What Biden Just Got Wrong About Abortion

When Joe Biden rushed to the podium to defend Roe v. Wade and abortion, the Catholic president stumbled on a few important points.

On Monday night, Politico reported that it had obtained a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overruling the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, which put major hurdles in front of states that want to pass laws protecting unborn children. The next morning, President Joe Biden, the second Catholic to be elected to the presidency in the United States’ history, issued a statement, which concluded:

If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.

So much for Catholics who said Joe Biden is “personally pro-life,” and so it would be licit to vote for him because he isn’t directly advocating for abortion. Here he is promising to use the power of the federal government to make it legal to kill unborn children.

If this isn’t an act worthy of censure by Biden’s pastor, then nothing is. In fact, in a press conference, Biden defended Roe v. Wade:

Roe says what all basic, mainstream religions have historically concluded, that right, the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks? Is it “quickening” like Aquinas argued?

Well, everyone agrees that questions like “what is a human being” and “when does life begin” are indeed questions. I’m sure that what the president means is that people disagree about the answers to those questions. But when has he or other like-minded politicians cared about what people think concerning the deepest questions of life? “All basic, mainstream religions have historically concluded” that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, but that didn’t stop the government from enforcing the view that marriage can be any two people, or maybe more!

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, Jan. 28 | The Catholic Sun

Then there’s the matter of St. Thomas Aquinas. Can Biden (and Nancy Pelosi) just leave him alone? Human sperm and eggs and the genetic code weren’t discovered until centuries after Thomas lived, and so he did his best with the knowledge of biology he had at the time. But even if he thought a rational soul entered the body at a later time in pregnancy, he—and others, like St. Augustine, also occasionally abused by Nancy Pelosi—always believed that abortion is a grave evil. The Catechism bluntly states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable” (2271).

Also, far from thinking that the soul enters the body at quickening (when an unborn baby’s movements can be felt by the mother), Aquinas believed that the soul entered the human body around forty days after conception. This is around the time many states have said abortion should be outlawed because the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat.

It’s true that religions disagree about religious questions, like when the soul enters the body. However, it is not the job of the government to arbitrate religious disputes. The scientific question of when a human being comes into existence is not in dispute. It’s at fertilization, also known as conception, which I’ve noted before and was recently shown to be the view of ninety-five percent of biologists.

In any case, Biden’s reply is disingenuous because he acts as if no one has the right answer. “Six days? Six weeks? Six months? Who can say when life begins?” he asks.

I ask in reply: “What about sixteen months, Mr. President? Or six years?”

The truth is that Biden and others like him don’t really think the law should let everyone decide when he thinks life begins. If the law actually did that, then the State would be powerless to punish infanticide, since a person guilty of this crime could always say his child’s life had not “begun yet” in any “meaningful” way. Heck, how could we know that anyone’s life has ever begun?

No, pro-choice politicians already decided that life begins at birth—at least for now, until they decide it begins later than that—and they want to impose that view on everyone else. They want to prevent communities from protecting children who are simply waiting to be born.

Catholics and other people of good faith (who often have to make up for the number of Catholics acting in bad faith on this question) must defend the right to life of every human being. They must show that the question of when life begins is not a puzzle with no answer. Rather, it’s a puzzle as to why it has taken this long for people who should know better to recognize the dignity of millions of helpless human beings.

Does the COVID Jab Kill More People Than It Saves?

HEALTH VIEWPOINTS

BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIME MAY 3, 2022

Have you noticed the jabbed and boosted are testing positive for COVID more often than the unvaccinated? Is it pure coincidence or could there be a connection between the number of shots you receive and your risk for coming down with COVID? Here’s what the latest data reveal.

Story at-a-glance

  • According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19. Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time
  • Across the world, death rates have also risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths
  • According to Walgreens data, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated persons tested positive for COVID. Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID
  • U.K. government data show the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first COVID shot 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates
  • Other data also show that COVID mortality rates are far higher in areas with high vaccination rates, and risk-benefit analyses reveal the jabs do more harm than good in most age groups

According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,[1] more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19.

Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time.[2] “We’ve never seen anything like it,” Robert Anderson, CDC’s head of mortality statistics, told The Washington Post in mid-February 2022.[3]

According to University of Warwick researchers, “the scale of excess non-COVID deaths is large enough for it to be seen as its own pandemic.”[4] A number of explanations have been offered, including the fact that lockdowns and other COVID restrictions discouraged or prevented people from seeking care. But another, less discussed factor may also be at play.

Across the world, death rates have risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths. This flies in the face of official claims that the shots prevent severe COVID infection and lower your risk of death, be it from COVID or all causes.[5]

Boosted? You’re Now at Highest Risk of COVID

Ever since the announcement that the COVID “vaccines” would be using novel mRNA gene transfer technology, I and many others have warned that this appears to be a very bad idea.

Numerous potential mechanisms for harm have been identified and detailed in previous articles, and we’re now seeing some of our worst fears come to bear. “Fully vaccinated” individuals are both more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to die, whether from COVID or some other cause.

As reported by investigative journalist Jeffrey Jaxen in the April 22, 2022, Highwire video above, data from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker[6] reveal that COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed. What’s more, people who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.

As you can see in the screenshot below, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated tested positive for COVID (with Omicron being the predominant variant). (The data reviewed by Jaxen are from the week of April 10 through 16.)

Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.

positivity rate by vaccination status

A deeper dive into the data[7] reveals that two doses appear to have been protective for a short while, but after five months, it becomes net harmful. The group faring worst of all is the 12 to 17 cohort, where no one with one dose tested positive, but after the second dose, cases suddenly appear, and get higher still after five months. After the third dose, positive cases drop a bit, but then shoot up higher than ever after five months.[8]

Deaths by Vaccination Status in the UK

Data sets from the U.K. government reveal an equally disturbing trend. The raw data from the Office for National Statistics[9] is difficult to interpret, so Jaxen had data analysts create a bar graph to better illustrate what the data actually tell us. A screenshot from Jaxen’s report is below.

all cause mortality relative risk

Bars going upward are a good thing, as it indicates the risk for all-cause mortality based on vaccination status is either normal or reduced. Bars that dip below zero percent are indicative of increased all-cause mortality, based on vaccination status.

As you can see, the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first dose 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates.

More Jabs, More COVID Deaths

lindsay tweet animation

Everywhere we look, we find trends showing the COVID shots are resulting in higher death rates. Above is an animated illustration[10] from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.

Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it’s nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.

Here’s another one,[11] also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did the excess mortality rate.

lindsay tweet animation us

Risk-Benefit Analysis Condemns the COVID Jabs

At this point, we also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. For example, a risk-benefit analysis[12] by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.

They looked at publicly available official data from the U.S. and U.K. for all age groups, and compared all-cause mortality to the risk of dying from COVID-19. “All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death,” Seneff and Dopp concluded. And for younger adults and children, there’s no benefit, only risk.

“This analysis is conservative,” the authors note, “because it ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and other vaccine-induced injuries can lead to shortened life span.

When one takes into consideration the fact that there is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one can only conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised.

Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for the unvaccinated.”

The analysis is also conservative in the sense that it only considers COVID jab fatalities that occur within one month of injection. As demonstrated by the U.K. data above, the risk of all-cause death is nearly 300% greater for those who got a second dose at least six months ago.

Teens Are at Dramatic Risk of Death From the Jabs

Similarly, an analysis[13] of data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann suggests that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there’s no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.

Durham Alerts Judge to Federal Ruling Against Hillary Clinton, DNC

By Zachary Stieber  May 4, 2022
0:003:01

 

Special Counsel John Durham on May 2 alerted the judge presiding over the case against a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer of fines the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid after a federal body found probable cause that they violated election laws.

Durham filed the Federal Election Commission (FEC) opinion and conciliation agreements that the campaign and the DNC entered into with the FEC along with paying the fines for what the FEC described as probable violations of laws governing the reporting of political entity disbursements.

At issue is the Democrat entities’ ties to Fusion GPS, a firm that specializes in opposition research.

The entities primarily paid Fusion GPS through a law firm they tapped, Perkins Coie.

The payments were listed as funding legal services but actually were used by Fusion to perform opposition research on former President Donald Trump, at the time Clinton’s rival for the presidency, FEC lawyers said.

“Specifically, the FEC found ‘probable cause to believe’ that the DNC and [the Clinton campaign] improperly reported their payments to Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’s opposition research as ‘legal and compliance consulting,’” Durham told U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, in the new filing.

The special counsel attached the documents to a motion to compel the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Fusion, and Perkins to produce documents that the parties are withholding or producing in redacted forms based on claims they contain attorney-client communications or other privileged material.

Durham argues that Fusion did not provide legal services to the other parties, rendering the privilege claims moot—a position bolstered by the FEC’s findings.

The parties say Fusion was helping Perkins in its provision of legal advice to the campaign and the DNC.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC have not commented publicly on the FEC’s ruling.

Each paid fines and entered into conciliation agreements with the federal body, but did not admit wrongdoing.

Fusion’s services included helping create the dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. The dossier’s allegations against Trump, which were salacious and unsubstantiated, were promoted heavily by the Clinton campaign and Democrats in their bid to get Clinton elected and, later, to impeach Trump.

Durham is prosecuting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who represented both the campaign and the DNC when he brought unverified information that allegedly showed a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank in the months before the 2016 election.

Durham says Sussmann lied when he told an FBI lawyer, prior to handing over the information, that he was not bringing the data on behalf of a client.

Sussmann’s lawyers have argued that he did not lie and, even if he did, the lie would have been immaterial to the legitimacy of the actual information.

Sussmann is set to go on trial later in May.