TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

David Ripley: Planned Parenthood Dealt Body Blow by 9th Circuit Court

July 13th, 2019 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The nation’s largest abortion chain suffered a serious body blow this week, as the 9th Circuit upheld President Trump’s new rules about Title X “Family Planning” funds. They had already lost an appeal to a three judge panel of the liberal court last month; they then asked for an en banc hearing. That ruling was issued yesterday – and Planned Parenthood lost on a 7-4 vote.

The bottom line here is that Planned Parenthood will either have to give up Title X monies – or completely separate their abortion business from their “family planning” operations. The new rules require separate facilities, separate staff and a hard line which bans elective abortion as a legitimate method of birth control.

Planned Parenthood has already stated that it has no intention of complying with the Trump Rules.

Based upon the court ruling yesterday, it now seems likely that Planned Parenthood will lose upwards of $60 million each year in Title X funds. The only recourse they have is to file an appeal with the Supreme Court – which will almost certainly fail.

This is an historic pro-Life victory – made sweeter by the fact that it came via the 9th Circuit.

Planned Parenthood will continue to receive hundreds of millions in tax dollars through the Medicaid program; in fact, this is their big cash cow. But even Planned Parenthood will feel the blow of losing $60 million in guaranteed annual revenue.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Profound Disappointment with Supreme Court

July 6th, 2019 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

America’s pro-Life community was profoundly disappointed by Friday’s announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court that it would not hear an appeal of a court ruling which prevents the state of Alabama from enforcing its ban on “dismemberment” abortions.

The law, passed by Alabama’s legislature in 2016, would prohibit the Abortion Industry from destroying babies by tearing them apart, piece by piece, while still in the womb. This horrific procedure is the most commonly used method for killing preborn children in the 2nd trimester. Alabama’s law requires that an abortionist use some other, more humane, procedure to end the baby’s life before removing it from the womb.

But the Abortion Industry claims that such a requirement is “unconstitutional” because it is inconvenient and there are no equally-reliable methods for killing a baby in the womb.

There are at least nine other states which have enacted similar statutes. Idaho’s Legislature briefly considered a ban on dismemberment abortions in the 2016 Session, but determined to await the court challenges from around the country before testing the 9th Circuit.

However, Idaho was one of 21 states which filed a “Friend of the Court” brief with the Supreme Court in the Alabama case, urging the high court to consider Alabama’s appeal.

Hopes have been high among pro-Life voters since President Trump was able to secure the appointment of two pro-Life justices that the Court was about to turn the corner on Roe. Upon learning that all nine justices rejected even the consideration of Alabama’s appeal – disappointment is palpable in churches and living rooms all across the nation.

We can only speculate as to the reasons why the pro-Lifers on the Supreme Court determined that this was not a case to consider. But certainly it involves a calculation as to the odds of securing a majority of votes to uphold a ban on dismemberment abortions. No doubt there was fear of laying down additional bad precedent.

We must continue to persevere in prayer that this Court will find the will to act. It is just a moral abomination that the tortuous dismemberment of innocent babies – particularly on an industrial scale – is being protected by America’s most cherished Constitution. How can this nation claim to be a civilized people when we treat our children with such barbarous contempt?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Historic Win at the 9th Circuit

June 23rd, 2019 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

This is an amazing turn of events.

President Trump won an historic victory in his drive to eliminate taxpayer support for Planned Parenthood. Since taking office, his Administration has been working to advance the protections for pro-Life Americans and preborn children at a pace never seen before in the Roe era.

Last year, the President reviewed the laws governing Title X – a program which puts the federal government in the business of helping people indulge their sexual appetites without having to worry about the natural consequence; a program Democrats like to call “family planning”. (How this came to be a federal taxpayer burden is a whole scandalous story in itself).

His review came at the urging of Senators Risch and Crapo, who wrote him a detailed letter explaining the clear intent and history of the Title X program, which was revised by Congress in the 1980’s. The clear letter of the law is that “family planning” monies should not involve abortion in any way, shape or form. Risch and Crapo argued that Congress intended that monies provided to an organization like Planned Parenthood for genuine birth control efforts needed to be rigorously separated from that entities abortion activities.

President Ronald Reagan issued rules to implement Congressional intent- and was promptly sued by Planned Parenthood. However – that case was ultimately settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Sullivan. The court ruled that the Reagan Administration could, in fact, require that abortion providers receiving Title X must conduct the “family planning” counseling and services in a facility entirely separate from an abortion clinic. They could also require that the staffing for these two functions be completely separate.

Tragically, that rule was never actually implemented. By the time the ruling came down from the high court, Bill Clinton had become president. And he rewrote the rules governing Title X to suit Planned Parenthood. The Clinton rules have remained in place ever since – including throughout the years of the Bush Administration.

It took Donald Trump to take the fight to Planned Parenthood.

Naturally, they sued. And, naturally enough – they found various liberal judges to issue rulings in their favor, despite the previous ruling by the Supreme Court. In fact, a number of district court judges actually issued “national injunctions” against the Trump Administration rule changes from taking effect. (A clear abuse of their authority under the Constitution).

There is no doubt that President Trump is on solid legal ground in demanding that Title X funds be segregated from abortion operations. And there is no doubt that he would eventually win this fight in the courts.

What is astonishing is that he won this important round before the 9th Circuit. We cannot recall another pro-Life ruling by this circuit, even an accidental one. But this week a 3 judge panel lifted the injunctions imposed by their arrogant colleagues.

Planned Parenthood and their allies must be flabbergasted. They have owned this circuit for decades.

They have little choice but to try an appeal – perhaps to a full gathering of the 9th Circuit. After all, they stand to lose tens of millions in taxpayer subsidies each year.

In addition to the president’s defense of preborn children, we must acknowledge his sustained effort to fill judicial vacancies with individuals who have some notion of judicial restraint and respect for the clear and obvious text of the U.S. Constitution. It would seem that his efforts are beginning to bear fruit – even in the 9th Circuit.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Democrats Move to Protect Kittens

March 14th, 2019 by Halli

Guest Post from Tony Perkins:

What do cats have that newborn babies don’t? Democrats’ support. In one of the sickest ironies no one is talking about, Senate liberals picked this moment — 17 days after they voted to kill America’s perfectly healthy infants — to fight for the humane treatment of kittens. Maybe the DNC’s strategists are out to lunch, or maybe the Left really is this shameless, but I can’t wait to see some of these politicians standing on debate platforms next year telling the American people that when it comes to protecting living things: We chose cats over kids.

For sponsors like Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the optics are nauseating. Here he is, arguing that America “must stop killing kittens,” when, three weeks ago, he stood in the U.S. Capitol and agreed with 43 Democrats that human beings should be put down. “The USDA’s decision to slaughter kittens after they are used in research is an archaic practice and horrific treatment, and we need to end it,” Merkley said with a passion that he and his colleagues couldn’t muster for a generation of perfectly healthy newborns. His Kittens in Traumatic Testing Ends Now — or KITTEN – Act wouldn’t stop the research, but it would keep the animals from being destroyed.

“The KITTEN Act will protect these innocent animals from being needlessly euthanized in government testing,” Merkley told reporters, “and make sure that they can be adopted by loving families instead.” Does he even hear himself? They should be treated and adopted? That’s exactly what Americans have requested for living, breathing babies. Democrats said no. Killing a child is a “personal decision,” they said, and Congress shouldn’t get in the way. What a comfort for abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden to know that, given the choice, Democrats would save a stray cat over her.

“The fact that we need a piece of legislation to tell the federal government to stop killing kittens is ridiculous on its face,” Congressman Brian Mast (R-Fla.) argued. But “ridiculous” doesn’t begin to describe a party that tells America to back away from the tables of crying newborns while it rushes to the rescue of kittens instead. I suppose we should also tell firefighters when they run into burning houses to look for the pets first? After all, on the Democrats’ sliding scale of “wantedness,” shouldn’t we find out how loved someone is before we decide if they’re worth saving?

Just incredible.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Planned Parenthood’s Big PR Stunt

September 15th, 2018 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Planned Parenthood announced this week that it had picked a new national president. In an attempt to rebrand itself as a legitimate health care provider, the nation’s largest provider named Dr. Leana Wen as its new president. She replaces Cecile Richards, a pure political hack.

The abortion chain is already playing on Wen’s Chinese background, as she and her family were granted asylum in the late 1990’s. Wen and her family became citizens in 2003.

During her years in medical school, Wen was a volunteer for Planned Parenthood.

The spin from Planned Parenthood ignores the fact that communist China is a gross example of what can happen to a society that embraces the wholesale destruction of innocent children through abortion. Dr. Wen herself has no record of opposing China’s horrific treatment of women and preborn children – especially baby girls. And you can be sure that she and Planned Parenthood will continue to overlook the barbarous practices of that nation.

Instead, Dr. Wen will be paraded about on talk shows in a white jacket to perpetrate the con job that Planned Parenthood is all about protecting women’s health.

Already, she has appeared on the “View”, proclaiming that abortion is a relatively small part of what Planned Parenthood does. She was challenged on the show by at least one host. And Planned Parenthood has been chided by liberal outlets like the Washington Post for attempting to deceive people into thinking that just 3% of their “services” involve abortion. But facts should not be allowed to get in the way of good political spin.

Regardless of Dr. Wen’s credentials, the organization is the largest death merchant on the planet. Plain and simple. It is outrageous that taxpayers continue to be held hostage by a dawdling Congress. Even worse: Federal and state governments go on lending legitimacy to this nefariously political organization, thereby encouraging women and girls to seek medical care from an outfit that kills babies for profit.

American women deserve better.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Shocking – Our Own Federal Government Buying Aborted Baby Parts

August 21st, 2018 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

In a shocking revelation, the nefarious activities of the Food & Drug Administration have recently exposed. CNS News and Operation Rescue discovered that the FDA has proffered a public contract to Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) based in San Francisco to purchase “fresh human fetal tissue”. The tissue will be grafted into mice to create “chimeric animals that have a human immune system”.

Let’s set aside the profound moral question of creating “chimeric animals” in the first place.

The first outrage is the simple fact that a federal agency has signed a purchase agreement with ABR to buy fetal tissue from elective abortions. That is our federal government. Supported by our tax dollars.

The national scandal exposed several years ago demonstrated a strong business partnership between Planned Parenthood and Advanced Bioscience Resources.

Pro-Life groups have been issuing statements over the past week, urging the Trump Administration to intervene and halt the trafficking in aborted baby parts. As of this writing, we are unaware of a public response by President Trump or lesser lights in the Executive Branch.

LifeNews reports that one of those expressing outrage is Dr. David Prentice, Research Director at the Charlotte Lozier Institute:

“It is outrageous that the FDA would aid in the trafficking of aborted baby parts and fetal tissue. High-quality, modern scientific research has no need for unethical, tainted practices and grisly sources. Our government should lead in ethics and in science, and should rescind any contracts for or use of aborted fetal tissue.”

Idaho Chooses Life led efforts in the Idaho Legislature to ban such practices at Idaho’s public universities, following revelations of Planned Parenthood’s dark money-making scheme.

It is time for our congressional delegation to join the public call for the President to personally intervene with the FDA.

This organization is very tainted by the people appointed by Barack Obama. They continue to shield the Abortion Industry from public scrutiny by suppressing data about the complications arising from the use of RU-486. And they have accommodated every demand by Planned Parenthood to loosen protocols and safety restrictions on chemical abortions.

“The Swamp” is clearly not limited to the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. No doubt it will take time for the president to clean house in this agency. But he must move quickly to stop this outrage. We cannot let this trafficking agreement stand.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

David Ripley: Trump Picks Highly Qualified Nominee

July 11th, 2018 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The street brawl is on. President Trump kept his promise to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court from his published list. That is a unique event in history. One could make the argument that Trump’s handling of his campaign and his transparency in telling the citizenry, beforehand, exactly who he would send to the Court gives him something of a public mandate here.

Of course, that makes little difference to the unhinged Left. Particularly its core Abortion Rights constituency.

We were hoping for a different nominee, to be honest. But the early reviews from national pro-Life groups indicate that Brett Kavanaugh is a very solid choice. The Family Research Council, Americans United for Life and Operation Rescue have all sent very strong signals of support in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s announcement. We have been in touch with one of the most respected pro-Life attorneys in the nation, Mr. Paul Linton, and he believes that Kavanaugh is likely to help form a new majority on the high court, one more sympathetic with the plight of preborn Americans. He also believes that Judge Kavanaugh will be difficult to defeat in the U.S. Senate.

We hope that at least a few Democrats will be willing to support Kavanaugh, because the numbers look a bit difficult. Republicans have a bare majority, given the continued refusal of John McCain to resign his Senate seat. And there are the two remaining pro-abort Republicans in the Senate – Collins and Murkowski to worry about.

Of course, Judge Kavanaugh has been confirmed by the Senate in a previous administration. It is hard to argue that a sitting appellate court judge is suddenly “unqualified” to be a justice on the high court. But, again, logic and reason are no obstacles to the NY Times or Planned Parenthood. They smell trouble and they will fight like cornered convicts in a prison riot gone bad.

Which brings us to an important topic – worthy of additional commentaries in the future: It would be a big mistake for the pro-Life community to leap to the conclusion that Kavanaugh’s confirmation will be the end of Roe. That may, for the first time, be a real possibility in coming years. But we will likely have to await another appointment. And the right case. We think it is much more reasonable to see the addition of a conservative to the court as opening up new possibilities for the states to become more aggressive in protecting the lives of preborn children. Important groundwork will have to be laid with the generations of Americans who have been taught to believe that killing a baby in the womb is a “right” – of no greater moral consequence than having a tumor removed.

We all must be in prayer for this nominee and his family. The pressure on him will certainly be immense.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Supreme Court Rebukes 9th Circuit (Again)

June 27th, 2018 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of NIFLA v. Becerra, overturning a previous 9th Circuit ruling involving a California law that forced pro-Life pregnancy centers to refer women for abortion. Becerra is the Attorney General of California. NIFLA is the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. They were joined by numerous pro-Life pregnancy centers.

As we’ve written before, there has been a new attack line on the pro-Life movement in recent years. Draconian laws have been passed in (at least) California and Hawaii to hamper the efforts of the pro-Life community to save preborn children and their mothers. The 9th Circuit got its way around the First Amendment by arguing that California was only trying to regulate “professional” speech.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that the U.S. Supreme Court has never recognized categories of free speech – based upon who was doing the speaking. There is just free speech. And the government is not free to compel speech.

One would have hoped that the learned people on the 9th Circuit might have known that already.

We fully expected to win this case. We have dealt with the issue of professional speech a number of times when we have sought to pass laws requiring doctors to provide information to women considering abortion (informed consent). Supreme Court precedent has made it clear that we cannot make a doctor say something he or she would not otherwise choose to tell a patient. (Requiring them to provide written material, prepared by the State of Idaho, is a different matter).

What is surprising, however, is the fact that four justices of the Supreme Court – Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan – had no problem overlooking the Court’s own precedent to advance their ideological agenda. More importantly – the First Amendment itself represents no substantial obstacle for these people, either. It is painfully obvious that, for these leftist activists, the Constitution means little except as it can be manipulated into providing the means to an end.

This is a radically different view than the one held by the Founders. Those ancients saw the Constitution as the end itself. Opinions, movements and problems change from time to time. The solutions reached by society from time to time can be flexible. But the Constitution enshrines eternal truths about man and his proper relationship to government; whimsical political solutions cannot be allowed to violate the fixed nature of man and the rights he has acquired as an expression of God himself.

Classical liberalism once defended such a view of the Constitution – and it fought hard for those ideals. It is very troubling to see that no such understanding exists today among the American Left. They have been seduced by their own self-righteousness into a kind of soft totalitarianism.

About all we can add is a prayer of gratitude: Thank the Lord Trump won. A Clinton justice would have vindicated the 9th Circuit. That outcome would have set the stage for government using its coercive powers to drive the pro-Life movement from the public square.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Will AG Wasden Win This Lawsuit?

June 12th, 2018 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The Death Lobby recently filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Idaho, arguing that Idaho’s law on “living wills” or “advance directives” is “unconstitutional”. They are joined by the Abortion Lobby in pressing for an expanded right to destroy preborn children under the rubric of “women’s rights”.

The key issue: Idaho’s 2005 updated law on living wills provides an exception if the woman is pregnant. The justification for this exception is simple – in that case, there is another life involved. And the State of Idaho and medical personnel have a moral and legal responsibility to defend the separate rights of that preborn child to life.

The whole debate around “living wills” involves very serious moral, legal and spiritual issues. These legal documents outline the treatment choices a competent adult would make in various cases. For example, if you were in an accident and descended into a coma – would you want extraordinary medical intervention to preserve your life? Would you choose to receive food and water – while foregoing treatment options like breathing machines? And at what point would you choose one or more options?

Often, these living wills come down to making predetermined choices about when and how one might choose to die. Those theoretical questions are difficult enough for a person to make, because so much is unknown at the time those documents are signed. Many can justify such a limitation on future medical treatment because they feel they are doing their family a favor by relieving them of the burden of making difficult choices for a loved one. But this is an area fraught with troubling moral and spiritual questions in the clearest of circumstances.

The moral problems expand exponentially when one considers that this lawsuit seeks to gain a ruling striking down Idaho’s protections for preborn children.

It is one thing for an adult woman to choose death for herself, under the present structure of Idaho’s Living Will law. But it is a whole different question when one considers that there is another life at stake.

Let’s look at just one implication of this lawsuit: What if a woman files a living will with the state, stating that she does not want food & water in certain circumstances. A couple of years later, she gets married. Then pregnant. But her legally-binding choices are not updated in light of her new circumstances. Suddenly, she is in the hospital after an accident. The doctors would be required to follow her previous wishes, regardless of the desires of her husband – even if he were certain that his wife would want to preserve their baby’s life by staying on life support. It is our understanding that the filed living will would overrule any other consideration. The hospital and courts would be bound to honor the wishes outlined in that old document. That is but one reason that the Idaho Legislature had the wisdom to provide for the pregnancy exception when updating this highly complex code section.

One of the participants in this lawsuit is “Compassion & Choices” – a leading advocate of assisted suicide in the nation. We previously battled them here in Idaho when they decided that the Gem State needed to widen its welcome mat for an evil philosophy built on the worship of death. (These are the people who have hoodwinked Washington and Oregon; they are at work in California as we speak).

They are back in Idaho to advance their dark agenda – this time, hiding behind the curtain of “women’s rights”.

So it is now up to Lawrence Wasden to defend the thoughtful work of the Idaho Legislature. Frankly, his record in the area of defending preborn children leaves a lot to be desired. Most of the time he loses quickly to the Abortion Lobby. So we are concerned, particularly because the case is already highly politicized: One of the pregnant women participating in the lawsuit is Chelsea Gaona-Lincoln, a Democrat running in Caldwell for the Idaho House against our good friend, Rep. Greg Chaney.

One interesting dynamic of this lawsuit is the fact that Ms. Lincoln’s baby is expected in July, which would seem to raise questions about her legal standing to bring this suit.

Ms. Lincoln’s spouse – Democrat Evangeline Beechler – is also running for the Legislature, and is the Democrat nominee against Sen. Jim Rice this fall. Both have been very active advocates for the LGBTQ agenda at the Legislature.

We need to be encouraging Mr. Wasden to stand tall and expend the resources necessary to win this important case.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: Once More We Must Witness a Public Execution

April 26th, 2018 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Many of you have probably been following the tragic story of baby Alfie Evans in England. He is a toddler whom the medical community and courts have determined must be killed, despite the heart-wrenching pleas of his parents for his life.

Doctors determined that this little boy would not recover from his condition. They determined that he was going to die. So they told his parents that he should be removed from a ventilator and denied food and water. In order that he be helped in dying faster.

The logic is truly inexplicable.

The parents fought for his life. They went to court and asked that they be allowed to take him to another hospital for treatment. The courts – many courts – have upheld the right of the London hospital to play God. No, said the UK High Court just yesterday, the parents cannot transport to a hospital in Italy or Germany.

The last report we read indicated that the hospital had yet to withdraw water from the little boy, but they have begun starving him. They also withdrew him from a respirator, but the little Alfie continued to breathe for some 19 hours – defying predictions of hospital staff.

We have seen any number of such examples of growing arrogance within the legal and medical community. It is almost as if people like Alfie are being executed because they defy the medical oracles by continuing to live. It is hard to accept that modern society is willing to tolerate such attacks on parental authority and human dignity.

But it is even harder to grasp why our institutions are so psychotically committed to ensuring that vulnerable people like Alfie die on their schedule. Why is it necessary to deprive the boy of food and water? Can one imagine a more horrible method of death? Can you imagine the ACLU standing by if death row prisoners were executed over the course of days through such a method? Yet we stand around wringing our hands when the highest authorities of the land wreack such havoc upon the innocent.

It is truly more than barbaric. It is plain evil.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting