Young women choosing sterilization is sad and worrisome

October 27, 2021 — bunkerville

The colonization of America continues with news of our latest arrivals well on their way. We learn as well that the indoctrination of potential co-creators of America’s home grown has been successful. Deaths exceeded births in 25 states. We learn as well that more women are choosing sterilization to insure they will not be troubled with offspring as well as doing their bit to pitch in to help out with Global Warming. In the story that follows, one can only feel sad that so many can not experience the joy of children. But that is where we are apparently.

Hot Air:

This story comes from Bari Weiss’ Substack. The author, Suzy Weiss, focuses on the growing trend of relatively young women getting sterilized because they decide they never want to have children. I knew there were people like this, so-called anti-natalists, but I found hearing their stories a bit sad and worrisome. For instance, a 31-year-old aspiring actress named Rachel Diamond:

Growing up near Hershey, Penn., Diamond always assumed she’d have a family of her own. Then came college at Arcadia University; her political awakening, away from her conservative roots, and towards progressivism; and a therapist who she found online a few months after graduation who made her realize that being spanked as a child was deeply traumatic, and that it made her fear authority figures like her father. She decided that she never wanted to be one herself. Never ever ever…

Last year, the number of deaths exceeded that of births in 25 states — up from five the year before. The marriage rate is also at an all-time low, at 6.5 marriages per 1,000 people. Millennials are the first generation where a majority are unmarried (about 56%). They are also more likely to live with their own parents, according to Pew, than previous generations were in their twenties and thirties…

The Rapture — sorry, the end — is upon us, and this is no time for onesies. So says The New Yorker and NPR and AOC. According to a new poll, 39% of Gen Zers are hesitant to procreate for fear of the climate apocalypse. A nationally representative study of adults in Michigan found that over a quarter of adults there are child-free by choice. And new research by the Institute of Family Studies found that the desire to have a child among adults decreased by 17% since the onset of the pandemic.

,,,,

“I think it’s morally wrong to bring a child into the world,” said Isabel, 28, a self proclaimed anti-natalist who lives in southwestern Texas and did not want her last name in print. “No matter how good someone has it, they will suffer.”…

Chelsea, a 25 year-old in Sacramento, told me kids “kind of gross her out.” She’s weighing the risks of going under the knife, like infection or mood swings brought on by anesthesia, but says regret isn’t one of them. “What’s there to regret?” writes another Redditor, “That I’ll be too happy? Too free?”

This story brought to mind a post I did last summer.

Ben Domenech: Leftists Hate You And Your Baby

How and why does the government and other entities find that children and the family structure gets in the way of their grand experiment? Killing off sixty-two million babies via abortion is not enough. Children and parents are a problem. Ben Domenech gives us the run down.

Domenech’s points are so well made and it dovetails nicely with a post written in 2017 entitled The Genetic Dead Ends Who Rule Europe.   

“Emmanuel Macron is the ninth current European leader whose loins have borne no fruit.”

Why do so many heads of State remain childless? Can they relate and have empathy and care about our precious little ones that bring us such joy and are the future of our Republic?  Ben takes it from here:

The Genetic Dead Ends Who Rule Europe is the title to an insightful and deliciously written piece about the fertility of the heads of European States. I have often pondered why Europe and many here in the States seem hellbent on losing our culture and identity ultimately giving away the very nature of the governance with the so-called open borders. Perhaps because many have no skin in the game for their offspring. Written in 2017, it is even more relevant in today’s world.

I suggest the full read.

 

 

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

 

Posted in Immigration. Tags: , , , , , . 19 Comments »

Enter SCOTUS Brett Kavanaugh – The positives and concerns

July 11, 2018 — bunkerville

 

Daniel Horowitz wrote an excellent piece at the Conservative Review that Mark Levin suggested reading. I made a special effort to catch Levin’s program as I was curious as to Mark’s take on the SCOTUS pick. The big concern was Kavanaugh starting the ball rolling with the Obamacare as a tax. I suggest wandering over to the Conservative Review for a balanced view and thoughts on the judiciary.

The full podcast is out there at Levin’s website and on YouTube if you want the full thing. I agree with Mark. Let’s ask some questions. Must we follow and support blindly? Or can we raise questions without feeling disloyal to Trump?

 

 

Below are some points:

Here are several concerns that conservatives should research thoroughly throughout the confirmation process and Kavanaugh’s meetings with senators:

  • Obamacare regulation as a tax: In Seven-Sky v. Holder (2011), Kavanaugh wrote a dissent opining that the individual mandate of Obamacare could not be challenged in court because, under the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, no lawsuit can be brought until the plaintiff actually was forced to pay the tax, which in this case wasn’t for another few years. I’m a big stickler for courts staying in their lane and properly abiding by rules of standing, but in this case his entire rationale was built upon a dangerous premise that a government mandate/penalty was really a tax. This served as the basis for John Roberts’ infamous opinion upholding Obamacare.

 

  • Endless standing to rip God out of the public square: In Newdow v. Roberts, an infamous atheist sued to take the words “so help me God” out of the presidential oath of office. Aside from it being insane to suggest this violates the Establishment Clause, the notion that a random person could get standing to sue and that this is even a justiciable case violates the very essence of what distinguishes a court from a legislature. It lies at the core of what is allowing the ACLU to shut down our civilization for years with radical forum-shopped lower courts. While, in his separate opinion, Kavanaugh ruled the right way on the Establishment Clause, he held that the plaintiff indeed had valid standing to sue as “offended observers.” This is the type of nonsense that is plaguing public prayer and display of the Ten Commandments across the country. It is simply astounding for any originalist to disagree with other justices in granting such standing and is very consequential for cases that will reach the Supreme Court soon. Kavanaugh hid behind Supreme Court precedent, but admitted that the high court never directly addressed the issue of this type of standing.

These rulings taken together, Kavanaugh is essentially saying that a random atheist with an obscure and abstract claim against a presidential oath can get standing, but individuals directly forced to purchase a private product and engage in commerce couldn’t get standing.

  • Contraception as a “compelling government interest”: Almost every circuit upheld Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Like most of the originalist judges, Kavanaugh dissented from these opinions and sided with plaintiffs in Priests for Life, which is good. But what is still puzzling is that he gratuitously and explicitly conceded that the government has “a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.” While the Supreme Court did assume that the government might have a general interest in promoting contraception, the court never assumed, much less ruled, that such an interest would apply to the narrow subset of employees at religious institutions. The fact that he didn’t join the stronger dissent from Judges Brown and Henderson – built upon the premise that the government must find a compelling interest specifically in mandating “seamless” coverage – raises concerns that we won’t see him categorically opposing the Left on these issues and joining Thomas on the court.

 

  • Immigration: Immigration is perhaps the most important issue winding through the courts now, and most of the nominees had thin records on the issue. I haven’t seen anything big on the fundamental issues of the plenary power doctrine, for better or worse. However, as we reported last year, the D.C. Circuit absurdly granted an illegal alien the right to demand access to an abortion. While Kavanaugh rightly dissented on the grounds that the opinion drastically expanded abortion jurisprudence, he declined to sign on to Judge Karen Henderson’s indispensable dissent, finally laying down the law on sovereignty and the plenary power doctrine. That was a much-needed dissent, given what is going on throughout the circuits on immigration, and it is a bit peculiar that he didn’t sign on to that dissent, while Henderson signed onto Kavanaugh’s dissent tackling the abortion angle.

Snip…

“At least he’s a lot better than the other side” is no longer good enough. If we are going to accept the premise, as the president himself did last night, that “The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States,” we can’t afford to settle for anything less than the best. The aforementioned concerns notwithstanding, conservatives should be happy with much of Kavanaugh’s record but should look a little deeper before jumping in with both feet.

Full thing at Conservative Review 

Posted in Supreme Court. Tags: , , , , , , . 15 Comments »

Trump gives a win to ‘Little Sisters of the Poor’, Others, negates birth control, sterilization mandate

October 7, 2017 — bunkerville

How easy it is to forget what an out of control administration we had with Obama. Even though The Little Sisters of the Poor appeared to have won the battle in the Supreme Court, Obama had his pen and overrode it. So here is a reminder with the clip of the Nuns. Let us hope Trump finds his pen and this is the beginning of his attack on Obamacare.

Am I the only one who recalls all of the thousands of waivers that were handed out in the beginning of the implementation of Obamacare? If you had the right connections for your business, no problem. We thought we had a win with Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court. And we did . But guess what Obama did with that damnable pen of his? Hobby Lobby Employees Will Get Birth Control Under A New Rule That Sidesteps Supreme Court’s Decision. Obama overrides the Supreme Court. Apparently, the “Little Sisters of the Poor” did not escape the wrath either, and lost another round with the Tenth Circuit, deeming them not religious enough. Take a look at this moving clip and you tell me if they are not religious enough.

President Donald Trump’s administration announced Friday that it will provide employers with religious or moral objections to providing birth control in their employee health insurance plans an exemption.

The administration’s exemption includes “any non-profit organization that have a religious or moral objection to providing contraception,” a senior Health and Human Services (HHS) official told reporters Friday. The new rule takes effect immediately. In addition to non-profits, the rule applies to “for-profit entities that are publicly traded,” colleges, universities and health insurance companies. The new rule takes effect immediately.

Starting in 2012, Obamacare required employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception at no cost to women. The rule did provide a caveat for churches and even tried to extend that to religiously-oriented groups. Religious groups rejected the offer and filed a number of lawsuits, which led to 2 Supreme Court cases. SCOTUS ordered that the Obama administration and religious organizations come to an agreement as to how to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to women, but such an agreement never materialized. More at Obama overrides Hobby Lobby Supreme win, Little Sisters of the Poor loseJuly 15, 2015  B-Ville.

Daily Caller

Posted in Religion. Tags: , , , , , , . 11 Comments »

Planned Parenthood and lies about mammograms

July 22, 2015 — bunkerville
Has it been that long that we forget the Planned Parenthood lies about providing mammograms? No doubt most of us have seen portions of the revolting clips of Planned Parenthood selling body parts of murdered babies. Even after the lies told about providing mammograms they continued to get millions in tax payer dollars. Here, just for the recall:
Uploaded on Mar 29, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30–A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.
Posted in Healthcare. Tags: , , , . 40 Comments »

Vatican to clean house of Nuns who support Obama’s agenda

April 19, 2012 — bunkerville

I must say, that after reading this, I was unsure what to say. Where is the “concern’ over priests who espouse the same positions? Is this an effort to lessen the influence of women in the Church? And what about “social justice”-they are to be “commended”?  There are others who are more qualified than I to opine on this, and I look forward to comments. While it is commendable that these issues are being addressed, one wonders about the fairness. Why doesn’t the Church crack down on Nancy Pelosi and her comments? Here we go:

The Vatican is attempting to present the measure as a friendly renewal.  However, even the initial announcement of the assessment in 2008 was greeted with severe hostility by leftist nuns in the U.S. The sternly-worded assessment document is not likely to be received with any greater enthusiasm. …

The intransigence and betrayal of many of the women religious in the United states toward Catholic values have been keenly felt in recent months by Catholic bishops – particularly in the fight over religious freedom and abortion funding in President Obama’s health care law, in which religious sisters have played a key role, in Obama’s favor.

In 2010 Speaker Nancy Pelosi thanked the radical Catholic nuns for helping Democrat’s pass their pro-abortion health care bill.

The Vatican put feminist nuns who betray church doctrine on notice today.  The Holy See’s five-year plan will sweep the Catholic church clean of Leftist nuns who betray Catholic values and support Obama’s agenda of funding abortions and attacking religious freedom.LifeSiteNews has the story,

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has launched a 5-year reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the association of the leaders of congregations of Catholic women religious in the United States representing more than 80 percent of the 57,000 women religious (nuns) in the country.

Based on a 2008 investigation into the nuns, the Vatican evaluation was candid, noting, “The current doctrinal and pastoral situation of the LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern.”

The CDF doctrinal assessment, released today, criticized positions espoused at LCWR annual assemblies and in its literature as well as the absence of support from LCWR for Church teaching on pro-life issues, women’s ordination and homosexuality.

The CDF said that the documentation “reveals that, while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States.”

More over at The Gateway Pundit

Posted in Religion, Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , . 11 Comments »

Obama fails to tell Americans the danger of contraception

February 15, 2012 — bunkerville

American Thinker’s piece,  Politics and the Presidents pill- are they healthy for women? was kind enough to include a link to my post, Obama:’Contraceptives prevent Ovarian Cancer’. Obama’s suggesting that Contraception was a “healthy choice” is false. Having been taken to task in my comment section that I claimed that Obama was espousing false information, here is the down and dirty information that Planned Parenthood, and many physicians are probably not telling women. I highly recommend that all women read the full post over at American Thinker,as well as the men who love women. From their piece:

One of the greatest problems with “the pill” is lack of informed consent about risks and side effects.  Barbara Seaman, a medical journalist during the 1960s, received a large number of inquiries from her readers about the new pill.  As the pill’s complications became more clear, she wrote the 1969 groundbreaking book The Doctor’s Case Against the Pill to expose the information.  (Drug industry pressure resulted in Seaman being fired.)

By 1967, British researchers conclusively linked the pill with thrombosis.  Though rare, it can be fatal.  In more recent years, the pill continues to be linked to thrombosis but also to breast cancer, cervical cancer, infertility, liver cancer, and stroke.  The World Health Organization has classified hormonal contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen — a substance that causes cancer.  Lanfranchi, a breast surgical oncologist, has compared the pill to a molotov cocktail that you throw at a young girl’s breast; she has wondered how often physicians prescribe a Group 1 carcinogen.  These risks are increased if women have never been pregnant, are black Americans, and/or do not possess what are called “protective genes” — known as BRCA2 or BRCA1.

The relationship between the pill and breast cancer is fairly simple to understand: both pregnancy and contraceptive hormones cause breast tissue cells to multiply, resulting in immature breast cells.  While a completed pregnancy causes these cells to mature, contraceptive hormones with their added estrogen can directly damage breast tissue DNA.  Breast tissue remains susceptible to cancer until it undergoes the stabilizing transformation in the childbearing process, which makes the pill particularly dangerous to women who have not yet had their first child — perhaps the largest group of pill-users in the U.S.  Studies have linked pill use to a 660-percent rise in non-invasive breast cancer since 1973.  This also explains why women who have gone through childbearing are considered a lower risk for breast cancer.

The Mayo Clinic meta-analysis in 2006 concluded that breast cancer risk rises 50 percent for women taking oral contraceptives four or more years before a full-term pregnancy.  “Oral contraceptive (OC) use early in life is associated with more aggressive [breast cancer] disease.

Read more: American Thinker

Posted in Healthcare. Tags: , , , , , . 21 Comments »