Dr Sudam Munde and his wife Dr. Saraswati Munde have botched a late term abortion and killed both patients while on bail for sex selective abortions.
Varsha Deshpande, India’s version of Lila Rose, had busted the abortionists for their operation to selectively abort girls. The couple had been out on bail, but this was revoked due to the illegal abortion they committed in May, which killed the mother, Vijaymala Patekar, as well as her baby.
The Supreme Court in Mumbai has denied Munde’s subsequent bail application, and ruled that he cannot attempt another application for six months.
Varsha Deshpande has learned the codes used by the sonography industry to get around the laws of India against sex selection abortions. She’s conducted 34 sting operations of sex selective abortionists and sonographers since 2005, and has just recently put up her own website.
The list of Indiana Judges on the ballot for retention is up at the Indiana Right to Life website.
Judge John G Baker - Indiana Circuit Court 5th district: “Ruling in 1982 allowed Baby Doe to be denied a surgical procedure and starved to death in a Bloomington hospital.”
Robert D Rucker, Indiana Supreme Court: Supported a decision that allowed expansion of medicaid funding for abortion to “medically necessary” cases in Humphreys V Planned Parenthood, 2003.
Upheld the Indiana 18 hour waiting period prior to an abortion in Clinic for Women v Brizzi 2005.
He’s half and half.
( Rucker dissented against Steven David’s crazy anti-4th amendment decision.)
Justice Steven David, Indiana Supreme Court, no abortion related rulings found by Indiana RTL. (But he did rule against 4th amendment protections, which is dangerous to human rights for other reasons).
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley and and Sons is a case before the Supreme Court this fall which threatens aspects of the 1908 First Sale Doctrine. That older ruling allows people who own a copyrighted item to resell the item without getting permission from the copyright holder. This new case before the court, depending on how broadly the Court writes the ruling, could require resellers of copyrighted items made in Europe, or Asia to get permission from the copyright holders before they sell such products. It could affect resale of numerous products and items which bear copyrighted programming, content and logos.
This case is touched off by the fact that books published outside the country, by American publishers, for use in other countries, are being purchased and brought back into the U.S. for resale.
The publishers, for example, of Pharmer’s son’s anatomy and biochemistry texts, have a version in the U.S., priced more than double that of the version they sell in other countries. Obviously students, who are being bilked unconscionably for tuition costs, are trying to save hundreds of dollars each semester on their book bills, and buying versions published in Southeast Asia or India, etc.
A Court decision against the right of first sale in this case could have far reaching implications:
1) It could impede the ability of individuals to recycle textbooks, and electronic devices, or buy international versions for cheaper prices.
2) It will encourage manufacturers and publishers to produce shoddier merchandise and/or increase planned obsolescence in order to push new items to a consumer less inclined to buy new if they can’t sell the old one.
3) Most significantly, it will exacerbate the problem of often toxic waste and mountainous landfills.
The greenies ought to be camped outside the Supreme Court building throughout the fall over this.
Listen to Obama promising no new taxes, see what the Congressional budget office has to say about 75% of the people who will pay Obamacare taxes have incomes below $120,000, and hear the White House Lawyer arguing the insurance mandate as a TAX, before the Supreme Court.
There have been numerous theories concerning the motivation for Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to excuse the Obamacare insurance mandate penalty as a TAX, and allow Obamacare to continue its job of destroying personal freedom and the U.S. economy.
Here’s a theory that Pharmer has not heard yet, and it seems fairly plausible. Supreme Court watchers suspected from the way the decisions were written, that Roberts had originally opposed the insurance mandate, and that he changed his mind.
Pharmer suspects that Roberts was influenced by old establishment Republicans seeking to galvanize the Tea Partiers behind Romney.
This judicial precedent has inflicted widespread damage.
What should be the response? Conservatives will probably have to choose Romney in order to get rid of Obama. That’s an emergency.
The Tea Party should stay very active in removing crusty old establishment Republicans from their government posts at the National, State and Local levels in all subsequent primary elections. Pharmer intends to assist in this continuing effort.
7/2 Update: CBS claims to have sources ‘revealing’ that John Roberts changed his opinion one month prior to announcing the Supreme court decision. There is a claim that Justice Kennedy tried hard to bring him back into line with the conservative judges.
Of significant mention is the treatment by many that Roberts’ insistence that the commerce clause does not justify the insurance mandate is significant in the decision. In actuality, Roberts opinion on this is a Dictum, and, as such, it has no value as judicial precedent. Roberts provided exactly zero judicial protection against the further encroachment of government on our liberties.
The self flagellators wish to hang on Roberts’ words that the Court has no job to protect the people from their bad choices of governmental representatives. (Perhaps he desired to have George W Bush, who appointed him, classified as a bad choice.)
Roberts must bear personal responsibility for his own bad decision, and Tea Partiers hope to place it on the ash heap of history.
See the video and transcript linked below, in which Obama explains that his promise not to tax the middle class is good, because the mandated purchase of healthcare insurance (soon to be from the government only) is not a tax.
But today, THE SUPREME COURT DIFFERS, and has upheld obamacare with the argument (from Obama’s lawyers) that the mandated health care purchase IS a tax.
So, Middle Class, Obama is taxing the crap out of you, even though he promised not to, and the Supreme Court says he’s allowed to.
Hospital and healthcare stocks went up (for the reason that people don’t understand what Obamacare will eventually do to these entities). Insurance stocks fell, because most investors know that Obamacare is designed to kill them.
Pharmer believes that Republican and Tea Party chances in November have increased due to this decision.
Justice John Roberts move to the left is not really a move, in the eyes of those who have been watching him. Pharmer remembers the left leaning David Souter, who had been expected to be more conservative when he was nominated. We have something similar in Roberts, and can expect further difficulties on account of him.
The reason SCOTUS gives for accepting Obamacare, that Congress is allowed to tax us to death, can become the reason for rejecting most of the incumbents of Congress. It’s time to clean house.
One might say that the media was not expecting the Supreme Court to approve Obama’s NEW TAX on the middle class. See the Gaffes HERE!
Over the preceding months Congress has been amassing a good deal of testimony from various members of the Obama administration concerning the nature of the mandate to purchase health insurance. Even during the time that the Obama lawyers argued in favor of the new tax before the Supreme Court, they were telling us that it was not a tax. Sebelius had the most amusing story… it operates as a tax but it is not a tax.
Not to worry, it will feel like a tax, because you will get little to no return on your “investment”.
Governor Daniels has signed legislation which responds to that decision by allowing Indiana residents to shoot law enforcement officers who unlawfully enter their homes. Senator R. Michael Young authored the legislation in order to provide an avenue of defense for citizens against unlawful use of force by public servants.
From Bloomberg : “Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling”
The legislation was opposed by the Indiana State Fraternal order of Police, which imagines that it would make a big difference in what happens to police who are entering a home. The NRA, on the other hand, backed the legislation.
Justice Steven David’s initial term is up in November. The voters have a chance to toss him out.
Mitch Daniels has obviously sought to create some distance between himself and his Supreme court appointee with his approval of this new law.
Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ have been involved with the Obamacare mandate Supreme Court case and report on the hearings. Transcripts and audio of oral arguments are available HERE.
There’s an old law, called the Anti Injunction Act which says the courts can’t rule on a suit about a tax until the aggrieved persons have already had to pay the tax.
This should not apply to the health care mandate because that is not an actual tax, but is a demand that people buy health insurance and a penalty if they do not.
Obamanator’s lawyers are arguing that the health care mandate is a tax, and asking for the lawsuits against it to be thrown out. If they were right about this, further court ruling on this matter would be delayed until after April 2015, after Obamacare kicks in, and when the penalties are starting to be paid.
Office of Management and Budget Director, Jeffrey Zients was interviewed by Republican (NJ) Rep. Scott Garrett on C Span in Congress, regarding The new Obama budget which claims no new taxes for people making under $250,000 dollars.
Garrett assked Zients if a person making less than that amount does not buy health care and has to pay the mandated fine, is that a tax??? Zients said “NO” it’s not a tax.
Rep. Garrett pointed out that the Obama administration is arguing the OPPOSITE before the Supreme Court, to defend the Health Care Mandate.
Pharmer would like to point out something to the Bishops…. who would have been doing cartwheels if socialized healthcare could have been obtained without the birth control / abortion mandate. If this new budget director had any direction from the White house, Obama cares more about getting reelected than he does about accomplishing the implementation of his socialized medicine scheme. Defending the funding of the program in the Supreme court depends on calling the fine a tax. But the budget (a campaign ploy which the congress has to reject) purports NOT to raise taxes on most Americans. The health care fine / tax hits the lowest income Americans, who cannot afford health care coverage, the hardest. The Obama administration has opted to sell the 2012 budget/campaign ploy harder than means of funding Obamacare.
Read THIS, for more fun in Congress, with Jeffrey Zeints.
Stossel, now working at FOX, made this admission while interviewing Andrew Breitbart.
Pharmer has the inside track on something that FOX News has not been eager to cover: stories containing the admission that birth control pills can operate by stopping the life of an early human embryo. Fox News reporters would call for interviews dealing with this issue time and time again, take down information, then never call back. At that time, other news networks, newspapers and radio were still permitted to deal with this subject. It was also covered on the O’Reilly Factor elsewhere on the FOX network.
More recently, FOX was able to mention that pharmacists were resisting the Blagojevich order forcing them to dispense all birth control pills in 2005, but we can’t find this year’s Illinois Judicial decision in favor of the pharmacy owners on their network. Maybe it’s buried somewhere deep.
Not to worry, the real news is on the internet now, and the New Media have taken up this story, and many others which the Old Media will not cover.
Governor Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans scored a major victory with the Supreme Court decision to allow the new Union bargaining rights law to go into effect.
A county judge, Maryann Sumi, had vacated the law based upon procedures of its passage, but was found to have overstepped her authority.
Phill Kline once served as KS Attorney General and as District Attorney of Johnson County. While in the latter position, he filed over a hundred criminal charges against a local planned parenthood facility for illegal late term abortions and for concealing the sexual abuse of minors. Three judges have allowed this case to remain active, and the current district attorney has been compelled by public interest to continue prosecuting the case.
The Supreme Court of Kansas has been packed mostly by former Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who worked to keep Kansas the U.S. capital of late term abortion, and who will be sure to keep abortion at the heart of Obama-care, as her current boss promised to planned parenthood.
There is a move to deprive Phill Kline of his law license, in order to scare law enforcement away from enforcing medical standards and taking planned parenthood to task for its many failures. The tactics funded by planned parenthood’s supporters have worked to scare other prosecutors away from dealing with the abysmal conditions at abortion clinics. The result is that such clinics as Gosnell’s “shop of horrors” in Philadelphia have continued without regulation for decades.
Starting on Feb 21, we will find out the degree to which the Supreme Court of Kansas, through its Disciplinary Administrator, would like to support the sexual abuse of minors, the substandard medical practices of the abortion industry, and its standard-bearer, planned parenthood.
Appended is the finding from the original Ethics Investigation of Phill Kline in 2008, finding no basis for accusations of violations or wrongdoing. This result has been kept buried for two years. Take a look.
Ken Cuccinelli, Atty. General of Virginia is petitioning the U.S. Supreme court for expedited review of the Obamacare case. Of course the Obama administration’s “justice” department is opposing this as they would like to destructure the insurance companies and dismantle enough of the present system as possible before an actual repeal or reversal could occur. This would make people miserable and impatient during the next, more conservative administration and hopefully place Dems back in power after people forget their socialistic hubris.
Such expedited reviews by the Supreme Court are a rarity, but would be very nice in this case, to prevent destruction of the current system, and dissolution of the health insurance industry, as well as extreme waste of taxpayer dollars.
An appellate court actually booted Rahm Emanuel off of the ballot of the Chicago mayoral race!
He doesn’t meet the residency requirements, and a couple of judges in Illinois actually upheld the law: Justice Thomas E. Hoffman and Justice Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.
(Will they receive dead Asian carp delivered by mail? Inquiring minds want to know.)
With the ballots about to be printed, Rahm has appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court to allow him to be included.
Some people think that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists drafted a statement suggesting that partial birth abortion procedure (intact D & X) might be the best way to save the life of the mother under certain circumstances. In reality, the ACOG opinion stated doubt that the procedure was ever the only medical alternative.
It is not. Sucking out the brains of a mostly delivered baby has no bearing on the physical status of the mother, (barring a severe error on the abortionist’s part). In addition, the breech delivery that was necessary for this procedure to be legal is more risky to the woman.
Read up^. The original ACOG statement on this issue was changed by one Elena Kagan, to suggest that partial birth abortion had medical utility, because this woman is a a true feminazi in the real sense of the word.
The ACOG statement, as altered by Kagan, was used in subsequent legal battles against the bans on partial birth abortion, until final conclusions in the Supreme Court.
By the late 1990s, the actual PBA procedure had been almost entirely discontinued, because it was so distasteful to both the abortionists and their clients. It, however was NOT distasteful to Elena Kagan.
This decision addresses the restrictive handgun law in Chicago, and provides a legal precedent for similar gun control laws to be challenged throughout the US.
Another decision announced by the court upholds the policy of public educational institutions to refuse recognition to student groups which restrict membership based on beliefs.
This is a two edged sword, since it means that Christian student groups cannot restrict membership to Christians if they are to have institutional recognition. It also means……. hehhehheh, that all other groups must open up their membership standards or lose university recognition (or funding). That would be murder on the liberal groups, but any conservative group really doesn’t need university support.
So, if you would like to bring some straight pride to the gay activist groups, or some christianity to the muslim groups, or pro-life ideology to the pro-choice groups….. etc. etc. it appears to be quite possible now. Pharmer recommends that conservative students get busy, and have some fun with this.
Nebraska is rapidly becoming the late term abortion capital, taking over this dubious distinction from Wichita Kansas, home of abortionist George Tiller, who was forcibly caused to assume ambient temperature last year.
The response from Nebraskans has been to introduce a bill, LB1103, placing limits on late term abortions based upon fetal pain studies, setting a limit at 20 weeks.
Naturally the abortion advocates are up in arms. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (with past president Dr. Richard T.F. Schmidt dissenting) is stepping outside its medical specialty to declare that there is no evidence that humans feel pain at 20 weeks development in utero. Perhaps they’ll lose a few more members over this.
The specialists to consult would be neuroanatomists, pediatricians, perinatologists, neonatologists, embryologists, etc.
The practice to give narcotics and benzodiazepines to premature babies weighing about a half kilo in the NICU is likely based upon something, don’t you think?
There have been hair splitting arguments assuming that consciousness of pain is required for humane treatment, with discussions of the degree of needed connectivity between the hypothalamus and cerebrum for true awareness to occur. This is notwithstanding the concept that consciousness begins at the level of the hypothalamus itself.
The animal rights activists are needing no such debates and standards to request and obtain humane treatment for their creatures.
In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court opened up free political speech to everyone, once again giving special interest groups, and corporations, (and pro-lifers) equal footing with the media and unions.
This naturally has the side most favored by media and unions up in arms, wanting to hold congressional hearings to review the Supreme Court decision, and planning new legislation to put themselves back in the position of advantage.
It will be interesting to see how this opens up the political expression in churches, which was heretofore limited to Jeremiah Wright and the renegade Fr. Michael Pfleger. This has been suppressed since the Johnson administration, when the IRS took it upon itself to adopt a new regulatory condition for non-profits.
Pharm Guests! Links are in gray text, and you might miss them if your screen is small. They will jump out, in black with underline, as your mouse passes over. Most links open in new tabs.
