employees, but were reportedly returned to their abuser where their torment continued, sometimes for years. In one case, a Planned Parenthood employee allegedly told the girl that she did not want the “hassle” of reporting the assault.
Though some of the cases reported happened before Cecile became president, it does not appear that significant changes occurred to address the lack of medical ethics and illegal activity alleged among her employees. As an organization supposedly dedicated to women’s health, she did remarkably little to help demand that Planned Parenthood protect some of the most vulnerable and underage clients.
© 2018 Focus on the Family.
Next in this Series: Beyond Abortion: 100 Years of Planned Parenthood’s Legacy
