Maryland's "Pregnant Person's Freedom Act Of 2022" Could Legalize Infantacide

 

Maryland Senate Bill 669, a.k.a. the “Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022,” could effectively allow babies to be left to die for as long as the first 28 days after birth, according to analysis from a pro-life attorney. Senator William Smith, a Democrat, sponsored the repulsive legislation, which is slated to have a hearing on March 15. 

American Center for Law and Justice attorney Olivia Summers stated in her analysis of the bill that it “proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion.” This is due to the fact that the legislation would prohibit investigations and criminal prosecutions for women and medical professionals for a “failure to act” in relation to a “perinatal death.” 

Summers added, “In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.” 

She noted that the bill’s language is unclear, allowing for the possibility that the law could be interpreted to “prevent investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!” 

Whereas The Maryland Code does not define “perinatal,” a law passed in 2020 defines “perinatal care” as the “provision of care during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum and neonatal periods.” 

A definition on MedicineNet, a website owned by WebMD, defines it as “the 20th to 28th week of gestation” to “1 to 4 weeks after birth.” And the Merriam-Webster definition of neonatal is: “of, relating to, or affecting the newborn and especially the human infant during the first month after birth.” The first month after birth.

This proposed bill is not only revolting and inhuman, but entirely unnecessary. According to the Maryland Department of Human Resources: “Under the [state’s] Safe Haven law, a distressed parent who is unable or unwilling to care for their infant can safely give up custody of their baby, no questions asked. Newborns can be left at hospitals or law enforcement stations.” 

Nah. Let’s just let them die, alone and unwanted. Seems like a better option.

It has never been clearer that the terms “pro-choice” and “abortion advocates” are really euphemisms for “infanticide supporters” and “holocaust proponents.” The “Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022” is such an abhorrent moniker that it defies description. Its preposterous insinuation that it is not just females who can get pregnant pales in comparison to its vilely implied assertion that abortion equals freedom.

Leftists claim those seeking real freedom from government tyranny—such as those comprising the Canadian truckers’ Freedom Convoy—are terrorists, but that those wishing to exterminate innocent young human beings for their own convenience are freedom fighters.

This is nothing short of a crime against humanity. And sanity.

Democrats are always pushing to broaden the scope of legal abortion. First trimester? Check. Second trimester? Check. Into the third trimester? You bet. Up until the moment of birth? Damn straight! Maybe a little after? Yes! 7 days after birth? Hell, yeah! 28 days after the kid was born? Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about! It’s just “after-birth abortion.”  

 28 days? 28 weeks? 28 months? What’s the difference?

In an appeal to “their base,” Democrats should just blend two of  their favorite causes together into one truly progressive bill (666), which would simultaneously raise the age to which children could be aborted and lower the age at which a person could vote. “Logically,” they should be one and the same. A twofer! Say, maybe, at 6-years-old.

 

Definitions From The Progressive Dictionary

 

Definitions From The Progressive Dictionary:

 

Agender: Having no personal sense of gender at all. Or having no gender at all. Neither male or female, nor any other gender. Complete and utter genderlessness. Freeing!

Bisexual: A person who likes sex with both males and females. Superior to a garden-variety heterosexual, as they are more open-minded, tolerant…and fun-loving.

Communism: A peerless ideology seeking equal and just distribution of wealth for those that don’t need to be cancelled or killed.

Diversity: Always good when it comes to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Always bad when it comes to potentially accepting traditional or conservative thought and ethics.

Equity: Equality of outcome. Everyone must have the same amount of stuff, money, prestige, etc. Except for those who demand equity, who can have more, as they are morally superior to those who don’t.

Fairness: Whatever we progressives deem it to be. Period.

Gay: A term for a man—or trans man—who prefers sex with another man. Better than a straight man.

Heterosexual: A primitive person, given to bizarre but traditional behavior. Often a bigot.

Intersectionality: the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination-- such as racism, sexism, classism, ablism, and transphobia-- combine, overlap, or intersect in the experiences of marginalized groups, especially in blatantly discriminatory societies like the United States. (Note: cannot apply to white people.)

Justice: What you as a progressive get when you loot and/or burn down businesses in your city when you are angry because you think an injustice has been perpetrated in another city.

Klansman: Republican. Or police officer.

Lesbian: A woman-- or trans woman-- who prefers sex with another woman. Better than a straight woman.

Misinformation: Anything that contradicts-- or does not fully support—our enlightened views as progressives.

Nature: God. Nature begot man. Nature is good. Man is bad. Especially conservatives and Republicans.

One-world government: The ultimate goal. Must be socialist, of course. From each according to her/his/they ability to each according to her/his/they needs. Equity will reign and all problems will be solved. We will finally all live in harmony.

Problematic: Anything that contradicts-- or does not fully support-- our views as leftists and progressive elites. 

Queer: Normal. Healthy. Fun.

Republican: Troglodyte. Mouth-breather. A person who hates your grandma. And the Earth.

Sex: Interchangeable with gender. Impossible to determine at birth or by genitalia. There are an infinite number of sexes.

Tolerance: The gleeful acceptance of all things we as progressives like, combined with a militant intolerance of all things we don’t.

Uber: The way many of us leftists get around when our bicycles are in the shop. (Owning a motor vehicle is problematic.) The company of that name is based in San Francisco, which is a bonus.

Voter: Anyone of any age— dead or alive, resident or not—that can be made to cast a ballot for a Democrat or Democratic-socialist.

White: Another term for racist. Also, a synonym for bigot.

Xenophobic: The word we should use to accuse others of being prejudiced against people from other countries. (We, of course, are only prejudiced against people we dislike from our own country.)

Y: As in “Y” chromosome, which is bad because it leads to toxic masculinity.

Zionist: Someone who is anti-Palestinian and therefore has no right to exist. That someone is probably wealthy, too. And often generalizes about others.

 

 

Biden Implies Women Can't Reach "Full God-Given Potential" Without Abortion Rights

 

Remarkably, President Joe Biden marked International Women’s Day recently by suggesting that women cannot “live up to their full God-given potential” without unfettered abortion.

Biden issued a statement recognizing the observance that read: “Every person deserves the chance to live up to their full God-given potential, without regard for gender or other factors. Yet too often, in too many places, women and girls face obstacles that limit their possibilities and undermine their participation in economic, political, and social life.”

The president claimed he has strived to make gender equity a cornerstone of his Administration, noting that he “launched a whole-of-government effort to protect reproductive rights.” “Reproductive rights” being a popular euphemism for abortion, i.e. the opposite of reproduction.

President Sniff and Grope Biden has launched an all-out assault on babies from his very first weeks in office. He repealed the Mexico City Policy, which barred foreign aid from going to organizations involved with abortion. Weeks later he created a White House Gender Policy Council that has among its goals the promotion of abortion at home and abroad. He also rescinded the Trump administration’s block on funding abortionists through the Title X family planning program.

Of course, as is usually the case nowadays, Biden’s assertion that women can’t “live up to their full God-given potential” without being free to have an abortion or two is the opposite of the truth. Women are not forced to have children. They are not forced to have sexual intercourse. But they alone have the God-given potential to give birth to a baby. (Though “progressives” are lamely contesting even that now.)

What is certain is that babies can’t live up to their God-given potential if they are aborted. Far too often, say about 43,000,000 times a year globally, this is the “limiting factor” keeping them from being all that they could be…because they are not allowed to be.

Oh, and if everyone celebrating Women’s Day had been the victim of “reproductive rights,” i.e. had been aborted, none of them would have been around to celebrate Women’s Day.

I am so damn sick of euphemisms, bald-faced lies, emotional coercion, and evil being called good and good being termed evil.

All of us have “reproductive rights.” Babies need “rights to a life that others engendered but now wish to extinguish.”

It is not babies but the notion that we can replace God that needs to be aborted.

 

 

Parents Not "Entitled" To Know Their Kids' Gender Identity, School District Says

 

During a recent Eau Claire Area School District (Wisconsin) staff development training session, a slide informed teachers that parents are “not entitled” to know their kids’ gender identity.

The slide was obtained by Empower Wisconsin, and purportedly reads as follows:

Slide 56- Talk amongst yourselves!

Facilitators, guide this discussion. Remember, parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned. Teachers are often straddling this complex situation. In ECASD, our priority is supporting the student.

 

 “Parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities?!” That is one of the most ridiculous and disturbing sentences ever uttered in the English language. First off, teachers are not entitled to determine what the parents who pay their salaries are “entitled to know.” Secondly, parents typically know what sex/gender their kids are from before they are born. Some of the ECASD teachers may have heard of ultrasounds and gender reveal parties. And, note to educators, parents create their kids, raise them, pay for everything they need—and are responsible for them and to them. On one hand, this is like saying parents are not entitled to know what their kids are wearing. Um, it’s kind of obvious. On the other, it’s like saying taxpayers are not entitled to know what the government is using their money for, or saying car owners aren’t entitled to know what the repair shop is doing to their vehicles. It is akin to dentists saying you are not entitled to know what they are doing in your mouth.

 

In a related story, the editors of St. Joseph University’s student newspaper, The Hawk, recently reminded everyone to watch their language during this ongoing Women’s History Month. They weren’t talking about swearing, as nowadays many women swear like drunken sailors—and some are drunken sailors.  No, instead they urged us all to avoid using two terms for women which The Hawk editors find deplorable. The first, a term they dubbed “particularly problematic,” is “female.” This “f” word, they say, is “generally used to preface negative attributes about women,” and is a way “to strip [them] of their personhood” and “reduce them to a biological name.” Worse yet, say The Hawk’s editors, the term reinforces outdated notions of gender, such as the “traditional binary.” Egads!

 

Words such as “female” may seem trivial and inoffensive to many of us say the editors, but it is crucial — absolutely crucial! — that people monitor their own language and “consistently check [their] implicit biases.”

 

This is exactly wrong, 180-degrees from the truth. Female, woman, lady, girl…all are descriptions of a sacred being, a sex that used to be placed on a pedestal, the only one capable of bearing a child. Erasing, denying and cancelling anything representing the female gender strips them of their personhood, their distinction and uniqueness, and reduces them to a bland and unsacred sameness, a robotic non-identity identity as a non-gendered personage. This happens because of progressives’ remarkable blend of implicit biases, intolerance of scientific fact, disdain of religion, general ignorance, and total embrace of insanity.

     So, to recap: 1) according to progressives, parents aren’t entitled to know their children’s gender, and 2) decent folk don’t use the term “female” to describe a……woman.

The former assertion is patently absurd, the latter utterly preposterous. If we shouldn’t use “female” to describe a woman, why should we use “woman” to describe a woman? If gender cannot be assumed or even determined, and is non-binary, then how is the term “woman” any different or less offensive than “female?”  

Gender blending, gender denial, gender cancelling, gender inflation, gender confusion…it’s all part of The Great Gender Reset to destabilize society and help pave the way for the broader Great Reset to condemn capitalism and Judeo-Christian values to the ash heap of history.

But, fellow parents and patriots, the leftist aspiring puppet-masters controlling so much of our lives lately don’t believe we are entitled to know that, either.

 

The Metaverse, Artificial Intelligence, And The Assault On Reality

 

It has become clear in the past few years that many people have lost the ability to determine truth from lies, propaganda from fact. And even good from evil.

And now it appears many of us may soon lose our ability to recognize reality. Or live in it.

Mark Zuckerberg recently told tech podcaster Lex Friedman, "A lot of people think that the metaverse is about a place, but one definition of this is it’s about a time when basically immersive digital worlds become the primary way that we live our lives and spend our time." He added, "I think that’s a reasonable construct." Really? Who among us will want to “spend our time” and “live our lives” as legless avatars? Maybe those who have graduated from our moron factories colleges and universities.  

Some have postulated that if we spend our time in the metaverse, we will lose our identity in favor of group homogeneity, be that ideological, cultural, or demographic. This is so, they say, because we will then likely separate into monocultural strata in which every subculture and sexual fetish can find mutual affirmation, causing individuality to give way to any given monoculture’s unified mindset. This is the irony of identity politics, multiculturalism, and intersectionality. The more each individual’s group identity is called out and deemed crucial to one’s existence, the less the individual matters and the less leeway for independent thought, personal integrity, and personal identity the individual has.

Modern technology strips us of personal privacy, as well. Governments such as China’s use facial recognition to control their own people. The C.C.P. allegedly uses A.I. to track Uighur Muslims and place them in “reeducation camps,” as it deems necessary. Russia, too, tracks its citizens via A.I. and facial recognition. There are 125,000 cameras in Moscow alone. And we have all been witness to the concurrent dramatic increase in camera usage in the U.S. over the past decade.

Moreover, Dartmouth researchers have built an artificial intelligence model for detecting mental disorders by analyzing web posts. And their endeavor is only a small part of a coming wave of screening tools that use computers and A.I. to analyze social media posts to ascertain people's “mental states.” The researchers designed their model to label the emotions expressed in users' posts and map any “emotional transitions.” The map would be a matrix, illustrating when a user went from any one state to another, such as from anger to a state of no emotion, thereby creating an emotional “fingerprint.”

And different emotional disorders, they say, have their own signature patterns of emotional transitions. So, by creating an emotional fingerprint for a given user and comparing it to established signatures of emotional disorders, the model can detect them. They claim that the model accurately predicts which users may have a particular disorder. The researchers say they hope to use the model for “prevention.” Quite.

It’s easy to see where this ends up because we have already experienced much of it. Everyone disagreeing with, say, Biden or Trudeau administration dogma in their social media or blog posts will be found to be mentally ill. As in the past, with the U.S.S.R., East Germany, et. al., governments will graciously offer to help dissenters the mentally ill out by sending them to “re-education camps.”

Is that a “reasonable construct?”

The Brave New World is certainly not brave, even if new.

Reality-- like truth and goodness—is not fungible. Whether we wish it to be or not.

We did not ask to be born. None of us. No living being. No one ever arranged their own birth. That is the truth, a fact. Impossible. Yet here we are. Therefore, it is simply impossible that our rights come from other humans or living things.

Or that reality comes from Mark Zuckerberg.

 

British Army Members Beg For Vegan Uniforms

 

Some British soldiers are demanding that their nation’s armed forces introduce vegan uniforms that comport with their beliefs and practices. According to online reports, a newly formed group in the British Army called “The Ministry of Defence Vegan and Vegetarian Network” has launched a campaign to empower vegans and vegetarians in the armed forces.

One of the policies proposed by the vegan group is for military personnel to have the option to wear vegetarian-approved footwear not made from real leather. Incredibly, the Royal Air Force has allegedly considered the notion. This despite the fact that “vegan leather” may well be worse for the environment than real leather due to its lack of biodegradability and its use of plastic polymers. Moreover, the non-animal-based synthetic materials are less durable than natural ones, such as the genuine leather used in standard military combat equipment. Furthermore, the vegan alternatives would be significantly more costly than current materiel-- and simply unfeasible in some instances.  

The move to make the military openly inclusive to every woke group, no matter how small, is part of a broader effort by proponents of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) to revamp military doctrine to reflect trends they say are “relevant to our soldiers in the 21st-century.” Such as doing away with the recognition of sexual dimorphism and gearing up to fight white supremacy, Christianity, patriotism, “toxic masculinity” and climate change?

What’s next, vegan missiles and tanks? Non-binary grenades? Microaggression-free battle tactic wording and strategy? “Inclusive” intelligence briefings?

In the U.S., our toxically all-male armed forces acquitted themselves exceptionally well in combat from 1775 until recently. Almost without exception. Then “don’t ask, don’t tell” became “Proud gays are welcome. Women, too. And bisexuals, transgenders, the pan-gendered, pansexuals, Two-Spirits, etc., etc. Anything goes!” This isn’t meant to be insulting to any one of those groups, but what do you think that does for discipline, morale, cohesion, and unity…especially in combat or in a foxhole?

              The military is already the least racist and bigoted entity in American—and British-- societies. It is spectacularly counterproductive to promote intersectionality in its midst. Vegans? Scientologists? Jews? Bakers? Candlestick makers?  Why deliberately balkanize your military? This is the opposite of team building.

And this is a critical time for the West, a crossroads of sorts. We face truly existential dangers. From within and without. We must meet the challenges posed by our own power-mad leaders like Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden…… and of calculating, clever, resource-laden, power-mad nations like China and Russia.

As to the latter, we can’t effectively do so with a Royal Vegan Air Force or a Royal Vegetarian Navy. “The Big Red One” (the U.S. Army’s legendary First Infantry Division) cannot be replaced by the “Big Gay/Transexual/ Pangendered One” if it is to continue to be considered a serious fighting force. That, too, is in no way an anti-LGBTQ statement, but a statement of fact. Similarly, the 82^nd Airborne Division cannot be renamed the 82^nd 1619 Project Advancers and remain a viable entity. The “Green Berets” would not carry the same mystique if rebranded the “Queen Berets.” The Navy Seals could not be as effective if they accepted non-swimmers, just as the Army Rangers would be greatly diminished if it welcomed overweight, middle-aged pacifists who are afraid of heights into its midst.

Historically, the military takes disparate men and molds them into a single cohesive fighting force by treating them all the same, even if that treatment appears quite harsh. Wokesters/leftists/progressives intend to do the opposite. They wish to split the military into as many factions as possible-- gays/straights/transgenders/vegans/etc.—which will dramatically reduce its efficacy as a fighting force.

The unfortunate reality is that our military, if it is to keep us safe, has to excel at potentially killing our enemies and breaking their things. At best, it is so obviously capable of doing so that it will never be challenged and peace reigns, as was the case with the U.S. military for many years after Reagan rebuilt and reinvigorated it. President Trump seemed to realize this.

Speaking of vegetables, President Biden has been responsible for the stunningly quick wokification of-- and consequent diminution of respect for-- America’s military.

The war in Ukraine should remind us all why this is so dangerous.

The West’s militaries don’t need vegan uniforms. They need funding, support, and leaders who are honest and courageous, not disingenuous and craven.

 

 

Succeed? NO! Change Genders? Yes!

 

I hope all of you “marginalized” peoples don't think you can do anything you want or be anything you want, because you can't in this country due to its systemic racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and white supremacy. White supremacists are literally everywhere, and they will—literally or figuratively-- hold you down and prevent you from achieving your dreams. Prevent you from being all you can be. And maybe even prevent you from using the bathroom of your choice! (Don't look at Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Michael Jordan, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Douglas Murray, RuPaul, Ellen Degeneres, Kyrsten Sinema, etc., etc., they are just flukes who somehow happened to become successful.)

 But you can be any sex or gender you want to be. No one can prevent that, that is a simple fact. The science is settled. Even the omnipresent evil white supremacists can't keep you from exercising your Gaia-given right to be whatever sex and/or gender you choose to be!

Or color, race…species!

The National Science Foundation Funds ROOT And SHOOT

 

The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences recently awarded $2.14 million to the American Society of Plant Biologists to be used towards the development of a multi-organization research coordination network called ROOT and SHOOT. Seriously. ROOT stands for—you guessed it--Rooting Out Oppression Together, while SHOOT represents SHaring Our Outcomes Transparently. Because the most important thing about outcomes, other than that they promote diversity, is that they are shared transparently.

 

The award’s abstract states: “The demographic distribution of scientists, especially those in positions of authority, does not reflect that of the US population.” And it is vitally important that the ranks of plant biologists reflect the exact demographic breakdown of American society at large. There must be the same percentage of Blacks, gays, Latinos, lesbians, transgenders, Hindus, and Green Bay Packer fans in the American Society of Plant Biologists as in America as a whole. It is written.

 

The NSF also stated that it “recognizes culture change in the biological sciences as an urgent priority and is committed to supporting efforts that use evidence-based practices to remove barriers for individuals historically excluded from science.” Yes, we urgently need, say, rap music and drag queens to permeate plant biologists’ laboratories if we have any hope of advancing mankind’s knowledge of—and relation to—our fabulous flora.

Mary Williams, the principal investigator for the ROOT program, recently announced the approval of the grant in a blog post in which she characterized the program as “bold,” “radical,” and “innovative.” She added, “together we will get to the root of the systematic oppressions that lie within our organizations, so that they can regrow as truly inclusive spaces.”

 

This kind of word salad stems from the basest virtue signaling impulses of blooming idiots smoking weed-- and drives me up a tree. This supposed desire to branch out will produce no tangible benefits to science or anyone else. The NSF is utterly incapable of producing evidence of oppression or barriers to inclusion. Or of how forced diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE) will advance the cause of science.

 

SHOOT.

 

 

Minnesota House Passes Bill Banning Hair-Based Discrimination

 

The Minnesota House of Representatives recently passed ground-breaking legislation with bipartisan support. The “CROWN" Act, an acronym standing for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural hair," adds hairstyle-- and texture-- to a provision in the Minnesota Human Rights Act that prohibits racial discrimination in housing, employment and education, among other areas. It will now be illegal to discriminate against someone because of their hairstyle in the North Star state. Finally! Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we’re free at last!

No longer will redheads be denied service at fast food restaurants. Telling a blonde joke will be punishable by law. Minneapolis cops will start sporting tall, iridescent mohawks. Call someone “baldy” at your own risk.

The bill passed 104-25. Prior to the vote, Rep. Esther Agbaje, the bill’s author, stated: “At the heart of this bill is the ability to allow more people to show up as their authentic selves in school or in the workplace without fear of repercussions because of their hair.” Power to our authentic selves, sister!

 According to a coalition of organizations campaigning for the legislation, fourteen other progressive states have enacted similar laws against unfair hair discrimination.

The Minnesota bill follows national legislation pursued last year by Minnesota Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar. Omar, in conjunction with four other Black congresswomen, reintroduced similar legislation in the House and sent a letter to Vice President Kamala Harris asking for her support. Democratic U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, of New Jersey, has reintroduced a companion bill in the Senate.

Rumor has it that the Crown Act was originally dubbed the “HIRSUTE resolution,” which was to stand for “Hair Is Racially Sensitive Understand That Everyone, but apparently a couple of representatives balked at the moniker, claiming it was too long.

Piercings, studs, tattoos…whatever…we have the right to bear them however, wherever, and whenever we wish, and in any quantity or configuration. Hair, too. This goes for facial and pubic hair, as well. It is the only way we can be our authentic selves.

The Minnesota House of Representatives is also rumored to be considering a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on nose size, freckle density, eyelash color, or philtrum length.

Power to the people. And their authentic selves.

Intersectionalism Equals Balkanization

 

Professor Joe Gibbs Politz, of the University of California-San Diego, recently assigned his Computer Science and Engineering students a Google Form survey for his Winter 2022 class, “CSE 15L: Software Tools and Techniques Laboratory,” via his class website.  

The exercise, part of a broader Google Form assignment, includes a section where students are instructed to select their identity so Professor Politz can assign lab groups accordingly.  

The form survey stated: “Sometimes people like to form groups with others that share an aspect of their identity. If you would like us to try to form your lab group with others that share a similar characteristic, please select all of the attributes of your identity or interests that you might like to have in common with others in your group.”

Politz added, “Note that the list below is in no way comprehensive and has some standard categorizations plus some that past students found useful. Feel free to write in other identities or interests we might consider, like 'first-year student,' or 'student athlete,' in the Other option." 

The “list below” included identity options such as non-binary, Latinx, LGBTQ+, Black, international student, non-traditional student, first-generation college student, parent, “nervous/apprehensive about coding,” Native American, and plain old boring “woman,” according to Campus Reform.

It’s great to bring intersectionalism into science and engineering classes. It would be sad if everyone just identified as, say, “American,” “student,” or “human.” Cohesion and team building are overrated. I mean, it’s not rocket science. It’s computer science.

I want to know how many students identify as “two-spirit,” “anogender,” or “canine.” How big will the lab group identifying as lexdysic dyslexic Italian lesbians be? Will one group be comprised of incontinent Hispanic Jews born on a Tuesday afternoon during a full moon?

Balkanization. Good for the classroom. Good for the nation. No?