H.R. 3541: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012
Sponsor: Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO2]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
Rep. Diane Black [R-TN6]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
Rep. Dan Boren [D-OK2]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA7]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX8]
Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5]
Rep. Steven “Steve” Chabot [R-OH1]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Rep. Tom Cole [R-OK4]
Rep. Rick Crawford [R-AR1]
Rep. John “Jimmy” Duncan [R-TN2]
Rep. Blake Farenthold [R-TX27]
Rep. John Fleming [R-LA4]
Rep. Randy Forbes [R-VA4]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE1]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ5]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Rep. Tom Graves [R-GA9]
Rep. Andy Harris [R-MD1]
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R-KS1]
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R-MI2]
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R-IL14]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC3]
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R-IL11]
Rep. James Lankford [R-OK5]
Rep. Robert Latta [R-OH5]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D-IL3]
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R-WY0]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R-IL16]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10]
Rep. Thaddeus “Thad” McCotter [R-MI11]
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R-NC10]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL1]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX19]
Rep. Steven “Steve” Pearce [R-NM2]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN7]
Rep. Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Rep. Martha Roby [R-AL2]
Rep. Phil Roe [R-TN1]
Rep. Dennis Ross [R-FL12]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA1]
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
Rep. Christopher “Chris” Smith [R-NJ4]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R-IN3]
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R-MI7]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]
Rep. Addison “Joe” Wilson [R-SC2]
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R-KS3]
Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco [R-TX23] (joined Dec 06, 2011)
Rep. Chip Cravaack [R-MN8] (joined Dec 06, 2011)
Rep. Mike Kelly [R-PA3] (joined Dec 06, 2011)
Rep. Steve King [R-IA5] (joined Dec 06, 2011)
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA5] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN6] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Sean Duffy [R-WI7] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-SC3] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Walter “Wally” Herger [R-CA2] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Bill Johnson [R-OH6] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R-MS1] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2] (joined Dec 12, 2011)
Rep. Trey Gowdy [R-SC4] (joined Jan 23, 2012)
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX4] (joined Jan 23, 2012)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9] (joined Jan 23, 2012)
Rep. Todd Rokita [R-IN4] (joined Jan 23, 2012)
Rep. Jack Kingston [R-GA1] (joined Jan 27, 2012)
Rep. Austin Scott [R-GA8] (joined Jan 27, 2012)
Rep. John Carter [R-TX31] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX11] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Samuel “Sam” Johnson [R-TX3] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH4] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX24] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R-NC2] (joined Feb 01, 2012)
Rep. Steve Austria [R-OH7] (joined Feb 03, 2012)
Rep. Jeff Flake [R-AZ6] (joined Feb 03, 2012)
Rep. Robert “Bob” Goodlatte [R-VA6] (joined Feb 03, 2012)
Rep. Tim Griffin [R-AR2] (joined Feb 03, 2012)
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA52] (joined Feb 03, 2012)
Rep. Jeff Landry [R-LA3] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA24] (joined Feb 08, 2012)
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI5] (joined Feb 08, 2012)
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R-KS4] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. John “Phil” Gingrey [R-GA11] (joined Feb 29, 2012)
Rep. Pete Olson [R-TX22] (joined Feb 29, 2012)
Rep. David Schweikert [R-AZ5] (joined Feb 29, 2012)
Rep. Steve Stivers [R-OH15] (joined Feb 29, 2012)
Rep. Allen West [R-FL22] (joined Feb 29, 2012)
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX7] (joined Apr 17, 2012)
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R-MS4] (joined Apr 17, 2012)
Rep. Dan Benishek [R-MI1] (joined Apr 18, 2012)
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R-IN8] (joined May 09, 2012)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ2] (joined May 09, 2012)
Rep. Paul Gosar [R-AZ1] (joined May 16, 2012)
Read Bill Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3541/text
WHO VOTED ON THE RIGHT TO MURDER BABIES BASED SOLELY ON GENDER?:
246 Voted to pass this bill and ban gender selective abortions (226 R’s and 20 D’s)
168 Voted to continue gender discrimination and murdering babies based on gender selection (7 R’s and 161 D’s) (WOW…. Surprised to see that Ron Paul voted to continue murdering babies based on gender!)
17 Did not vote (8 R’s and 9 D’s)
See list of votes here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
READ The history of “planned (anti)-parenthood”: http://twg2a.wordpress.com/?s=margaret+sanger
READ: “WHO IS MARGARET SANGER?” http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger-and-her-racial-genocide/
[TWG: The Dims keep trying to portray Conservatives as racists who hate women. "War on women"? Yeah, only now the dims have ALSO waged war and genocide on baby girls, simply because they are girls. The dims have an abhorrent record with regard to racism, civil rights and human rights. The same individuals who whine about waterboarding TERRORISTS will advocate for sticking a spike into an unborn child's skull to kill it while still in the womb.... JUST BECAUSE THAT CHILD IS A FEMALE. democrats = Murdering, genocidal, sexist racists.]
Planned Parenthood has been trying to create the “War on Women” for so long that they have now pushed themselves into an uncomfortable position.
Not only have they been caught encouraging the abortion of baby girls just because of their sex, but now their attempt to spin their way out of this uncomfortable spotlight is causing them to speak out of both side of their corporate mouth.
In reaction to Live Action’s exposé, Planned Parenthood immediately reacted by firing the first Planned Parenthood worker caught on tape encouraging sex-selection abortion. The abortion giant responded to The Daily Caller, Huffington Post, and others claiming to oppose sex-selection abortions.
But what they said next is telling, “all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters.” Planned Parenthood didn’t train their staff to counsel people away from gender selection; they trained them on how to spot an undercover investigator…(Con’t)
May 31, 2012 By Doug Book
“We want to let them know that there is a theological responsibility (emphasis added) to participate in the political process…” said House Congressional Black Caucus chair, Emanuel Cleaver of a meeting with hundreds of black Pastors representing various denominations in the U.S. Speaking to MSNBC, the congressman added “…we’re going to have the IRS administrator there, we’re going to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we’re going to have the lawyers’ organization from around the country, the ACLU — all giving Ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do.”
Of course, Cleaver was referring to “guidance” in the ways churches can participate in the 2012 election without violating IRS rules concerning their tax exempt status. Naturally, this has always been of GREAT concern to black pastors, especially nowadays given the sterling record of unbiased enforcement built by the scrupulously law-abiding Attorney General.
Yet even while absorbed with their tax code responsibilities, the attending Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights found time to address a letter to House Speaker John Boehner concerning the harsh treatment of Attorney General Holder by some of the Speaker’s fellow Republicans. Consisting of labor unions, homosexual groups, black ministers, the NAACP, and even an Arab anti-discrimination organization, the Conference believes citing Holder with contempt for his disregard of House subpoenas in the Fast and Furious affair is “unwarranted.” In fact, it’s a downright “partisan attempt to discredit the Attorney General,” a heinous example of “accusatory vitriol and malignant suspicion” and a “rush to judgment intended to create a stain on the office of the Attorney General.”
But according to the man who broke the “Gunwalker” story a year and a half ago, threatening letters to Speaker Boehner might no longer be necessary. Sources in Washington, DC have told blogger and citizen reporter Mike Vanderboegh that Republican leaders have already decided to close down the Fast and Furious investigation and halt contempt proceedings against Eric Holder, because “they (the GOP leadership) don’t think that they will suffer for [that] failure to follow through. They’re scared of Holder’s race card. . . they’re scared of Trayvon. They think if they let Issa fail, that it will only be a story in the blogosphere for a day . . . that they can weather it. . . .” Unfortunately, Vanderboegh makes it clear that he trusts the word of these sources “implicitly.”
In short, John Boehner and other Republican big wigs are more afraid of the race card and its steady play by the Obama-owned national media than of the bitter –yet presumably brief—disappointment of conservatives, disgusted because the GOP has once again opted for the cowardly betrayal of justice and of the Party base.
If Vanderboegh’s sources are correct, hundreds of innocent people will have died, Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata will have been shot to death, the Obama Regime will have launched a brutal and deadly assault on the 2nd Amendment, and yet all will be forgiven and forgotten in the name of political expedience.
Vanderboegh was certainly right about Boehner’s work to delay Representative Darrell Issa’s contempt proceedings against Holder. We should all hope his sources have gotten this one wrong.
[TWG Note: I'm not "islamophobic". I'm islamaware.
The Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP)—a program of the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender (CRG)—recently held its third annual conference, “Critical Discourses on Islamophobia: Symbols, Images, & Representations.” As in previous years, speaker after speaker decried an imaginary racist, imperialist, Orientalist Western juggernaut, while disregarding the very real predations of Islamism…(Con’t)
“Felix Roque, 55, the Democratic mayor of West New York, N.J., and his son Joseph, 22, allegedly accessed and cancelled the domain registration for Recallroque.com, a website that was critical of the mayor and associated with a movement to recall him in early February,” the report relates, also claiming Roque was “intimidating those associated with the site.”
Of special interest to gun owners is that Roque is yet one more member of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” coalition who has run afoul of the law over serious criminal violations. Gun Rights Examiner has on occasion reported arrests, prosecutions and convictions of numerous other members of a group that seems increasingly comprised of criminals advocating edicts that put the law-abiding at a disadvantage to those who would victimize them…..(Con’t)
-By Warner Todd Huston
Looks like a left-wing, wannabe murderer and convicted domestic terrorist has decided to start threatening several conservative bloggers over their posts about his violent past. The scumbag in question, one Brett Kimberlin, even found the home phone number of one of these bloggers and left a veiled threat to the man’s wife and family.
Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain has vacated his house for a while just in case this convicted bomber decides to come calling. I’d say Robert observed a good precaution since this monster called his house and threatened his wife and family and since this leftists is a convicted bomber, and all.
For a quick overview of who this creep is, Lee Stranahan made a short introduction video on Brett Kimberlin:…(Con’t)
CONTINUE READING AND WATCH VIDEO HERE: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/05/24/brett-kimberlin-liberals-embrace-convicted-criminal-as-their-own/?utm_source=co2hog
At the end of last year, for example, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 144, which banned the open carry of an unloaded handgun (it was already against the law to carry a loaded handgun). Starting on Jan. 1st of this year, openly carrying a handgun (whether loaded or unloaded) is a misdemeanor offense, with offenders facing up to one year in jail and a potential fine of $1,000.
Now, the mastermind behind AB 144, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena), is at it again, and this time he has his eyes set on banning unloaded long guns in public places, as Guns.com reported last week.
The bill he’s proposed, AB 1527, would – like the handgun ban – make it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded long gun (it’s already illegal to carry a loaded one) in public areas unless one is a licensed hunter or a peace officer.
“Open-carry activists have decided to push the envelope,” Portantino told the Daily Breeze.com. “That’s an alarming sight – to see folks with rifles and shotguns over their shoulders around families.
“Let’s act like reasonable people and make the world safer,” he added. “If you’re carrying a shotgun, you have no business being in a Starbucks.”…(Con’t)
By Carl Graham
Montana Policy Institute
Montana’s campaign finance laws are under scrutiny by the US Supreme Court, as they should be. They are outdated and deny freedom of speech unnecessarily. And at any rate, the problem with political spending isn’t money in politics, it’s politics in money. So long as the government continues to grow and is capable of picking winners and losers, people will find a way to be on the winners’ list or off the losers’ list. The real answer is to reduce government’s ability to engage in the political allocation of wealth and opportunity.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Who’s Corrupting Whom with Political Spending
By: Carl Graham, CEO, Montana Policy Institute
Bozeman – This week opened with news that Montana’s Attorney General filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to revisit their 2010 Citizens United decision and give Montana’s restrictive campaign finance laws a pass. With all due respect, I think our AG is either stuck in a time warp or doesn’t understand the basics of a marketplace, and especially a marketplace of influence or ideas.
Montana’s campaign finance laws date back to when copper barons outright owned much of our state’s legislature and most of its media outlets. The argument that those conditions could be recreated in the internet age and in a widely diversified and dispersed state economy seems like a longer stretch than Westby to Whitefish.
History aside, the basic argument against political spending is that it’s corruptive and provides undue influence to those with more money, and especially those rich, evil corporations. Well I’m as much against evil corporations as the next guy, but most of them aren’t evil. My friend’s family farm organized as an S-Corp isn’t evil. Nonprofits organized as public benefit corporations aren’t evil, at least not all of them. It’s an inconvenient fact, but the vast majority of corporations are just small businesses trying to get by.
They’re simple groups of people or families organized as legal entities for tax, liability, or estate reasons. Restricting their free speech rights just because they choose to associate or become affiliated with other people who share their interests isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s morally wrong and damaging to our republican form of government.
Our right to free speech isn’t protected to talk about the blueness of the sky or to sing “Kumbaya” out of key. It’s protected to allow dissenting and unpopular voices to be heard. And in our society of mass media, speech takes money. Restricting spending restricts speech.
In the rare and difficult to prove cases where money is spent with a quid pro quo involved, we have laws for that. But who’s to say that someone is paying to send a message based on ideals or interests? Or that those things are necessarily at odds? Would owning a business disqualify me from speaking up about free enterprise?
All we do by restricting speech is protect those who already have megaphones in place. That’s one reason why members of Congress enjoy an 85%-95% reelection rate with a 10%-15% approval rating. Campaign finance laws should really be called incumbent protection laws, as they erect enormous barriers to any new voices or interests.
And anyway, all that’s beside the point if it’s corruption that sticks in your craw. The problem we’re having with undue influence – and there is a problem – isn’t that there’s too much money in politics; it’s that there’s too much politics in money. So long as the government is large and powerful enough to pick winners and losers people will always find a way to either get on the winners’ list or stay off the losers’ list. One is influence peddling, the other a protection racket. Passing more laws will just require more lawyers and consultants, creating even more barriers to individual voices.
Every voluntary transaction has a willing buyer, a willing seller, and a product. When it comes to money in politics we tend to focus solely on the buyer – the contributor or lobbyist. We spend little time looking at the seller – the politician or bureaucrat. And we completely ignore the product – the influence that money buys. But without the product you’ll have neither a buyer nor a seller. Get rid of what George Will calls the political allocation of wealth and opportunity – government’s ability to threaten or guarantee people’s livelihoods, lives, and basic rights – and there would be no need to regulate how much the buyer can spend or the seller can accept. There wouldn’t be any buyers or sellers. Anything else is just regulating corruption at some tolerable level; and what is more corrupt than a political system that guarantees those in power stay in power.
We spend less on campaigns in this country than we do on potato chips. If there’s a class of people out there who wield enough influence to make our lives meaningful or miserable depending on what share of our potato chip budget we send their way, then maybe we should be looking at restricting what they’re selling and not those whom they compel to pay.
(Hat-Tip James W. for the forward. Thanks, James!)
May 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Prosecution for exercising one’s free speech rights is becoming a trend in the current Administration and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
In April, the Legal Center highlighted the DOJ’s outrageous prosecution of Mary Susan Pine, a pro-life advocate. Thankfully, when the rubber hit the road, the DOJ lawyers had nowhere to go, and the suit was dropped. Pine is able to continue her ministry of standing near an abortion clinic to talk to women about abortion.
Julian P. Heicklen, an 80-year-old retired chemistry professor and advocate of jury nullification, found himself in a similar situation. Heicklen, as part of his activism, would stand in front of courthouses with a “Jury Info” sign, handing out pamphlets and explaining jury nullification to anyone who would approach him.
Advocates of jury nullification believe that jurors can use their de facto power to effectively change the law by refusing to convict a defendant under a law that the juror disagrees with. Heicklen specifically advocated against the enforcement of federal drug laws.
So what was the charge? Heicklen was accused of jury tampering, a federal criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months imprisonment (which, ironically, means that the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial). The law, 18 U.S.C. 1504, prescribes the conviction of anyone who “attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter.” An FBI agent posing as a juror approached Heicklen, received a pamphlet, and asked Heicklen to explain what jury nullification was all about. Heicklen was indicted based on a recording of that conversation.
The case, United States v. Heicklen, resulted in a dismissal of the indictment. In a 27-page opinion, Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York dissected the construction of the law and also considered Heicklen’s constitutional claims. Wood determined that the language of the statute requires that the jury tampering be done with a specific case in mind. Although Heicklen, through his activism, wanted to influence the “duties” of a juror, he did not also intend to affect an “issue or matter” that came before the jurors.
The DOJ, on the other hand, encouraged the court to accept a broader definition of “issue or matter” that included speech to a juror on any subject that he might be considering. Judge Wood stated that such an expansive interpretation “would arguably chill protected speech” and “would at most render [the law] facially ambiguous.”
Clearly, Heicklen’s opinion on jury nullification is a viewpoint that the DOJ and other law enforcement officials do not want to be widely publicized. Even a man filming Heicklen, photographer Antonio Musumeci, was arrested for doing so. (Charges against Musumeci were dismissed, and his subsequent lawsuit against Homeland Security was also successful.) But as Professor Paul Butler notes, he and many others have been advocating for jury nullification and have been published extensively, so that any potential citizen/juror could have heard and been influenced by him. If Heicklen was found guilty of jury tampering, could the same be done to Musumeci and Butler for further publicizing Heicklen’s message?
No matter what your stance may be on the issues of drug decriminalization or jury nullification, the right to peaceably and reasonably discuss either matter in public should be allowed without question. To arrest someone for discussing a matter of public concern peaceably in a public place—that’s a crime against free speech.