Friday, November 3, 2017

Firm That Produced “Russian Dossier” on Trump Worked for Planned Parenthood to Discredit Baby Parts Videos

 NATIONAL   CHERYL SULLENGER   NOV 2, 2017   |   1:54PM    WASHINGTON, DC
Politics can be a dirty business, and that’s just fine with those who run the shadowy Fusion GPS. Their company has made millions dishing out the dirt.
Fusion GPS is often referred to as an “opposition research” group, but it has gone much farther than just documenting negative information on political opponents. When there is no dirt to be found, it appears that Fusion GPS has no qualms about manufacturing their own dirt.
That crosses the line and becomes a political dirty trick.
The biggest dirty trick of all was the so-called “Russian Dossier” produced by Fusion GPS that smeared the Trump Campaign last year with unfounded allegations of Russian collusion. Fox News host Sean Hannity has insisted that dossier is full of “lies, misinformation and propaganda.”
The Fusion GPS fake dirt-dump was funded by the DNC, the Clinton Campaign, and Barack Obama’s political organization, Obama For America. The money used to pay Fusion GPS was filtered through an attorney to avoid showing up on campaign finance reports in what some have been calling a money laundering scheme.
The fake dossier itself has been exposed as a spurious attempt to smear Trump and influence the 2016 Presidential Election.
Now, Fusion GPS’s gutter level tactics are under investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.
But this isn’t the first time that Fusion GPS has been well paid for manufacturing falsehoods.
In 2015, Planned Parenthood was reeling from negative publicity due to the release of damning undercover videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress that showed Planned Parenthood executives in their own words haggling over the best price in exchange for aborted baby body parts and confessing to other crimes.
The Fusion GPS report falsely declared that since the videos had been edited, they were therefore fake. Planned Parenthood pushed the phony report out as gospel truth to a willing mainstream media that never bothered to question whether Fusion GPS had the qualifications to conduct a “forensic analysis” of anything.
In truth, Fusion GPS has no known qualifications in the field of forensic video analysis. But what it does have is expertise in political dirty tricks that concoct “dirt” where there isn’t any.
In contrast, the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom commissioned an analysis of the same videos with Coalfire Systems, Inc., a company that does have credentials in the field of forensic video analysis and are experts in the field of information technology auditing. Their findings were diametrically opposite from the Fusion GPS pulp fiction manufactured to discredit the videos.
The Coalfire Systems report revealed that there was no audio manipulation in the videos. Sure, the videos were edited for length, but the report found that nothing presented was out of context. The Planned Parenthood executives caught on video clearly mean what the videos show them saying.
“How people can still believe that the CMP videos are fakes is astounding,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation and a founding board member of the Center for Medical Progress. “They are actually strong evidence that Planned Parenthood and others have committed crimes. No wonder Planned Parenthood hired Fusion GPS to lie about the videos.”
As a result, Senate and House Committees referred Planned Parenthood to the U.S. Attorney General for criminal prosecution in December, which has yet to take place.
Just like the so-called “Russian Dossier,” the Fusion GPS video report bought by Planned Parenthood was full of “lies, misinformation and propaganda.”
All this has revealed that Planned Parenthood, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Fusion GPS are all joined at the hip in a circle of brazen political corruption, where lying, money laundering, and profiting from the mutilated corpses of dead babies can occur without conscience or consequence.
Clinton has been linked not only to Planned Parenthood, but also to the illegal trafficking in aborted baby remains.
In 2016, Operation Rescue released an exclusive exposé that showed how the wealthy Isaias crime family of Equador reached out to Clinton during her term as Secretary of State for asylum after looting millions of dollars from an Ecuadorian bank. After donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians, the Clinton State Department expedited the family’s immigration into the U.S.
During this time, the Isaias family operated DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, located in Orange County, California. On October 11, 2016, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed suit against both Isaias companies for profiting from the illegal sale of aborted baby remains obtained from Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in Southern California.
Aside from her greedy lust for power, Clinton had a vested interest in making sure the CMP videos were discredited and Trump defeated, lest her own culpability in Planned Parenthood’s illegal baby-parts trafficking scheme be revealed. Likewise, Planned Parenthood was desperate to defeat Donald Trump to derail possibility of criminal investigations and protect their federal funding, which Trump had vowed to end.
The House Intelligence Committee has now requested Fusion GPS account statements from their bank in order to get to the bottom of exactly who paid for Fusion GPS dirty tricks.
Will the committee find evidence that Planned Parenthood had any part in funding the “Russian Dossier” in addition to the specious video report? If some were to surface, it would not be at all surprising.
It’s time to stop coddling Planned Parenthood and their high-powered political cronies who have repeatedly lied to the American people and have apparently broken the law to avoid accountability for their criminality. Attorney General Jeff Sessions must prosecute them all to the fullest extent of the law.
LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

at

Amazing Fetal Surgeries are Helping Unborn Children Well Before Birth

 NATIONAL   STEVEN ERTELT   NOV 2, 2017   |   2:55PM    WASHINGTON, DC
As surgical technology advances, doctors are better able to address health conditions before a baby is even born.  By treating a child’s conditions before birth, doctors can sometimes prevent further damage, facilitate a healthy delivery, and even reverse a fatal condition.
For years, Texas hospitals have been a leader in open fetal surgery.  In these procedures, doctors open the womb and operate on the preborn baby.  One Texan who is living proof of the success of open fetal surgery is Lynlee Hope Boemer who was “born twice,” once at 23 weeks’ gestation to remove a tumor from the base of her spine and again 13 weeks later when she was delivered by caesarian section.
Although open fetal surgery has been successful for many mothers and babies, some doctors have concerns about the limitations of the invasive procedure.  Doctors who have taken steps to address these concerns have been performing experimental operations at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston since 2014.  The New York Times reports that Michael A. Belfort and Dr. William Whitehead have made groundbreaking use of fetoscopic surgery.
Unlike open fetal surgery, fetoscopic surgery does not involve fully opening the uterus to operate on the baby.  Opening the uterus poses risks to mother and baby for delivery and carries risks for the mother in future pregnancies.  Instead, Drs. Belfort and Whitehead have developed a technique of opening the mother’s abdomen and making very small slits in the uterus, incisions that should heal without long-term consequences, and inserting a “fetoscope,” which is “a small telescope fitted with a camera, light and grasping tool,” and other miniature instruments.
The team at Texas Children’s has used the experimental surgery to address the needs of preborn babies with spina bifida.  Because spina bifida is rarely fatal, doctors are reluctant to operate on the babies before birth for fear of risking the baby’s Life.  On the other hand, some of the complications of spina bifida, including the inability to walk and the build-up of fluid in the brain, may be worsened by the time the condition is left untreated in utero.  According to the New York Times:
A landmark study published in 2011 found that — for carefully selected fetuses — prenatal surgery was better than operating after birth.  The percentage of children who could walk independently rose to 40 percent from 20 percent, and the need for a shunt [to remove fluid from the brain]was cut in half, to 40 percent from 82 percent.
One couple who sought the experimental fetoscopic surgery was Joshuwa and Lexi Royer.  The Royers learned early in the pregnancy that their son had a severe form of spina bifida.  The California family came to Houston for days of testing, which determined they were good candidates for the experimental surgery.  Before making the decision to pursue fetoscopic surgery, the Royers told the New York Times, they faced pressure from their medical team to end their son’s Life through abortion.  This kind of anti-Life coercion is sadly common for parents facing an uncertain medical condition for their preborn child.  Parents who seek alternatives can find possibilities many doctors have never learned.  This was the case for the Royers and fetoscopic surgery.
Ms. Royer and her preborn son underwent the operation in late September.  The results are not guaranteed, but the family and medical team are optimistic that the surgery will offset some of the adverse effects of severe spina bifida.  Thanks for fetoscopic surgery, the Royers’ son has a chance at Life that is denied to many babies diagnosed prenatally with a disability.  Fetoscopic surgery, like open fetal surgery, gives us an unprecedented view inside the womb and continues to remind us of the humanity of the preborn.
We wish the Royers the best in the months ahead!
LifeNews Note: Reprinted with permission from Texas Right to Life.

at

United Nations Committee Says “Right to Life” Means a Right to Abortion

 INTERNATIONAL   JONATHAN ABBAMONTE   NOV 2, 2017   |   9:13AM    NEW YORK, NY
As reported earlier this year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has been attempting to redefine an important international human rights treaty by claiming that the ‘right to life’ means that states should legalize abortion under expansive terms.
This past July, the Committee released a document called General Comment No. 36 which would seek to reinterpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to say that states “must” provide access to abortion and would permit states to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
However, the ICCPR never mentions abortion or euthanasia. On contrary, the treaty explicitly recognizes that “Every human being has the inherent right to life.”[1]
In response, the Population Research Institute (PRI), in concert with other pro-life organizations and academics around the world, has called upon the Human Rights Committee to protect the right to life at all stages of development.
We made clear to the Committee that neither the ICCPR nor the customary norms of international law obligate any state to legalize abortion. We further endeavored to debunk some widely held myths pro-abortion advocates commonly use in justifying an invention of a “right” to abortion. My full written comment on behalf of PRI to the Human Rights Committee can be viewed here.
Several countries have also responded to General Comment No. 36, condemning the Human Right Committee’s pro-abortion activism.
While the Human Rights Committee has gained a reputation for itself by routinely subjecting countries to rebuke for their pro-life laws, General Comment No. 36 would permit the Committee to place considerably more pressure on states to legalize abortion.
General Comment No. 36 states that countries “must provide” access to abortion in cases of health, rape, incest, fetal disability and “in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering.”[2]
General Comment 36 would also call on independent states to remove criminal sanctions for abortionists that break the law, and to repeal laws which place “humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion.”[3]
There would be much at stake if the General Comment No. 36 is adopted.
The ICCPR is one of the oldest, most revered and widely adopted United Nations human rights treaties. States that have adopted the ICCPR (i.e. “state parties”) are bound by international law to faithfully observe the treaty’s terms. The United States, as a state party to the ICCPR, is bound by the U.S. Constitution to abide by the treaty.
General Comments are essentially official statements by the Committee on how they interpret the treaty.
And while the legal status of General Comments is subject to much debate among international law scholars, most observers agree that General Comments are highly esteemed, authoritative, quazi-juridical statements that play an ever increasingly important role in the development of “soft” law.[4] General Comments have been invoked by various international courts including the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and have, on occasion, even been cited in decisions by domestic courts, including a federal district court in the United States.[5],[6]
While states are free to ignore the parts of General Comments that do not accord with their obligations under the ICCPR, General Comments are widely recognized as authoritative and can place increased pressure on state parties to comply.
The Human Right Committee is tasked with monitoring the implementation of the ICCPR, with writing general comments, and with offering non-binding recommendations to state parties on fulling their obligations under the treaty.
But, as we were keen to point out, the Committee has no authority to create new obligations or to reinterpret the treaty in manner contrary to the text of the ICCPR.
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), treaties must be interpreted “in good faith” and according to “the ordinary meaning” of the text in its “context and in light of its object and purpose.”[7] Many of the framers of the ICCPR understood this well and carefully crafted the language of the treaty under the assumption that the treaty would “not admit of progressive implementation of its provisions.”[8]
As mentioned already, article 6(1) of the ICCPR explicitly recognizes the right to life for “every human being” and that this right should be “protected by law.”[9] Article 2 of the Covenant declares that this right should respected “without distinction of any kind” including by “birth or other status.”[10] Article 7 further prohibits anyone to be subjected to “torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Abortion procedures crush, poison, or dismember the unborn child, many of which are able to feel pain, and clearly constitute the most cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment imaginable.
Article 6(5) even specifically recognizes the right to life of the unborn child as distinct from the life of its mother. Article 6(5) prohibits the death penalty to be carried out on a pregnant woman:
Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.[11]
During the drafting process for the ICCPR, state parties made it clear that article 6(5) was included in the treaty precisely to protect the life of the unborn child. The Official Record of the proceedings of the 819th meeting of the Third Committee summarized the comments of the Israeli delegation as follows:
the authors of the original text had specified that sentence of death should not be carried out on a pregnant woman principally in order to save the life of an innocent unborn child.[12]
The Japanese delegation echoed this sentiment at the following meeting, saying to the effect, “the main reason for inserting the provision concerning pregnant women was to avoid involving in the death penalty a person who was not connected with the crime.”[13] It is thus impossible to read any “right” to abortion into the ICCPR.
Moreover, international law does not create any obligation on states to legalize abortion. The U.N. Charter seeks to promote “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction.”[14] The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that “every child has the inherent right to life”[15] and that the “child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”[16] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while not in and of itself constituting a customary norm in whole or in part, is nevertheless highly esteemed and provided the inspiration for the ICCPR. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims without qualification that “everyone has the right to life.”[17]
It is impossible for the Human Right Committee to claim that states are obligated to legalize abortion under customary international law. A significant number of countries protect the right to life for the unborn child by law, several of them from the moment of conception. In fact, a majority of U.N.-recognized states (56%) have not legalized abortion under even the minimum cases the Human Rights Committee is now demanding that they be provided.[18]
It is clear that no so-called “right” to abortion exists in either the ICCPR or in states’ obligations under international law. On the contrary, the ICCPR recognizes the right to life for “every human being,” including the unborn child, the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.
The Human Rights Committee must abide by its mandate and must cease its attempts to reinterpret the Covenant in a manner never intended by state parties.
[1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), art. 6(1), December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[2] Human Rights Comm., 120th Sess., General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, Revised draft prepared by the Rapporteur, ¶9.
[3] Id.
[4] “Soft” law as compared to “hard” positive obligations under international law. Soft international law creates no obligation for states to abide by
[5] Blake C. Normative instruments in international human rights law: locating the general comment. New York: Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of Law; 2008. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper, No. 17.
[6] See United States v. Bakeas, 987 F. Supp. 44 (D. Mass. 1997).
[7] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), art. 31(1), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
[8] U.N. Secretary-General, Annotation, Chapter VI, ¶2, U.N. Doc. A/2929 (July 1, 1955).
[9] ICCPR, art. 6(1).
[10] ICCPR, art. 2(1).
[11] ICCPR, art. 6(5).
[12] U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.819, ¶33.
[13] U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.820, ¶6.
[14] U.N. Charter, art. 1.
[15] Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), art. 6, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
[16] Id. at Preamble.
[17] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2017(III).
[18] This statistic is derived from the status of abortion laws according to: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014). Abortion Policies and Reproductive Health around the World. Sales No. E.14.XIII.11. The status of abortion laws since 2013 have been brought up-to-date through research by Population Research Institute.
LifeNews Note: Jonathan Abbamonte writes for the Population Research Institute.

at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *