Mumbai: Supreme Court Rejects Bail for Sex Selective Abortionists

No bail hope for 6 months for foeticide doctor: Supreme Court – The Times of India.

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  The couple had been out on bail, but this was revoked due to the illegal abortion they committed in May, which killed the mother, Vijaymala Patekar, as well as her baby.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. 

Related: Soylent Green: it’s not science fiction anymore

Election day: Indiana judicial retention from a pro-life view.

judicial retention | Indiana Right To Life.

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).

Judge Nancy H Vaidik, Court of Appeals 5th district, ruled that Indiana cannot require the signature of both parents in order for a minor daughter to have an abortion. (This means that a father or stepfather who is abusing a girl could sign for her abortion).

Judge Paul D Mathias, Court of Appeals, Indiana 3rd district – no abortion related decisions detected by Indiana RTL.

Judge Michael P Barnes Court of Appeals of Indiana 3rd district- no abortion related decisions detected by Indiana RTL

Greenies Should be Losing Their Minds Over This

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.

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril – Jennifer Waters's Consumer Confidential – MarketWatch.

Another Motivation for the Tea Party

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.

Supreme Court Says OBAMA LIED

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.

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax – ABC News.

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.

If you’re wanting to torture yourself with the details, Here are the opinions of the Supreme Court on Obamacare.


See the very classy Tweets from top DNC staffers, celebrating their short lived victory.

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”.

Effort to Undo the Indiana Supreme Court Decision Overturning 4th Amendment Rights

AllGov – News – Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers.

Justice Steven David,  a Mitch Daniels appointee authored an Indiana Supreme Court decision which ruled that there was no “right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers”.

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.


Obama’s New Budget Director Undermines Obama Health Care Argument to Supreme Court

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.